Let’s change the conversation about retirement living

I’ve spent much of my career working in real estate, particularly in the retirement living sector and picking up a national newspaper to read yet another story about the supposed negatives of buying a retirement property, frustrates me enormously. Falling resale values; delays with finding buyers; high service charges; families impacted by a reduced inheritance. These stories make headlines, but they paint a misleading picture of a sector I believe should currently be the most important in our housing market.

I am not suggesting that problems haven’t arisen or that properties haven’t been difficult to sell. When families experience difficulties, their frustration is entirely understandable. But we’ve allowed the rhetoric around retirement housing to become fixated on property values, whilst ignoring the debate around what these developments actually provide in terms of security, socialisation and wellbeing. And that, I think, is where we’ve gone wrong.

Retirement living communities should not be viewed as investments in the traditional sense. They are homes designed to enable older people to live independently for longer, more safely and with a sense of social connection, which can be transformative. We should not underestimate the impact of having a communal lounge or organised activities on people previously living in isolation or the improvement in wellbeing that comes from knowing that help is available if needed providing genuine peace of mind.

Such benefits are difficult to quantify but are profoundly real. What rarely gets mentioned is that independent living can significantly delay or prevent the need for residential care. Anyone who has looked at care home fees recently will know that costs are significant especially when long-term care is required. A retirement apartment that enables someone to remain independent for an extra five or ten years isn’t just improving their quality of life – it’s potentially saving them a small fortune.

Property values fluctuate. Some retirement properties take time to sell. But that’s true across the entire housing market. The difference is that we don’t see endless articles warning young families that their home might depreciate, or that they could struggle to find a buyer. The media focus on first time and family housing is totally different. Empty homes for older people are looked at as being a burden, the leasehold tenure seemingly being the biggest negative.

What I find particularly interesting is that we are a country forever striving to save for retirement, to build a healthy pension. But in terms of our most valuable asset – our home – it seems we should not have to use this to support our retirement, to live a healthier and more enjoyable life. We have an expectation that a property designed for our retirement, supporting our decline in health and mobility should still increase in value, a view which fails to value the intangible benefits to our health and wellbeing. Our pension value goes down as we draw on it but apparently our home should continue to go up?

Negative media narrative has real consequences. It discourages purchasers and their families from considering retirement living as an option. It creates anxiety where there should be excitement about another chapter. Perhaps most damagingly, it can become self-fulfilling – if people believe properties are hard to sell, they’ll hold back, demand will fall and the very problem the media warns about becomes more likely.

I’m not asking journalists to ignore genuine issues or to become cheerleaders for the sector. I am asking for balance. I’d like stories to acknowledge the social value of retirement communities, alongside their challenges. We need to recognise that treating homes purely as financial assets distorts the conversation in ways that ultimately harm the very people these developments are designed to help. We have an ageing population and a chronic shortage of suitable housing for older people. Retirement living is part of the solution. It’s time the media started treating it that way.