The Life of the City
Research Porfolio
Report prepared by:
Centre for Spatial Inclusion Design-Research http://www.msa.ac.uk/csidr
Stefan White [Manchester School of Architecture] Chris Phillipson [University of Manchester] Mark Hammond [Manchester Metropolitan University]
Report Contents 3
Older People in the City Centre
8
Literature review
10
Housing Context
12
St. Johns/General City Centre
20 Canalside 25
Smithfields
28
Victoria Square
33
Mayes Garden
38 Appendices
Report produced by
Centre for Spatial Inclusion Design-Reseach http://www.msa.ac.uk/csidr December 2015 Stefan White - Manchester School of Architecture Chris Phillipson - Manchester Institute for Collaborative Research in Ageing Mark Hammond - Manchester School of Architecture Additional research support from Amy Barron and Charlie Butterwick Contact s.white@mmu.ac.uk Cover Image: Sam Stockman [https://flic.kr/ps/snQ41]
Review: Older People in the City Centre Whilst Manchester has a young population, particularly in its urban heart, there is a significant and growing number of older people who are choosing to live in the city centre.This project set out to understand the experiences, advantages and challenges faced by older people living in and around Manchester City Centre.
Salford
Manchester city centre has a much younger average population than any other part of the city region. In addition, Manchester has a much younger population than the national average. If we consider everyone under 55 as ‘younger people’, at the time of the last census there were 10 times as many younger people as older people living in the city centre. The city centre is growing; the overall residential population in the city centre increased by 127% between 2001-2010.Apart from a slight decline between 19912000, the number of older people has grown significantly as part of Manchester’s urban regeneration. The number of older people living in the city centre ward has increased by 40% in the last 5 years, compared to a 31% increase in younger residents.Whilst the census is unable to confirm whether older people are moving into the city centre, or if the existing city centre population aren’t moving out of the city as they get older, the increased population of older residents does indicate that people are viewing it as a suitable place to grow older.
City Centre
Trafford
Manchester
Stockport
Map: Percentage of population aged over 50 Census data from 2011 shows the low numbers of older residents living in the city centre zone (light blue ring) and the Oxford Road corridor to the south of the city centre, particularly when compared to Manchesters outer suburbs.
THE LIFE OF THE CITY RESEARCH PORTFOLIO
p. 3
This map shows 2011 Census data at the ‘Output Area’ level. Output areas are statistical areas defined by the Office of National Statistics, and represent the lowest geographical level in which census data is reported. Output areas are based on household density, with the average population of 309 people in 2011.
Victoria Square
Smithfield
31.6%
Mayes Gardens
53%
St. Johns
Canalside
Where do older people live?
The map shown left indicates using census data, where older people live across the city centre.The blue areas have a higher percentage of older residents, whereas the red areas have fewer older residents. As you can see from the map, there are some areas with a higher percentage of older people than their surroundings.These ‘islands’ are marked on the map with names indicating their location. In addition, there are older people living as a minority as part of the general residential population across all areas of the city centre. Initial study areas defined by this initial analysis: Location
Percentage aged over 50
Over 50’s in adjacent areas
Percentage of social tenants
Islands
St.Johns ‘Canal Side’* Victoria Square Mayes Gardens Smithfields
48.4% 39.5% 82.5% 31.6% 28.4%
1-9% 1-8% 0-16% 0-41% 0-5%
2% 48% 85% 43% 34%
General Residential Population
City centre
4.2% (average)
3.8%
*Canalside has been defined by two adjacent output areas, as shown on the map. This is because both areas have a high number of residents living in Your Tung Sing Housing, in which the majority of older people in these areas reside. The areas selected show a range of contrasts between older and younger populations, proximities to city centre facilities and a range of different tenure percentages.
Who did we speak to?
Stakeholder interviews We conducted in-depth interviews with Councillor Joan Davies (City Centre ward), Nigel Devereux (Community Project Officer with Your Housing group), an older couple who live in general needs housing in the city centre, as well as an older social housing tenant living on the edge of the city centre. The findings from these interviews have been included as an appendix to this report. Focus Groups In response to some initial stakehold interviews we developed a focus group workshop using a mix of roundtable discussion and interactive mapping exercises. These focus groups were designed to discuss issues arising from all eight of the World Health Organisation age-friendly domains, with the a focus on addressing the barriers and opportunities of the city centre relative to the focus group participants’ location and proximity. The focus groups were structured to recruit participants from each of the 5 study areas deliniated by the preceding spatial study. However, the difficulties of recruiting sufficient numbers from each of these areas has required the research strategy to be flexible. For our first focus group, we attempted to recruit only residents of) the St. Johns area, but the workshop attracted residents from across the city centre (in the general residential population category). In addition, St. Johns residents attended our general residential population focus group. Based on an analysis of the findings from these two focus groups, showing a high correlation of the experiences of these two ‘groups’, we will present the St. Johns area as a sub-set of the general residental population category. Whilst we attempted to speak to a representative cross-section of the older community, the majority of those who attended focus group were either in the third age, or on the cusp between the third and fourth age. This is due to the relatively low numbers of residents aged in the 70-80s who are more likely to be considered ‘fourth age’ residents.
THE LIFE OF THE CITY RESEARCH PORTFOLIO
p. 5
Smithfield While there are statistically significant relative proportion of older people in the area (28% aged over 50), in practice this means that there are less than 40 older Smithfield residents. We were unable to convene a focus group in the timescale of the project, but as a substitute were able to conduct one indepth, structured interview with an older male resident in the area. Spatial Approach In this study, we constructed an understanding of the experiences of older people in the city based on location and their interactions within specific urban spaces. Whilst this project did reach a range of people with different ages, ethnicities, sexualities and wealth, these are described in terms of the specific neighbourhoods in which the individual participants reside. We attempted to link every discussion with residents to spatial location of physical and social assets in the city centre, and their relationship to the residents home.This approach allows us to identify how people understand their neighbourhoods in a specific rather than general way. An example of this approach can be seen in our focus group methodology, which used maps and labels to spatialise the discussion as it progressed (see adjacent image).
Image: Participation maps from focus groups, showing activities undertaken regularly by participants.
Yellow: Activities Green: Visiting Orange: Retail Pink: Work/Volunteering THE LIFE OF THE CITY RESEARCH PORTFOLIO
p. 6
Indices of Deprivation The ‘Indices of Deprivation (2015)’ provides spatialised data regarding the relatively levels of income deprivation across 32844 LSOA statistical areas in England and Wales. It provides an index of income deprivation facing all age groups (top map), as well as a seperate index for income deprivation affecting older people (bottom map) The City Centre has low levels of general income deprivation. Along with the outer suburbs of Chorlton, West Didsbury and East Didsbury, the City Centre is one of the few areas in Manchester with deprivation levels below that of the national average. This is in stark contrast to other areas on the edge of the city centre, such as Miles Platting and Beswick, which are in the most deprived 10% nationally.
City Centre
Above: Income Deprivation Index
Below: Income Deprivation Affecting Older People Index Source: DCLG / Indices of Deprivation 2015
In contrast to the low levels of income deprivation, the city centre has relatively high levels of income deprivation affecting older people. A similar shift can also be seen in the other affluent parts of the city. Higher levels of income deprivation affecting older people in Manchester is part of a wider trend seen in UK cities, in which wealthier older people choose to move further from urban centres. The income inequalities of older people within the city centre is pronounced. The area around Chinatown [A] has the highest older peoples income deprivation in Manchester (1st out of 282 areas), whereas the area around St. Johns [B] is the fourth least deprived. (279th out of 282 areas). Whilst the St. Johns area is in the least deprived quartile nationally, Chinatown has the 13th highest levels of income deprived affecting older people in the country (13th out of 32844 areas nationally).
A
City Centre
B
Most Deprived
Least Deprived
THE LIFE OF THE CITY RESEARCH PORTFOLIO
p. 7
Literature Review Older people and city centre living The focus on older people in city centres is especially important in extending ideas about the meaning of ‘ageing-in-place’. This is typically equated with supporting ageing in the individual’s own home. Stafford (2009: 14), however, makes the case for realigning the term with ‘dwelling in a larger spatial, social and spiritual sense’. Extending the concept in this way is especially important given increased social diversity amongst the older population, reflected in the growth of single-person households; the rise in divorce amongst people in their 50s and 60s; and growing inequalities in wealth amongst older households. The rise of contrasting groups within the older population will itself lead to different patterns of use and attitudes towards city centre resources: hence the significance of the research undertaken for this study. Older people have not featured with any prominence in discussions about the changing economics and demographics of city centres. In the 1970s and 1980s, economic recession led to the deindustrialisation of major cities in the North and Midlands, with the movement of population out into suburbs. The crisis affecting many cities, reflected in high levels of economic and social deprivation, inevitably led to them being viewed as unattractive environments in which to grow old. This decline in population was reversed in the 1990s, slowly at first but with growth accelerating in the period since 2001. Thomas et al. (2015:1) find that the: ‘population of city centres grew by 37% between 2001 and 2011, significantly faster than suburbs and hinterlands, which grew by 8% and 6% respectively’. Manchester’s city centre population almost tripled between 2001 and 2011, influenced by rapid growth in both in the numbers of students as well as those in full-time employment. The 2011 Census showed that 39% of City Centre residents were students, but 49% were
employed, with the overall population being one which was both young and highly qualified: 41% of all residents were aged below 35 with a degree – the highest among all UK city centres (Thomas et al., 2015:17). The transformation of centres such as Manchester was viewed in terms of promoting an ‘urban renaissance’ which would re-vitalise both the economic and social base of cities, with new knowledge-based industries alongside the encouragement of city centre living (Urban Task Force, 1999). However, the focus – from the 1990s onwards – on the benefits of city centres played only limited attention to any potential role for older people. This reflected, first, the anti-urban bias which had developed in thinking about housing developments for older people (itself a response to the urban crisis of the 1970s and 1980s); second, was the focus on age segregated senior living developments, these being viewed as ‘secured compounds rather than connected neighbourhoods’ (Ball, 2012: 9). These tendencies were reinforced by the absence of any detailed discussion about the impact of ageing populations in the key policy documents influencing urban policy. The final report from the Urban Task Force (1999) did draw attention to the increase in disability and mobility issues which would accompany an ageing population, and the need to respond in a way that would mean that ‘everyone can participate fully in urban life’. However, the report itself did not indicate ways in which this would be achieved in respect of the demographic changes which would be affecting cities over the coming decades. Although the debate on city centres has tended to focus on students and workers, the potential benefits for older people – for themselves as well as the life of the city – has also been highlighted in various research projects and policy debate. Allen (2007), in a study of Manchester carried out in the THE LIFE OF THE CITY RESEARCH PORTFOLIO
p. 8
early-2000s, highlighted what he called ‘successful agers’ who had started to move into the city centre. He suggested that this group had: ‘“cashed in” large amounts of equity by selling their suburban properties in order to move into duplex apartments in the city centre’, attracted by the thriving cultural resources being developed in the city. Bromley et al. (2005) in research on city regeneration in Bristol and Swansea found a lack of engagement of those 60 and over with the night-time economy of these cities. Nonetheless, they made the case for greater involvement of older people in the life of urban centres in the following way: ‘Given the potential problems associated with an exclusionary youth culture, it is appropriate to support the presence of an older population in the city centre. Sustainability in the particular city centre context appears best served by a majority of young adult residents, ameliorated by a sizeable proportion of older adults’ (Bromley et al., 2005: 2426). The potential of an ageing population for re-shaping and re-vitalising city centres has also been explored by the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) (2014: 5) in work presenting a ‘potential vision of the near future in which an increased cohort of the “Active Third Age” has begun to have an impact on our towns and cities’. RIBA view this group as embracing ‘the urban age’ with extensive engagement in leisure and cultural activities. They call for a new approach to the built environment of the future: ‘one that harnesses the vast potential embedded within the active Third Age to deliver more sustainable, resilient and engaging urban experience – a city for all’ (RIBA, 2014: 37). Clearly, this approach links well with the perspective developed by the World Health Organization and the global network of age-friendly cities, of which Manchester is a leading member. Developing agefriendly city centres will be a crucial element to promote in this area of work, with the findings in this report representing the first systematic investigation of city centre provision and the lives of older people.
References Allen, C (2007) Of urban entrepreneurs or 24-hour party people? CityCentre living in Manchester, England. Environment and Planning A, 39, 666-683 Ball, Scott. M (2012) Livable Communities for Aging Populations. London: John Wiley & Sons Bromley, D., Tallon, A & Thomas, C. (2005) City Centre Regeneration through Residential Development: Contribution to Sustainability. Urban Studies, 42, 2407-2429 Royal Institute of British Architects (2014) Silver Linings: the Active Third Age and the City. London: RIBA Stafford, P. Elderburbia: Aging with a sense of place in America. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO Thomas, E., Serwicka, I & Swinney, P. (2015) Urban Demographics: why people live where they do. London: Centre for Cities Urban Task Force (1999) Towards an Urban Renaissance: Final Report of Urban Task Force Chaired by Lord Rogers of Riverside. London: Urban Task Force
THE LIFE OF THE CITY RESEARCH PORTFOLIO
p. 9
Housing context “A large majority (93%) of older people live in mainstream housing: three-quarters of these are owner-occupiers, and 57% of people aged 65 or over own their homes outright. The rest live in rented accommodation. Much smaller numbers live in specialist accommodation designed for older people; 5.6% are in supported housing (survey data from 2008–09 and 2009–10). There are also around 465,000 places in residential care homes, most of which are occupied by older people. The housing stock is mismatched with the needs of older people. Thirtyfive per cent of households consist of older people, in households consisting of one or two people, but most homes are designed for families, with three bedrooms. There are concerns that housing that would be more appropriate for families is being occupied by older people. The evidence suggests that there are substantial numbers of people who would like to move to ‘right sized’ properties but they are not available. Most specialist housing provides only one bedroom, whereas most people prefer two. Evaluations of specialist housing have shown high levels of satisfaction among residents. It has been estimated that there are 70,000 people seeking housing with support, a figure expected to rise to 300,000 by 2019. Neighbourhoods that are supportive to older people are universally recognised as important. The research evidence points to various benefits: to health by providing opportunities to exercise, mental health, wellbeing, social connectedness and access to essential services. A socially cohesive neighbourhood has been shown to have a positive impact on
well-being in deprived areas as well as advantaged ones. If the immediate neighbourhood is not accessible and supportive, older people can become isolated, even if they live in an ideal house. Interventions that foster the development of age-friendly neighbourhoods have been shown to be successful. Key factors in achieving an age-friendly neighbourhood are the involvement of older people as participants and responding to local conditions. Neighbourhood hubs which enable people to access health and social care, local services and facilities are able to demonstrate positive advantages in better health outcomes, and reductions in emergency hospital admissions. However, while there is a good deal of guidance available it is mainly concerned with specialist rather than mainstream housing. Most older people live in mainstream housing, which does not serve their needs very well; for example only 5% of homes have the key features required for access. Lifetime Homes Standards set criteria for housing that would be reasonably accessible and adaptable over a lifetime, and some of these criteria were incorporated into the Building Regulations. The recent review of housing standards is proposing a threetier Accessibility Standard for new homes: visitability, accessible to Lifetime Homes Standard and wheelchair accessible, and a new set of space standards. The new standards will not be mandatory, and local authorities may decide whether or not to require them.” Extracts from Executive Summary Torrington, J. (2014) “Future of an ageing population: evidence review” THE LIFE OF THE CITY RESEARCH PORTFOLIO
p. 10
Residential Profiles
By reviewing the 5 island sites property profiles, the importance of property type and tenure in creating clusters of older people becomes apparent. Below is a brief overview of the property profiles in our study areas, which this report will elaborate on through a series of area profiles.
Location
Housing type
Housing Provider
Age Restriction
Support level
Other
Block size/type
St. Johns
Mainstream housing
N/A
N/A
N/A
Stair access to apartments on upper floors. Duplex apartments. Private parking provision
Individual, low rise apartments in small communal clusters.
Canalside
Enhanced Sheltered Housing
Your Tung Sing
55+
Warden alarm. Care provided by external home care service.
Single floor flats, lift access, no parking provision
Block cluster spread across area. 4 apartment blocks with between 20-48 dwelling each
Victoria Square
Sheltered/Retirement Housing
Northwards Housing
60+
Warden alarm. Low level support from scheme manager, such as guidance and referrals to other agencies
Lift access to all apartments. Some on-site parking.
Single mid-rise block, with external grounds. 163 flats with shared social facilities.
Mayes Gardens
Sheltered Housing, Almshouse Charity
Edward Mayes Trust
50+
Warden alarm.
Single level apartments and bungalows. Some only accessible via stairs. Limited on site parking.
Enclosed low rise dwelling cluster, 40 dwellings with shared social facilities
Rest of City Centre
Mainstream housing
N/A
N/A
Majority of apartments on single level with lift access. Limited private parking in some areas.
Distributed blocks in which older people are in the minority
N/A
Spatial Data (average of City Centre ward, minus other profile areas)
1. General Population
Age Breakdown (55+)
Summary
Older people make up 0-6% of population across city centre (excluding the 5 island sites previously identified) Distinct older demographic seen across much of the city centre, defined by high levels of education, good reported health and high levels of car and home ownership. Car and homeownership amongst older population is higher than younger populations across these areas.
Percentage of older people (50+) with no educational qualifications.
55-64 - 2.5% 65-74 -1% 75 - 0.6%
0-54
95.9%
Living Alone (residents 55+)
Percentage of older people (50+) who report to be in poor or very poor health
Eng/Wales 24.2%
Manchester 33.1%
52.4%
Percentage of older people (50+) who are owner occupiers
Few with no qualifications
Few with poor health
Many owner occupiers
Many with no qualifications
Many with poor health
Few owner occupiers
THE LIFE OF THE CITY RESEARCH PORTFOLIO
p. 12
Housing Survey 2
4th Floor apartment in converted Edwardian warehouse. Resident is owner occupier, but others in the building are private renters - Smaller bedroom converted to art studio. Family live nearby, so additional guest space not needed. - Access from shared internal corridor with elevator access. - Parking at adjacent NCP car park. - No outdoor space or balcony. Resident tends to plants in lobby and is part of community gardening club - Chosen over new build options due to perceived investment security and spatial quality.
Kitchen Bath
Ensuite
Living/Dining Office/ Art Studio
Bedroom
THE LIFE OF THE CITY RESEARCH PORTFOLIO
p. 13
2. St. Johns Summary
St. Johns is a long established community. Older residents in St. Johns tend to have moved there as working adults without families and have stayed living there for a number of years. 42% of residents are aged 55 plus (adj. 1-9%) High levels of owner occupation reportedly due to lease restrictions Surrounding areas has changed greatly as part of the residential growth of the city. Highly mobile. Utilise cultural and social assets across the city centre. Indications of high levels of wealth - high levels of car ownership and owner occupation.
Spatial Data Eng/Wales 20.7%
Manchester 33.3%
Age Breakdown (55+)
Housetype: Apartments
Living Alone (residents 55+)
96.6% Eng/Wales 24.2%
Private Rental
Car Ownership
Eng/Wales 79.3%
87.6% Eng/Wales 25%
3.3%
Title
8.2%
67.4% Manchester 59.7%
2+ indicators of deprivation
Social Rental Chart
Manchester 33.1%
55-64
65-74
75+
58.7%
25.4%
11.9% 4%
Owner Occupier
87.6% Social
35.2%
Owner
55.8% Private
Manchester 32%
0-54
Tenure: Residents aged 50+ St. Johns Manchester Average
9%
37.5%
THE LIFE OF THE CITY RESEARCH PORTFOLIO 1
2
3
p. 14
Housing Survey 1 The majority of properties in the St. Johns area are 1 or 2 bed flats with parking provision. Almost all are owned and occupied.A typical plans and picture are shown. - Duplex properties, with garage and off street parking on Ground Floor - No lift access to apartment or within apartments. - Communal outdoor space - Quiet, secluded and safe area close to Deansgate and Liverpool Road - Properties sought after - Reportedly no houses of multiple occupancy or renting
Kitchen Garage
Bedroom
Bath
Living/Dining
Second Floor Stairwell Fire Esc
Storage
Ground Floor Stairwell
First Floor Stairwell
Bedroom
THE LIFE OF THE CITY RESEARCH PORTFOLIO
p. 15
Focus Group Summary
Two focus groups were organised with owner occupiers who resided in apartments in the South West of the city centre, including Castlefield, St. Johns and near Oxford Road station. Whilst the majority of people we spoke to had moved to the city centre in the last 10 years, some had been living in the city centre for a longer period of time. Whilst some people had downsized to move into the city centre, other reported moving into apartments of similar size to their previous homes. Two participants noted that the value of their suburban homes had risen much faster than the cost of city centre properties, which enabled them to move to larger or better apartments than they initially expected and release equity for themselves to enjoy or to help their children buy their first home. A number of participants felt that their apartments were small, and whilst some had suggested that they had learned to live with this, one resident suggested that the size of his apartment is why he is looking to move out of the city centre in the near future. Others had not had to ‘downsize’ due in part to property price differentials between the city centre and other parts of Manchester or other major cities. For many, the choice of building they chose to live in was an important part of moving into the city. Two people had chosen to live in a particularly energy efficient building: one for ethical considerations; another because they she felt it would be cheaper to run. One participant noted that when she was first looking for an apartment she was sceptical as she had always liked the style of her Victorian home. However, the advantages of a modern apartment quickly became apparent and she enjoyed having more light and liked living on one level. More than half of the participants owned second homes either abroad or elsewhere in the UK, citing a variety of reasons for doing so. Some spent the winter in warmer climates, other used theirs second homes whenever they wanted to get out of the city, whilst one individual had a larger house in Yorkshire which he would use whenever his family wanted to visit him, as they would be unable to all fit in his apartment. The majority of residents had moved from suburbs of major cities, although some had previous experience of living in city centres in other cities. Some
cited boredom in their previous suburban environments as a reason for moving. Many suggested the ability to enjoy new experiences and lead a different lifestyle attracted them to the city centre, mainly related to the desire to engage in cultural activities. The art and music venues in the city centre were identified as well used assets, with the festivals and events which take place also recognised as positive aspects of city living. The immediacy for the city’s assets was of great appeal to the residents, with one noting that, “When you go out to the shops, you can just swing into the art gallery on the way home. It’s the vibe of the city!” (M, 65-74) In some cases it was the inclusive environment, manifested in cultural and social activities which encourage residents to move to their current homes, such as a gay resident who moved with his partner into an apartment near Canal Street. Ownership and local participation were important to many of those we spoke to. Many reported being on the resident management committees of their apartment blocks, which allows them to take ownership and make positive changes to their environment. Even though all the participants lived in mixed age apartment blocks, most noted that the management board mostly consisted of other older homeowners such as themselves, and that their role had helped them with issues such as difficult tenants. Some of the group were active members of the Castlefield Forum, which they saw as an opportunity to improve and protect the character of their neighbourhood. One resident noted that whilst she did not want to get involved in organising
“When you go out to the shops, you can just swing into the art gallery on the way home. That’s the vibe of the city!” THE LIFE OF THE CITY RESEARCH PORTFOLIO
p. 16
events with the forum, she often joined in their activities, such as litter picking and tidying up the area. Others volunteered for activities with a variety of groups who benefit the wider community, such as work with Manchester Girl Geeks and Hulme Community Garden Centre.
more people to take ownership over the city centre and make it a nicer place in which to live, with St. Johns raised as an interesting example as the leasehold forbids the houses being used for rental which has resulted in a more stable community.
Most of the participants did not have particularly close relationship with their neighbours. Regarding her neighbours, one suggested that, “We say hello to each other, but we aren’t really friends. That’s fine, I don’t expect anything more.” (F, 55-64) Others disagreed, with one noting that when buying her apartment she was “…sold by the sense of community” (F, 55-64), which subsequently did not materialise. As short term rentals have become the norm in her block, she argues that community spirit does not really exist; she is now considering moving away from the city centre. Another said that when she first moved into St. Johns in the 1970s there was a good community spirit, partly because there was only one pub that people would go to. She now suggests that as the area has become more mixed, and the opportunities expanded, it is harder to maintain strong relationships. The social networks of the residents were not localised, with many reporting to travelling around the city or to other cities to see friends and family. The assets of the city, rather than the home or neighbourhood, was seen more as a site of social interaction, with many identifying restaurants and cafes in which they spend time with friends.
Many report problems relating to anti-social behaviour, litter, noise and general untidiness of the city centre. Some of the group had recognised an increase in homelessness in the city centre, and felt that it did not present the city in a very positive light. Others felt that the drinking culture was problematic, as they had to deal with the consequences of litter, vomit and urine on the street. One of the key elements of this was reported to be local pride – the residents wanted their neighbourhood to look nice as it reflected well on themselves and the city. One resident noted that since she had arrived five new clubs had opened near her apartment which had changed the character of her neighbourhood. Despite these reports of antisocial behaviour, most of the participants did not have any issues with going out at night, with some stating they were not going to be intimidated into staying in by the actions of a few individuals.
Many of the group were car owners, which allowed them to use the Sainsbury’s near Castlefield for their ‘big shop’, with many reporting use of the smaller local stores in the city centre, such as Waitrose in Spinningfield. Some of the group argued that there was a lack of high quality stores in the area, particularly specialist retailers such as delicatessens or butchers. Issues related to tenure were raised by many of the residents in the focus groups. It was suggested that the prevalence of short-term rental properties, absentee landlords and students had changed the character of the city centre over the last decade. Some of the group questioned if the city council could prevent this through the planning laws, whilst others thought the city were actively trying to encourage more younger people into the city. Many argued that more homeownership or long-term leases for renters would encourage
Although some of the group thought that they were too old to appreciate some of the things the city has to offer, most did not identify with the ‘older person’ label. Most did not regard themselves as old, with one resident saying that, “I don’t think anyone here thinks of themselves as old… I don’t want to go to a tea dance”. One of our participants remarked that, “It’s funny that everything we’ve talked about has nothing to do with being older people. It’s just what makes a good city.”
THE LIFE OF THE CITY RESEARCH PORTFOLIO
p. 17
Spatial Overview KEY
Friends and family
Sold Home Equity Released
‘City Centre’ Territory and activities Social/retail paths Residential Migration
X
2nd home
Mobile population, large territory. Assets spread around city centre,
X
X
X X St. Johns - moved as working adult (20+ yrs ago)
X
X
X
X X
Moved for work
Thinking of moving out
X Few older people in each block
Wide social network City as transport node
X
Leisure and Culture From suburbs Move in last 10 years
Abroad
London
Wanting excitement
Area Summary Characteristics of ‘older’ people - Do not identify as older - Relatively highly physically mobile - High social mobility and connectedness - Highly economically independent - High level of involvement in management of neighbourhood - Identify the city centre as their ‘neighbourhood’, focussed more on the South West - Did not identify as part of a particular community - Have little identifiable private-communal neighbourhood territory - Live in blocks with (comparatively very) few other older people - Very likely to have a second home or live elsewhere (abroad) part-time - Very happy with City living but also able to consider leaving if appropriate
Challenges - Anti-Social Behaviour of other city users at street level - Lack of control of street level territory - Inability to affect these issues - Anti-Social Behaviour of neighbours within blocks - Lack of control of management and leasehold structures - Constant change of neighbourhood character (more/new clubs and bars) - Inability to affect these issues - Increasing number of rented properties, shortage of owner occupiers - Lack of control / inability to affect these issues - Will move elsewhere if/when cease to find city suitable
Suitability of Neighbourhood / City Centre: - All selected the city, specifically Manchester • Selections not based on ‘age’ and not in preparation for ‘4th age’ • Recent migrants (last 10 years) were able to ‘downsize’ and release equity • Longer term residents who moved in before property boom and stayed for work less likely to have other residential options • Migrants from cities from all over the country (London / Edinburgh) • Some migrants from local suburbs benefited from property price increase differential with City Centre • All seeking social activity, bars restaurants and cultural offer • Some for specific issues of inclusion • City location to maintain work connections or proximity to current work • Specific locations often related to particular proximity but City Centre generally ‘near things they want to do’ • Properties with higher instance of owner occupiers sought out • Involvement in management of apartment blocks highly important THE LIFE OF THE CITY RESEARCH PORTFOLIO
p. 19
3. Canalside Summary
51% of residents born in China or Hong Kong, compared to national average of 0.6%. The majority of Chinese or Hong Kongese residents in this area are older people, mostly residing in Your Housing social housing properties. Located on fringes of Canal Street district. Close proximity with shops and cultural assets within ‘China Town’ Low levels of car ownership Very high proportion of residents aged over 75 Majority of dwellings are located within medium rise (5+ floor) blocks of apartments.
= ‘Tung Sing’ properties. Social rented apartment blocks aimed at the older Chinese/Hong Kongese community. Managed by Your Housing group.
Spatial Data Eng/Wales 20.7%
Manchester 33.3%
Age Breakdown (55+)
Housetype: Apartments
Living Alone (residents 55+)
99.2% Eng/Wales 24.2%
Chart Title
Manchester 33.1%
Car Ownership
2+ indicators of deprivation
65.9%
Eng/Wales 79.3%
62.8%
7.1% 11% 19.1%
Owner Occupier
21% Social
35.2%
15.7% Eng/Wales 25%
55-64 65-74 75+
Social Rental
57.3% Manchester 59.7%
0-54
Owner
55.8% Private
9%
Manchester 32%
75.5%
Private Rental
13%
Tenure: Residents aged 50+ Canalside Manchester Average
THE LIFE OF THE CITY RESEARCH PORTFOLIO 1
2
3
p. 20
Housing Survey 3
- One bedroom apartment located within multistorey blocks - No outdoor space or balcony, although some building have shared outside space such as roof gardens. - No resident parking. - Non-resident warden and alarm system. Lift accessible. - Communal activities spaces in some blocks. - Example plan provided by Your Housing group
Bathroom Kitchen Store
Living/Dining
Bedroom
Top:Aytoun Court Bottom: Princess Court THE LIFE OF THE CITY RESEARCH PORTFOLIO
p. 21
Focus Group Summary
All of the participants in our Canalside focus group were social tenants within Your Tung Sing properties in the area. Tung Sing primarily provides housing for over 55s, with the majority of residents of Chinese or Hong Kongese background. The group had moved into the Chinatown having spent a number of years in other parts of the North of England, with some having moved from as far away as Morecambe and Bradford. It was suggested that Manchester’s Chinatown is well known in the North West because so many people come to visit, particularly for Chinese New Year. As a result, the older Chinese community of North West England are aware of what it has to offer. Some noted that one of the attractions was the ability to shop for familiar items and see a doctor who speaks their language, something that was lacking in their previous neighbourhoods. Many noted that they had made good friends with other older people in the area and that there was a good community in the city centre. The majority of the group had downsized to live in the city centre, with many having previously lived with their children and grandchildren. One felt that living with her extended family had become too crowded and wanted to regain her freedom and independence. Some participants noted that they felt there houses were quite small and they would prefer to have more space, but that this compromise was worth it to be in the location they are in. The residents we spoke to were all active, Many attended classes or events run by three local organisations – Wai Yin Society,Your Tung Sing and the Chinese Health Information Centre (CHIC). Activities included English and Mandarin lessons,Yoga, Art and a walking club. The group noted that the three organisations work well together so they know what is available to them. A number of residents suggested that they felt that the city centre itself was a leisure space, with some enjoying outdoor pursuits such as cycling, photography or walking. Amongst the men in the group, the local casinos was also a popular social activity.
None of the group owned a car, but the group noted both that public transport was good, and that everything they need was within walking distance. The residents mostly shopped in the local Chinese stores, reporting that they usually shopped every couple of days. The group suggested that the Chinese stores each offered some things better than others, but because of their proximity they can visit all of them in one go. Despite this local offer, the group still mentioned that they shopped in Aldi and Tesco. Whilst the group were overwhelmingly positive about their experiences of the city centre, they did note some problems. Most of the participants did not like to go out at night, and felt that the bars around them can get very loud. Another complaint was that the ventilation from restaurant kitchens made the air less fresh, and that car pollution was a problem.
THE LIFE OF THE CITY RESEARCH PORTFOLIO
p. 22
Spatial Overview
Dont want to move out of city centre
KEY ‘City Centre’ Territory and activities Social/retail paths Wing Yip
Residential Migration
Limited mobility outside of territory
Outdoor city environment acts as leisure space
Small but cohesive territory. Intensity of assets+services
Extended family Too crowded
X X X X From across North West
Many older people in each block
Links with previous neighbourhoods broken Social Renting long waiting list
Trips to parks Few culturally relevant opportunities
Links broken with previous neighbourhoods
THE LIFE OF THE CITY RESEARCH PORTFOLIO
p. 23
Area Summary Character of older people - Accommodation selected by ethnicity - Identify as older - Relatively physically mobile - High social connectedness - Limited economic independence - Low level of involvement in management of neighbourhood - Identify the city centre as their ‘neighbourhood’ but focused around Canalside - Identify as part of a particular community (Chinese / Hongkongese) - Live in blocks exclusively with other older people - Very happy with city living - Not planning to move – property and community suitable for later life
Challenges - Older residents are less directly active in the management and development of their community and neighbourhood - Quality of life issues such as pollution, smell - Pressure on City Centre and downsizing makes apartments appear small - Anti-Social Behaviour of other city users at street level - Lack of control of street level territory - Inability to affect these issues - Problems related to drug dealing and use.
Suitability of Neighbourhood / City Centre - Knew neighbourhood from events/reputation - All selected the accommodation / neighbourhood, not necessarily ‘the city’ - Moved for greater independence and support into 4th age. - High levels of support available - Wait up to 5 years for place - Inclusion (Language and cultural) – Freedom of association and expression - Many left family / local network - High sociability within apartment blocks and neighbourhood - Sufficient numbers for community of place, both within and outside block - Have considerable identifiable private-communal neighbourhood territory both internally and externally - Older peoples provision integrated into wider cultural neighbourhood - Don’t leave neighbourhood very often – offer and relationships are already there - See city centre as leisure site THE LIFE OF THE CITY RESEARCH PORTFOLIO
p. 24
4. Smithfield Summary 22% of residents aged over 55. Located in the Northern Quarter, adjacent to areas with between 0-5% aged over 55. Close to many shops, bars and restaurants within Northern Quarter, and close to good bus, train and tram links. Majority of 1 bedroom flats and larger 3 bedroom maisonettes. Mixed tenure, with high numbers of socially rented properties within the Smithfield Estate. High percentage of older residents living alone.
Spatial Data Eng/Wales 20.7%
Manchester 33.3%
Housetype: Apartments
Living Alone (residents 55+)
7.2%
96.5% Eng/Wales 24.2%
Chart Title
Manchester 33.1%
70.5% Eng/Wales 79.3%
Manchester 59.7%
Car Ownership
54.3%
55-64
75+
78.9%
9.1%
4.8%
Owner Occupier
35.6%
Tenure: Residents aged 50+
Social
Owner
55.8%
Private
Smithfield Manchester Average
9%
Manchester 32%
0-54
Social Rental
35.2%
24.7% Eng/Wales 25%
2+ indicators of deprivation
65-74
Age Breakdown (55+)
Private Rental
66.9%
THE LIFE OF THE CITY 10.2%RESEARCH PORTFOLIO 1
2
3
p. 25
Housing Survey 6
- Ground floor apartment with private garden space. Built in 1980s with maisonette apartments on upper floors. - Initial located within a mixed age social housing estate, although many are now in private ownership. Located on pedestrian only street with secure gate access. - Small footprint exacerbated by traditional room compartmentalisation and a high proportion of unused circulation space. - Few signs of modernisation since initial construction.
Garden
Bedroom Living Room
Bath Store
Stairs to upper floor dwellings
Kitchen
Image: View from Martlesham Walk THE LIFE OF THE CITY RESEARCH PORTFOLIO
p. 26
Resident Interview Summary:
M (73) moved to Smithfield when the estate was first built in 1983. He previously lived in Northenden in a large council property, but had worked in and around Manchester city centre since he was 15. Whilst living in Northenden he worked for several companies in the Northern Quarter and knew the area well. When the council offered to take back his property in Northenden, which was larger than he required at the time, he made a deal to move into a new-build property in Smithfield in 1983 when he was in his early 40s. M noted that he came into the city to work and socialise and meant that he did have to spend all his time on buses or in taxis. M did not own a car, so access to public transport which the city centre location offered was essential for his work which involved travelling across the country. His home in Smithfield is small, but he is notes that “…its not too big to look after.You don’t want to spend your whole life polishing”. There is not enough space to entertain or have people to stay, but he makes good use of the city centre’s assets. When his family visit him, he takes them to eat at Sashas hotel in the Northern Quarter, and he usually meets friends at local pubs. His property is largely unchanged since it was first built, and is starting to show signs of disrepair. As one of the original residents on the Smithfield estate, M identified a number of ways in which the area had changed in the last 30 years. He noted that originally the area was all social housing, and he knew a lot of people both in his row of properties and across the estate. He argues that the ‘right to buy’ initiative led to a number of changes in the area. Some of his neighbours bought their properties and subsequently moved out, whereas others bought properties which were then rented out via an agency. He observed that there are now a lot of short term tenancies, which used to be uncommon on the estate, but that he does know a couple of his neighbours. M is not a member of the tenants association, but was engaged with the developments of the area. He has previously attempted to protest the licensing of a wine bar near his property, but found the process frustrating. The conflict between the needs of local people, and people visiting the city centre was raised in our discussion, with M suggested that licensing rulings favoured wine
bars which allow outdoor drinking, but that similar rules were not in place for traditional pubs used by local resident. In addition, he was critical of the lack of consultation regarding public event and festivals, noting that they were not given a say about these matters, even when they inconvenienced them. He suggested that “They never consider the people who live in this place. You don’t expect it to be a quiet backwater, its not Wilmslow, but they should speak to us.” M is very socially active, and has a close group of friends he meets regularly. He meets his friends 3-4 times a week, most of whom he knows due to their use of traditional pubs in the Northern Quarter such as the Wheatsheaf and the Burton Arms on the edges of the Smithfield estate. Many of these used to visit the pubs after work, but they group have stayed friends and continue to socialise together. He and his friends have formed an informal walking group, with M organising and planning a lot of their visits. The city centre location is important for this, as it means “I can get to Piccadilly,Victoria, the coach station, and be out in the countryside in 40 minutes.” The cultural offer of the city is important to M, and he frequent the central library, as well as galleries and museum regularly. He told us that when people come to visit him from outside of the city, he often takes them to galleries or exhibitions. M noted that some elements of the cities cultural offer was not accessible to him. He used to enjoyed going to shows and musical, but is unable to afford to attend these sorts of events on his pension. M wanted to live in his home for as along as he was able. He noted that “Realistically if my health stays up, I’ll be fine. If I get ill, I’ll have a problem.” If he did have to move due to his health, we noted that he would ideally want to live somewhere local like Victoria Square.
THE LIFE OF THE CITY RESEARCH PORTFOLIO
p. 27
5. Victoria Square Key Findings Very high numbers of people living alone Statistics indicate high levels of multiple deprivation. Very high proportion of older residents (79%). This is mostly as a result of the Victoria Square housing scheme, which is exclusively for older residents. These are all 1 bedroom apartments. Located on city centre fringe, adjacent to some areas with between 1-16% aged over 55 Low levels of car ownership
Spatial Data Eng/Wales 20.7%
Housetype: Apartments
Living Alone (residents 55+)
65-74
Eng/Wales 24.2%
Owner Chart OccupierTitlePrivate Rental 37.7%
Manchester 33.1%
2.6%
75+
19.1%
4%
84.6% Eng/Wales 79.3%
Social
35.2%
19.2% Eng/Wales 25%
2+ indicators of deprivation
Age Breakdown (55+)
21.3%
21.9% 98.8%
Manchester 59.7%
Car Ownership
55-64
0-54
Manchester 33.3%
Owner
55.8% Private
Victoria Square Manchester Average
9%
Manchester 32%
85.2%
Tenure: Residents aged 50+
Social Rental
THE LIFE OF THE CITY RESEARCH PORTFOLIO
93.4% 1
2
3
p. 28
Housing Survey 4
- 1st floor apartment with external deck access. Properties arrange around a central courtyard garden across 5 levels. Access via stairs and lift. - Built in 1894, but renovated recently and in good state of repair. - Community spaces within block, such as common room and laundry facilities, although the occupant recently chose to install his own washing machine in his flat. - Warden alarm within property - Large bedroom and living room, providing space for resident to practice hobbies. - Shared access deck informally appropriated by residents with benches, seats and plant pots.
Living Room
Store
Plan Bedroom
Top:View from George Leigh Street Bottom: Courtyard Garden
Kitchen Bathroom
Access Deck
THE LIFE OF THE CITY RESEARCH PORTFOLIO
p. 29
Focus Group Summary
Victoria Square is a social housing block, owned by Northwards Housing, with 166 apartment aimed primarily at older people. Many of the residents had moved from flats or house-shares in other parts of Greater Manchester including Salford, Hulme, Longsight and Monsall. The reason most gave for moving to Victoria Square was the poor conditions of their previous accommodation and high levels of crime in their old neighbourhoods, as well as the desire to live close to the facilities in the city centre. A number of residents moved in when they began to have problems with their health, and needed accommodation more suited their needs. One of the younger residents was initially worried about moving into an environment exclusively for older people, but soon realised that there were a number of benefits. Victoria Square was seen as a good place to live by most of the group. It was suggested that the size of the community enabled them to keep socially engaged, even though they estimated that 75% of people did not show an interest in participating. There is a residents’ board who work with the community officers from Northwards Housing to organise activities, events and trips. Recent examples include a visit from the Halle, a Hawaiian themed BBQ and a trip to Blackpool. In addition to this,Victoria Square has a community space which hosts a regular breakfast club and a shared garden in the central courtyard. The community atmosphere created though these events was seen very positively. The recent changes to the Right to Buy initiative were raised, with the group unsure what it would mean to tenants in Victoria Square. Some thought that the property would be exempt because it caters for older people, but there was a strong perception that older social housing tenants such as themselves were not seen as a valuable part of the development of the city centre. The group were aware of how much the area had gentrified recently, and the financial value of the land on which the housing complex was built. The city was viewed positively by many of the participants, although most of their use of the city centre was limited to habitual retail purposes. Aldi and Tesco on Market Street were identified as regular shopping locations, and the ability to find anything you might need was seen as a positive feature.
In addition, the transport links that the city centre provides were highly regarded by those who did not own a car, with some suggesting that Bury Market was a popular destination. There was little suggestion that the city centre was used as a social venue. Most of the group stated that they would not go out to the Northern Quarter because the prices were too high and it only served students and “yuppies”, although they did identify some venues such as the City Arms, which were ‘hanging on’ to their traditional clientele. The perceived gentrification of the Northern Quarter and “social cleansing” (Male, 55-64) within Ancoats was seen as a negative, with some suggesting that the families who lived here 20 years ago had been “cleared out” leaving rows of demolished terraces which remain undeveloped. One participant noted that he felt isolated in his previous neighbourhood because the shops were increasingly catering for specialist groups and all the pubs had closed down. Some of the group moved to Victoria Square based on recommendations by friends. One participant was told by a friend that there were a number of fellow ex-servicemen living in the block, which was one of the factors which led him to move in. Whilst many suggested that Ancoats is much nicer than its reputation suggests, issues related to homelessness and burglary were raised in our discussion. The group observed that the proximity to the Mustard Tree homeless charity meant that there were a lot of homeless people outside their building at times. Although this was seen as intimidating, they noted that the homeless people themselves rarely caused trouble. One of the group suggested that she had been followed home as she walked back from the city centre along Oldham Road, and that she now is more careful. Others mentioned that the security gates have reduced crime in the block, although some people still attempt to follow them through the security doors and there had been some burglaries.
“Theres a belting sense of community. No need to be lonely in here. ”
Spatial Overview
Bury Market
KEY Living Alone
‘City Centre’ Territory and activities
Metrolink to desirable destinations Strong communal social and cultural offer in block
Communal Housing
X
Inner city neighbourhoods
Limited use of city centre assets
X
Social/retail paths Residential Migration
Ashton under Lyne
X X
X
Gentrified Northern Quarter. Excluded from (most) assets
X
Detach from old neighbourhoods
Escaping crime
Poor health
Low quality accommodation
THE LIFE OF THE CITY RESEARCH PORTFOLIO
p. 31
Area Summary Character of older people - Accommodation selected by age - Very likely to be living alone - Likely to have been living alone before moving - Very likely to have poor health - Identify as ‘older’ people - High social connectedness - Limited economic independence - High level of involvement in management of neighbourhood - Do not see the city centre as part of their neighbourhood or as a leisure site. - Very happy with living in Victoria Square, mixed experiences of living in the city centre. - Not planning to move – property and community suitable for later life and adapted for living in the 4th age. - Many selected to move to Victoria Square – move away from poor accommodation, bad neighbourhoods. - Some reported breaking links with old neighbourhoods.
Challenges - Acknowledge that the areas around them (such as the Northern Quarter) have been gentrified and have a limited offer to the residents at Victoria Square. - This was mitigated by the relatively mobility of the residents, and their knowledge of options both inside and outside the city centre which serve their needs. - Limited reported use of the city centre cultural offer. Social and cultural activity has been internalised, and is currently generated by the residents in collaboration with the housing provider. - Residents knew their property was financially valuable and are concerned about the new ‘Right to Buy’ for Housing Associations. - Some were worried about how mixed tenure would affect their community - The group were aware that the gentrification of the city centre could affect their future opportunities for living in the city centre
Suitability of Neighbourhood / City Centre - Desirable - Victoria Square has good reputation through word of mouth - ‘Big Block’ accommodation type is of social benefit for the residents - More opportunity for relationships/activities to be generated internally - Formal interaction – organised by Northwards Staff (with residents board). - Big enough community to make social activities viable. - Space available within community to run activities internally. - Informal interaction – Enough people to find others with similar interests. - City centre seen as a transport hub, providing easy access to desirable retail locations such as Ashton/Bury Market THE LIFE OF THE CITY RESEARCH PORTFOLIO
p. 32
6. Mayes Gardens Summary Majority of older people live within ‘Mayes Gardens’ sheltered housing scheme managed by Edward Mayes Trust With 29% of residents age over 50, it is on the boundary between the younger city centre (less than 1% over 50) and the older city ‘fringe’ (41% over 50) Few local assets within close proximity, but good transport links and car ownership allows access outside of city centre Even distribution of ‘younger old’ and ‘older old’ Majority of properties are houses and bungalows, in contrast to surrounding accommodation. Spatial Data Eng/Wales 20.7%
Housetype: Apartments
Living Alone (residents 50+)
65-74
Age Breakdown (55+)
Manchester 33.3%
7.4%
18.2% Eng/Wales 24.2%
Chart Title
Manchester 33.1%
67.7% Manchester 59.7%
Car Ownership
0-54
55-64
74.9%
7.1%
75+
9.6%
Owner Occupier
24.7% Eng/Wales 79.3%
Tenure: Residents aged 50+
Social
35.2%
46.1% Eng/Wales 25%
2+ indicators of deprivation
Sheltered accommodation
Owner
55.8% Private
Mayes Gardens Manchester Average
9%
Manchester 32%
67.2%
Private Rental
Social Rental
THE LIFE OF THE CITY 16.9% RESEARCH PORTFOLIO
58.4% 1
2
3
p. 33
Housing Survey 5
1 Bedroom Bungalow in gated community with private rear garden - Occupied by couple, although most bungalows on site are single occupants. - Residents suggest that the property is a bit small, but that it is worth the sacrifice. - All other residents in community age 60+ and from the City of Manchester, as per the requirements of the charitable trust who manage the site. - Private rear garden to rear of property. - Access to community rooms and large shared central garden - Limited secure parking provision. - On street parking available outside of complex, but reports of crime and vandalism - Property has warden alarm system. Residents notes that they don’t need to use it, but that its good to know that it’s available - Kitchen door removed to create open plan layout.
Living Room Kitchen
Rear Garden Bath
Bedroom
Top: Living Room with view of shared central garden Bottom: Private rear garden and boundary hedging THE LIFE OF THE CITY RESEARCH PORTFOLIO
p. 34
Focus Group Summary
All the participants in this focus group were residents of Mayes Gardens, a gated, low rise sheltered housing community. Most of the participants had moved to Mayes Gardens within the last 10 years, and all from nearby urban neighbourhoods such as Clayton or Droylsden. Some noted that the local connection was important for them, as they knew the area and did not want to move away from their families or the communities in which they were settled. Most of the group had downsized to move to Mayes Gardens, which consists of 1 or 2 bedroom apartments and bungalows. Whilst some had moved because they did not want to “…rattle around a three bedroom house” (F, 55-65), they also noted that the smaller properties were an adjustment at the time. One participant had stated that access worries had led her to look into sheltered housing and she had originally moved into a bungalow, but later decided to move to an first floor apartment because she was worried about security. One resident had previously looked at a number of high rise apartments in other parts of the city centre, but was not impressed. He suggested that these felt more like hotels and that there was no community interaction, but when he visited Mayes Gardens lots of people said hello and welcomed him in. The group we spoke to were all relatively active, and organised social events within the Mayes Gardens community. It was noted, however, that many of the residents tend not to join in but that they still had a good group. The group reported to feel supported by the scheme managers in anything they wanted to, and were particularly proud of their communal garden which had won a number of awards. The residents recognised crime problems in the areas including soliciting, mugging and car theft, but most noted that they felt very safe within the Mayes Gardens complex. All the apartments and bungalows are accessed from the shared garden in the centre of the complex, and the group identified the natural surveillance which this created as a positive attribute of their community. Their proximity to the Etihad Stadium was identified as a problem on match day, but residents recognised that it was only on occasional days
which you can plan around, and it was “… a small price to pay to live here.” The recent influx of younger people into the area was not of great concern to those to whom we spoke. Participants noted that there have not been any noise issues and that the area is much nicer than before the developments took place, but also that parking on the roads nearby had become a problem. It was suggested that the residents see their community as within Mayes Gardens, so the changes to the area don’t have a significant impact on them. None of the participants in the focus group professed to using Manchester City Centre, suggesting that crowdedness, an unclean environment and a lack of respect from staff and other pedestrians made them not want to go there. Some of the group suggested that the city had changed since they were young and it no longer appeals to them, noting that the city centre was “for young people” and that they are not welcome anymore. Instead, the group used a variety of local centres based on transport links or specific local offers. Most of the participants did their regular shopping at ASDA Eastlands and Aldi, both of which were seen as within walking range. In addition to these supermarkets, Ashton-under- Lyne and Bury Market were identified as preferred shopping locations. Reasons cited included good price and choice of produce, friendly and personal staff, the easy access to both from New Islington Metrolink station, which is just 2 minutes from Mayes Gardens. In addition, participants with car access identified the Trafford Centre as a nicer environment to shop in. Smaller local centres such as Droylsden were seen as important for non-retail activities such as banking, hairdressers and social events, with some suggesting that these were places with had more on offer for them than the city centre. The group were all very positive about living in Mayes Gardens, and reported no desire to leave. When asked whether the proposed large scale redevelopment of the area was a cause of worry, residents argues that it doesn’t matter, as they were living “…in a little oasis”, and wouldn’t be affected by changes to the area.
THE LIFE OF THE CITY RESEARCH PORTFOLIO
p. 35
Spatial Overview
KEY
Social/retail paths
‘City Centre’
Residential Migration
Territory and activities
Zone of exclusion
Utilise local offer in previous neighbourhoods
Bury Market
(Predicted) Poor health Retaining links to old neighbourhoods
Social network in old neighbourhoods
Ashton under Lyne
Metrolink to desirable destinations
X Trafford Centre
Not part of city centre. Dirty, anti-social, aimed at young people. Prefer other options.
Long term East Manchester resident
Crime nearby, but Mayes Gardens provides safety
Family home too much to maintain
Car ownership to access retail/cultural assets
THE LIFE OF THE CITY RESEARCH PORTFOLIO
p. 36
Area Summary Character of older people - Most residents moved into the area in later life having lived in nearby neighbourhoods (Clayton, Droylsden, Miles Platting) for majority of working adult life. - Many have moved from larger homes, and were looking for more managable properties or home which would better suit their needs into later life. - Many living alone, but some still living as couples. - Mostly living in 1-2 bed properties (bungalows or flats) - Residents did not report a desire to move out away from Mayes Gardens, although some reported a desire to move to a different property (such as from flat to bungalow) within the scheme if the opportunity arose. - Some residents participate in management of neighbourhood in collaboration with housing provider. - Do not see the city centre as part of their neighbourhood or as a leisure site
- Mayes Gardens community enables some social activity - Gardening, social room, activities organised informally by group of residents. - Residents reported to retaining strong links with previous neighbourhoods - Some reported to returning to same hairdressers and pubs. Challenges - Residents report very little use of the city centre, both because they feel that it doesn’t serve their needs and that they dislike the physical and social environment of the city centre - Other options such as Ashton under Lyne, Bury and the Trafford Centre. - Low reported use of area around Mayes Gardens. Residents reported lack of services nearby and fears of crime as a barrier to further use of their local area.
Suitability of Neighbourhood / City Centre - Good local reputation spread through word of mouth. - Private and semi-private outdoor space seen as a positive. Ability to maintain activities they enjoyed in previous home. - Admissions to residents of the City of Manchester who are aged over 60 and living on ‘limited means’, mostly from East Manchester. - Mayes Gardens enables high physical mobility amongst residents - Close proximity to tram station and good bus connections. - On site and on street parking enables high level of car ownership - Residents use these transport links to access retail, cultural and social offer further away from the city centre. - Territory is spread over the residents former neighbourhoods, but the neighbourhood is defined by Mayes Gardens itself. - Island site – Secure, closed off, immune to changes outside. - Allows residents to invest time and energy inside the scheme. THE LIFE OF THE CITY RESEARCH PORTFOLIO
p. 37
Interview 1: Older couple living in City Centre M and F are a married couple in their 70s who have lived in the Northern Quarter following M’s retirement, having spent the last 5 years of his career working in the Far East. Choosing their home When they lived in the UK, M and F owned a “...rambling old house” on a 0.5 acre site, where they rarely heard from their neighbours.When the opportunity to work in the Far East arose, M and F moved into a large (2000 sq ft.) apartment, where they lived for 5 years. Despite their initial reservations, they noted that they quickly got use to the noise, and really enjoyed their time there. When they returned to the UK, M worked in Scotland for some time, and living in an apartment there. M notes that they had “… no preconceived ideas of where we wanted to live when we retired. We realised we didn’t want to live overseas. You have to think ‘do I want to spend the rest of our life here?’.” They both enjoyed living in the city and considered buying two homes, but later decided to buy an apartment in the city centre, and to spend the money they saved travelling. F notes that ” We want to travel, we don’t want to go back to the same place. When we are 75-80, it might be a bit different.” The lack of maintenance was identified as an important factor in their decision making; M suggests that because it was a modern apartment, “…You can go away for 6 weeks in the summer and you know it will be alright.You know the roof isn’t going to blow off or anything.” When looking for a home in Manchester, F suggested that their son has a big influence on their decision. Their son, an architect, had warned them away from new build apartments, and which led them to look at a number of warehouse conversions, one of which they eventually purchased.They purchased a 2 bedroom property, but have opened up the smaller bedroom to make an art studio for F to use.As their children and grandchildren live just 30 minutes away, having to provide space for them to stay over was not an issue.
Due to a recent illness, the medical provision has become increasingly important for F, who suggest that, “ We are within 20 minutes from everything. It wasn’t a reason for moving here, but if we were to look now [ie. after her diagnosis] it might be. F notes that during her extended stay in hospital, she would have felt that a house and garden would be a burden, and was glad she didn’t have to worry about it with her apartment. Activities in the city The location was an important factor in their decision. M suggested that the Metrolink had made it much easier to do the things they want to do. M is particularly interested in Cricket, and notes that “That’s one of the reasons I want to be here. I look at the webcam to see if the covers [at Old Trafford] are off, and when they remove them I jump on the next tram. Its only 10 minutes. I rarely miss a ball.” M and F both go to the theatre and to see classical music, with M suggesting that they might not go as often if they lived out of the city. The ability to walk to the shops, and to enjoy walking around the city were also seen as positive aspects of living in the city centre. M and F have both been active participants in their local area. M stated that he used to be a director of the residents company, but felt he should stop because he was spending so much time away travelling. They both note that they have a good relationship with the building manager, who has helped them to deal with some problem tenants in the past. One of the compromises they had made to move into the city was the lack of garden, which F had enjoyed doing previously. F had responded to this by taking over the planters in the lobby of their apartment, and has become active with the Northern Quarter Greening society, who do urban gardening in otherwise unused parts of the area.
THE LIFE OF THE CITY RESEARCH PORTFOLIO
p. 38
Interview 2: Councillor Joan Davies
Councillor Davies is one of three councillors for the City Centre ward, where she is a resident. Cllr. Davies was 55 when she moved to the city centre, having previously lived in Middleton. She had initially wanted to move into the city much earlier, but felt the prices for properties were too high. She suggests that while her suburban home had grown in value of the years, the huge increase in supply had kept the prices in the city centre reasonable.This allowed her to buy a nicer property in the city centre, rather than a “little box”. She noted some reservations she had prior to the move; “It was quite scary, I thought ‘had I made a mistake’, but no. It was the best decision.” She identified the price differential she had experienced when moving into the city as a common factor in moving. She identified the increasing divorce rate, buying of holiday homes and desire to release capital for children as commonly cited reasons for moving into the city centre.When looking to buy in the city centre, Cllr. Davies’ estate agent had warned her off some buildings due to the large number of rented properties. She argued that renters are usually very good tenants, but that you need a good mix to make it work and making the building desirable. Despite these possibilities for homeowners, Cllr. Davies also identified the drop in income at retirement as an issue for people who had moved to apartments. She noted that service charges for apartments could be as high as £2000 per year, and that this was difficult for people who were asset rich but who had limited monthly income. Working at Manchester City Council Much of Cllr. Davies work relates to the mechanisms of engagement with residents of the city centre. As the other 2 city centre councillors are often at work during the day, she has more time she is able to commit to representative boards such as Licensing and Planning. She argues that the people who have the most to say about these matter are usually the older residents in the city centre. She suggests that older people have more experience in affecting these matters and know how the
system works. In addition, many older people have committed to living in the city centre for the long term, whereas many of the younger residents only plan on living in the city for shorter periods before moving to the suburbs. Issue for noise and night time economy were identified in our discussion. She argues that many people had moved into the city centre prior to changes in the licensing laws in 2003. The emergence of later pub and club closing times during the week were cited as having a significant impact to issues such as litter, anti-social behaviour and street and venue noise. Cllr Davies sympathised with residents who “… moved to an area which is nice or quiet, and then the laws change or more bars and clubs move into the area.” She suggested that “Even when security levels are high people feel uncomfortable – I know people who don’t enjoy being around people who have had a lot to drink, even if there isn’t any malicious intent. Older women don’t get hassle at night as much as those in their 20’s or 30’s.” Cllr. Davies identified the limits to how the council could act in relation to issues related to the night time economy. She argued that it was difficulty to solve general problems, but they could have influence when related to specific locations and issues. “If there is an issue with a specific premise we can deal with it… A venue tried to change its license, and we used it as an opportunity to make sure they make changes to their queueing system which had been a problem for a while” Participation and Building Management Asked what the appeal of local participation was, Cllr. Davies noted that people want to maintain the value of their property and their quality of life, but that there was a wider desire to make the city better for everyone. She identified that many older people she speaks to seem to be member of management boards and committees within their housing buildings. Cllr. Davies suggested that the directors of these blocks were often the people who contacted her regarding noise issues or planning applications in the area. She notes that in her apartment block many of the owners had moved out and started to rent out their properties, which had reduced the pool of potential directors as renters rarely show interest in the management of the buildings. THE LIFE OF THE CITY RESEARCH PORTFOLIO
p. 39
The prevalence of Build to Rent apartments in the city centre was identified as a problematic trend. Cllr. Davies argued that she would like to see more plans with a clear intent to sell to owner occupiers and allow a right managed, although she had seen little interest in this from developers. The difficulty to balance the needs for flexible rented accommodation and desire to create stable communities was identified as one of the key issues facing the city centre. Castlefield Forum Cllr. Davies has been involved with the Castlefield forum for a number of years. She argues that after Castlefield had been revitalised there were still some problems related to the public realm wasn’t what it could be. After some initial meeting and help from Cllr. Karney the Castlefield forum was established. She noted that it had been nursed along by council initially, then later became sustainable and continues to be a positive influence in the local area.The positivity of the group is what drew Cllr. Davies to the group;
The issue of how they city would respond to an increase in older, fourth age residents was raised. Cllr. Davies identified a number of problems related to care provision, such as carers needing access to communal apartments and lack of parking of carers to visit older residents. She also suggested that the city could be quite an isolating environment for people with reduced mobility, suggesting that her grandfather “… would walk to the gate and have a chat with people, you can’t really do that in the city.” She also identified the focus on walkability and pedestrianisation as something which needs a wider consideration in relation to older people. She notes that “Our transport system need to recognise that older people can’t walk across the city centre. I had a knee problem for a short time, and I really got a feel for how hard it would be to get around. Are we going to make it harder for older people to see their families?”
“It’s constantly got things planned to move forward, and it get tangible signs of achievement. I tried to set one up for Liverpool Road, but the area was perhaps too small. I didn’t want to be in a group who says ‘no’ all the time, I wanted to be part of something that put its money and effort where its mouth is.” Funding for the group was usually from council cash grants, but over time these have become more competition for these and less money is available. The group have now started to crowd fund for projects, which she suggests have been successful. Cllr. Davies stated that there are younger people on the forum, but that older people are over represented in the group. She argues that older people have the ability and time to participate compared to younger residents in the area. Changing demographics and future challenges The changing demographic of the city centre was raised in our discussion. Regarding the prospect of having more families in the city centre, Cllr. Davies suggested that some people had been adverse to this change. She noted that,“People don’t want to feel bad for waking up the kids when they come home at 3am! I think the councillors want there to be kids, but some people don’t want their experiences curtailed by younger people.”
THE LIFE OF THE CITY RESEARCH PORTFOLIO
p. 40
Interview 3: Single male living on city centre fringe M (84) has lived in Victoria Square for the last 10 years. M grew up in Greater Manchester, but spent much of his working life in London. He moved back to the North West with his partner after an illness, settling in Liverpool.When he and his partner separated, M was left homeless and moved back to Manchester to live in Victoria Square. When living in Liverpool, M became a member of ‘Out in the City’, a project set up by Age UK Manchester to support older LGBT community. This group offered M support when he became homeless, and it is through the network that M was put in contact with a member of Manchester City Council who helped him to find somewhere to live. He had initially looked at a 1 bed property in Victoria Square, but felt it was too small to be able to enable him to work on his art.Three months later he moved into a larger 1 bed apartment in Victoria Square, where he lives today. Despite the support which Out in the City provided in finding him a home in Manchester, he noted that he didn’t move to Manchester or Victoria Square because they were ‘gay friendly’, but rather just a nice place to live. M has a strong attachment to Victoria Square, noting that “I love the building, I love the history of it.” As M’s health has deteriorated, he has begun to get some additional support. His family have organised for a cleaner to come ever fortnight, and he has spoken to social services and is aware of what is available to him should he need it. He suggests that his apartment is the best place for him, as he has an alarm and new shower installed, and his home is one level and accessible by a lift. He notes that, “If I had to leave this place, it would break my heart.” The gentrification for Ancoats and the area around Victoria Square has yielded some positives for M, such as the creation of a new art gallery which he has had his work exhibited in, and his enjoyment of the new restaurants in the area. M isn’t as socially active as he used to be due to poor health, although he remains engages in the wider cultural offer of the city as a result of his interest and participation in art. He stated that, “I would like to get out and about more.You can’t explain it
to anybody, they think I can be here there and everywhere, but my body just cant do it. I’m doing what I can do”. He attends workshops at the neighbouring Mustard Tree centre and plans to visit the Whitworth Gallery soon. In addition, he remains a members of the Age-friendly Manchester board and a member of Out in the City. M mentioned his love of literature and classical music which waned after he suffered from a stroke, but that he reengaged with through regular visits with friends to concerts in the city, particularly at the old BBC studios on Oxford Road. He no longer feels able to attend these because he feels uncomfortable in large crowds. He was excited to see the Halle Orchestra visitVictoria Square a few months previously. He noted that “…that pulled a few people down there – but not as many as you think! A lot of people opened their door and stood on the balcony. I think people would respond more if there was more of things like that.There was a brass section, they played a lot of tunes from the 30s.” Contrary to the findings of our focus group, M suggests that there isn’t too much engagement in collective activities within Victoria Square. He cites his experiences of developing a large community art project a few years ago which attracted many participants, but only a handful from within Victoria Square. He suggests that Victoria Square might be too large to enable these kinds of social interaction, and that activities which do go are based around cliques which have formed rather than the block as a whole.When asked whether he wanted to do more activities within Victoria Square itself, he argued that he feels it would be optimistic, as activities such as the film club only get a couple of attendees.
THE LIFE OF THE CITY RESEARCH PORTFOLIO
p. 41
Report prepared by:
Centre for Spatial Inclusion Design-Research http://www.msa.ac.uk/csidr
Stefan White [Manchester School of Architecture] Chris Phillipson [University of Manchester] Mark Hammond [Manchester Metropolitan University]