Is amenity-light the next evolution of Build-to-Rent?

Amenity with a small 'a' - how Build-to-Rent schemes are learning to do more with less

As the Build-to-Rent (BtR) sector continues to evolve, the focus is shifting from providing more amenity to delivering the right amenities. In this Insight paper, Group Board Director Michael Swiszczowski explores how thoughtful design, operational excellence and placemaking can create better resident experiences for the next generation of BtR developments while supporting long-term commercial success.

As the Build-to-Rent (BtR) sector has matured in the UK, recognition is growing that successful developments do more than provide apartments for rent. They create well-managed, community-focused places where residents feel they belong. BtR is slowly, but surely, becoming synonymous with placemaking.

This is why the phrase "Community-First" feels so naturally aligned with Build-to-Rent. The sector has raised expectations of rental living, not solely through the quality of the homes themselves, but through service, convenience, amenity, management and a more intentional approach to the resident experience.

Yet the original business case for professionalising the private rented sector was much less aspirational than much of the language now used around community and placemaking. In its simplest form, residents wanted a landlord who would "pick up the phone".

Before BtR became associated with extensive amenity, aspirational interiors and hospitality-influenced service, its most compelling proposition was reliability. Institutional ownership brought attentive teams, robust maintenance, greater security and a stronger level of trust between resident and landlord.

As the UK market developed, the sector quite naturally looked towards the more mature US multifamily model, where convenience, management, service and amenity had already combined to create a very different rental experience.

The UK market became particularly focused on amenity. What should each scheme provide? How much was enough? Which facilities were essential, and which would differentiate the offer? At times, the sector became rather like magpies drawn towards the visible, attractive and exciting parts of the product.

This was not without good reason. Amenity has delivered significant customer value, creating convenience, interaction and a sense of belonging while helping define BtR as something different from the traditional rental market.

Nor has this focus been restricted to the UK. Through study tours and market observations in San Diego, Barcelona and Madrid, we have seen institutionally led rental schemes place significant emphasis on amenity, from US garden-style communities to Spanish rental and co-living schemes with extensive co-working, communal dining, rooftop and leisure spaces.

The consequential question now is whether the next evolution of Build-to-Rent will be defined not by more amenity, but by better amenity.

From amenity-rich to amenity-right

The discussion around amenity-light schemes should not be misinterpreted. This is not an argument for less impactful buildings, a reduced resident experience or simply removing shared spaces to improve viability. Approached in that way, amenity-light risks becoming a lesser version of BtR rather than a more nuanced and mature one.

The more interesting opportunity is what might be described as "amenity-right": a resident offer that is carefully selected, commercially considered, operationally realistic and genuinely aligned with the needs of the people who will live there. The distinction is similar to "downsizing" versus "right-sizing" in later living. The language matters because it reframes the conversation from loss to appropriateness.

This is increasingly reflected in market commentary. Cushman & Wakefield's analysis with Watkin Jones has identified "amenity-lite" urban BtR with mid-market rents as an attractive proposition for investors, citing efficiency, affordability, operational cost and the ability to unlock locations where a highly amenitised model may be less viable. BTR News has also reported investor preference for amenity-lite schemes, while HomeViews and Molior describe an emerging focus on fewer, more carefully chosen amenities that balance cost, value and customer experience.

This is particularly relevant as affordability, viability and operational performance come under greater scrutiny. Recent Knight Frank analysis points to a more moderated rental-growth environment, while our recent Bisnow panel raised a broader question: if rental growth is softening fastest at the top end and mid-market schemes are proving resilient, does that challenge the era of over-specified amenity?

The answer will not be the same for every scheme. Some developments will continue to justify a generous amenity offer where scale, location, rental profile and operator strategy support it. Others may benefit from a lighter, more focused approach, with greater emphasis on service, apartment quality, public realm, local partnerships and a smaller number of highly effective, multi-purpose shared spaces.

The shift is not from amenity to no amenity. It is from quantity to purpose.

Returning to the original goal

If the original goal was a landlord who would pick up the phone, the wider opportunity lies in recognising that customer experience is not always dependent on the biggest or most visible spaces. It is often about how easy, reliable and enjoyable everyday life feels.

A positive resident experience can be delivered through a gym, co-working lounge or roof terrace, but also through a welcoming reception, intelligent parcel management, responsive maintenance, pet-friendly policies, good cycle storage, clear wayfinding, well-specified apartments and personable management teams.

HomeViews and Molior make an important point: amenities are not only physical spaces. Residents also value the things that make everyday life work better, including reliable connectivity, utility management, responsive maintenance and a smooth resident journey. Sometimes customer experience is delivered not by adding more area, but by removing friction.

Health and wellness is a good example of how the sector can move beyond a simple amenity checklist. Internal gym space remains appropriate in many schemes, but wellness can also be supported through daylight, landscape and access to outdoor space. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Angel Gardens in Manchester provided a memorable example, with residents joining a fitness class from their balconies while the instructor led the session from the courtyard. This was not about a conventional gym, but about design, management and community coming together.

Working from home provides a similar example. Co-working has become a familiar part of the BtR offer, but the best spaces support not only work, but also the chance encounters and informal connections that help build community.

Rather than asking whether a scheme needs a large gym or workspace, we should ask how residents will use the building throughout the day: where they will meet, retreat, work, exercise and form connections, and how the design can support those behaviours in a way that responds to its location and context.

Designing for retention, not just attraction

The first leasing campaign matters, but the long-term performance of a BtR asset depends on whether residents choose to stay.

Amenity may initially attract residents, but it is the quality of the everyday living experience that encourages them to stay: responsive management, comfort, flexibility, community and, ultimately, the feeling that the building simply works.

The schemes that retain residents longest often feel like neighbourhoods rather than products. A product can be impressive, but a neighbourhood is lived in. It has routine, familiarity, identity and belonging.

Design has a direct role in enabling this and needs to be present in high-level decision-making. The chances of establishing community increase significantly when the building allows it - or, just as importantly, avoids creating barriers to it happening organically as residents move in and begin to live their lives.

Flexible spaces need the right proportions, acoustics, storage, servicing and visibility. Residents should feel comfortable using them without feeling exposed; staff should be able to manage them efficiently; and spaces should feel active without becoming over-programmed.

Where this fails, amenity has often been treated as a list of rooms rather than as part of an integrated resident experience. Early collaboration between developer, operator, architect, interior designer, landscape architect, technology consultant and management team is therefore essential. Amenity strategy cannot be left until late-stage design or treated as a marketing overlay.

As first-generation BtR schemes reach the point of repositioning, this is becoming increasingly clear. Buildings are being reviewed against current resident expectations, operational costs and competitive positioning. Where amenity is being retrofitted or reconfigured, it demonstrates why flexibility, adaptability and operational realism should have formed part of the original brief.

What residents value in practice

As more BtR schemes stabilise, the sector can learn from residents rather than relying solely on assumptions made at inception. Post-occupancy feedback, resident reviews, demographic data and operator insight are increasingly important in understanding what works.

The ARL, BPF, BusinessLDN and PriceHubble report "Who Lives in Build-to-Rent?" highlights the increasingly broad range of renters living in BtR and points to a possible shift away from expensive amenities towards a more diverse resident offer. This reinforces the need to understand who residents are and how they actually use the building.

Eda in Manchester provides a useful example. Since stabilisation, the scheme has performed extremely strongly in resident feedback, including being rated number one on HomeViews for an extended period. One of the most consistent comments is that it "feels like home".

As the scheme's designers, we would naturally like to think this is partly due to the architecture and interior design. But it also reflects a developer, operator and wider team that understood the likely customer from the outset, including Eda's broader resident profile compared with some more central schemes. Pet-friendly living, for example, can be a relatively low-cost decision in spatial terms but have a disproportionately positive impact on whether people experience a building as a home.

The same applies to resident engagement. Successful shared spaces do not need to be large, expensive or highly specialised. Flexible, multi-functional spaces can support low-cost activities and resident-led events. Often it is the adaptability and management of space, rather than its size, that creates value.

Community is not created by amenity alone. A lounge does not become social simply because it exists. Community depends on the atmosphere created when people occupy spaces, use them and adapt them to suit individual or collective needs. Developments that enable this are the ones people come to know as home.

Location, location, location

Any discussion around amenity should extend beyond the building itself. Since our early involvement in the sector, we have maintained that amenity should respond to context. In many cases, the most valuable amenity may sit outside the building: the local park, cafe, gym, music venue, independent shops and restaurants, transport connection or wider neighbourhood.

This is why active frontage and locality are so important. BtR schemes can contribute to the places in which they sit, but the response needs to be specific. A standardised approach to ground-floor amenity is unlikely to create either the best outcome or the most successfully integrated neighbourhood.

The most successful schemes are cognisant of context. They respond to local culture, need and identity, considering what already works in the surrounding area and where the development can add something meaningful.

At John Street in Cardiff, for example, the opportunity to reactivate disused railway arches creates a different type of amenity story. The spaces connect to an existing local culture and music scene of real significance. Here, the response is not simply to add more internal resident facilities, but to embrace locality and allow the development to contribute to regeneration in a way that feels authentic.

Amenity-light does not mean turning developments inward or reducing their contribution to place. In many cases, it may mean the opposite. By being more selective internally, schemes can place greater emphasis on their relationship with the neighbourhood, the quality of public realm and the activation of ground-floor uses.

This is also where social value becomes tangible. If a BtR scheme supports local businesses, protects cultural activity, improves public realm, creates active frontage and helps stitch a site back into the urban fabric, it can contribute to community beyond its resident population.

Ultimately, Build-to-Rent should not only create communities within buildings. It should help strengthen the wider communities around them.

Bibliography

Cushman & Wakefield. (2024). Build to Rent Report – The Future of the Private Rented Sector, Q2 2024. Click here

Patel, B. (2024, August 19). Amenity lite Build to Rent schemes preferred by investors. BTR News. Click here

HomeViews & Molior. (2024, October). BTR Amenities: Balancing Cost and Value. Click here

British Property Federation, PriceHubble, BusinessLDN, & Association for Rental Living. (2025, June). Who Lives in Build-to-Rent? An Analysis of Build-to-Rent Occupancy Across England. Click here

Knight Frank. (2024). UK BTR Market Update Q3 2024: On Track for a Record Year for BTR Completions. Click here

Murray, I. (2025, May 20). The End of the Amenities Arms Race: What Renters Really Want in 2025. Bidwells. Click here