Carterwood Co-Founder, Amanda Nurse, reflects on insights from the WiRL Spring Network, which took place on the 18th March 2026.
Read Amanda’s blog below to discover the key themes that emerged.
On 18 March, the WiRL Spring Network hosted one of those rare sessions where the conversation was ahead of the capital that’s funding it.
A cross-disciplinary panel: architecture, interiors, landscape and lighting were backed by sponsors Trowers & Hamlins and Hoare Lea. One thing is very clear: the integrated retirement community (IRC) already knows what good looks like. The challenge now is proving that good pays.
Designers are already solving the right problems
The conversation repeatedly came back to the same point: the elements often seen as add-ons, such as landscape, lighting, acoustics, interior detail, are actually central to resident wellbeing, retention and, ultimately, asset performance.
A few themes stood out:
1. Landscape and safety
Women and men experience routes and public spaces differently, especially at night. Path widths, planting heights, corners, sightlines and where you place benches all shape whether residents feel safe enough to use outdoor spaces.
If people don’t feel safe, they don’t use the space. At that point, a beautifully designed landscape becomes stranded capex.
2. Lighting and comfort
Older eyes are more sensitive to glare, flicker and poor contrast. Badly planned lighting – even when it looks fine on paper – can cause headaches, disorientation and a general reluctance to spend time in certain spaces.
That is not a marginal issue: if corridors, lounges or external routes feel uncomfortable, they effectively disappear from the usable NIA the business case was built on.
3. Acoustics, interiors and dignity
The panel also touched on restaurants residents avoid because they simply cannot hear each other, and changing areas where a lack of privacy or practical surfaces puts people off swimming altogether.
Vanity space, privacy, stable furniture and practical layouts consistently matter more to residents than high-end finishes. These details determine whether amenities are actually used, not just photographed.
None of this is design indulgence; it is operational risk management.
The capital reality: <2 sales per month kills the story
From a capital deployment perspective, the equation is simple and unforgiving.
If sales velocity sits below two units per month, new capital will not flow into this market at the scale required.
Investment committees may support ESG and wellbeing in principle, but sign-off is still driven by:
- Sales rates
- Stabilisation timelines
- Achieved vs underwritten pricing
- Resale performance
Right now, there is a structural disconnect:
The sector can explain why thoughtful landscape, lighting, acoustics and interiors matter.
Funders, however, rarely see robust, quantified evidence that these decisions deliver:
- Faster sales velocity
- Higher achieved prices
- Lower voids and churn
Data doesn’t lie
At Carterwood, our high-level analysis already shows that schemes with strong central communal facilities tend to achieve higher sales velocities. The next step is to move beyond “amenity yes/no” and understand which design and operational choices actually shift the numbers.
Until that link is evidenced, will the ” fluffy stuff ” keep getting value-engineered out at precisely the point it should be protected?
The missing bridge: robust design
As a data and insight business, this is the gap Carterwood is focused on closing.
The sector is already relatively sophisticated in:
- Demographic and catchment analysis
- Basic competitor mapping
- High-level demand/supply modelling
Where there is real opportunity to improve is in:
1. Tagging design and operating features at the scheme level
For example:
- Presence and nature of pools, spas and gyms
- The strength and style of F&B offers
- Landscape strategy and external amenity provision
- Lighting and acoustic quality (even if initially via proxies/specification levels)
- Toilet and changing provision and location
- Operating model – rental vs sale vs hybrid, care integration, cohousing vs traditional IRC, service charge structure
2. Linking those features to performance metrics
Such as:
- Initial sales velocity by month from launch
- Price achieved vs original underwriting
- Resales: time to sell and discount/premium to primary
- Where available, amenity usage data: restaurant covers, pool usage, event attendance, and complaints
3. Running proper comparative analysis
– Controlling for location, affluence and brand to isolate the *design and operations effect*
– Identifying which features meaningfully move the needle on sales velocity and value, and which are largely neutral
Without this, debates about design remain anecdotal, and funders default to cost-cutting. No one wins.
New operating models: a signal the market is shifting
One of the most encouraging aspects of the session was how many people in the room are no longer satisfied with a “classic” IRC template.
Carterwood is currently in discussion with **four new operators** who are looking to reshape the offer. Common themes include:
- More flexible operating models – rental, subscription and mixed?tenure approaches
- More considered, transparent integration of care
- Product and service design shaped explicitly around female decision-makers: safety, affordability, belonging, and financial predictability
Some of these discussions are covered by NDAs, but the direction of travel is clear: a move towards models that are more responsive to how people actually want to live, not just how assets have historically been built.
These innovators are ideal partners for building a stronger evidence base. They are open to:
- Sharing performance data
- Testing different design and service configurations
- Measuring engagement and usage, not just occupancy
If we can systematically capture what works in these new models, we will create the proof points institutional capital is looking for.
What needs to happen next?
Three practical priorities emerge from this session:
1. Treat design variables as data, not decoration
Design and operational choices should be captured and coded at the scheme level, then integrated into the same datasets that already hold demographics, pricing and headline performance.
2. Prove the link between “invisible” quality and sales velocity
The goal is to demonstrate, with numbers, that schemes which invest in:
– High-quality landscape and lighting
– Better acoustics
– Thoughtful toilets and changing facilities
– Inclusive, usable shared spaces
are more likely to achieve:
– >2 sales per month at launch
– Stronger resale liquidity
– Lower churn
3. Translate resident experience into investment language
Concepts such as dignity, safety, inclusion and belonging need to be expressed in terms that resonate with investment committees:
– Shorter payback periods
– Higher IRRs
– Reduced capex write-offs from underused areas
– Derisked planning (e.g. biodiversity net gain) and reputational benefits
Once that translation happens, the question shifts from “Can we afford to do this?” to “Can we afford not to?”
Closing thoughts and a huge thank you
The WiRL Spring Network event showed that the sector is not short of ideas or intent. The missing ingredient is evidence that satisfies the people writing the cheques.
Trowers & Hamlins, Hoare Lea and the panellists demonstrated the value of bringing diverse disciplines into the conversation early. Our role at Carterwood is to ensure that, when an investment committee reviews an IRC or retirement living scheme, landscape, lighting and inclusive detail are recognised not as “nice to have extras” but as measurable drivers of sales velocity and return on capital.
Until the sector can consistently achieve more than two sales per month per scheme, we will not unlock the scale of capital this market – and its predominantly female customer base – deserves.
Thank you to all of the Chair and panellists for a thought-provoking session
Thank you to Tade Muyiwa-George who Chaired the event. Plus, a huge shout-out to the committee and associates for putting together a fabulous event: Emily Adlington,Trowers and Hamlet; Sharon Alexis-Wilson; Jenny Buterchi, PRP; Phillipa Kellar, Richmond Villages; Lizzie Pillinger, Trowers and Hamlets; Katherine Rose, Elysian Residences; Samantha Rowland, HOLA; Charles Taylor, Aspen Retirement Living; Dr Zoe Wyrko, Riverstone; Kristen Brown, CRBE; Lucia Briant, Richmond Villages; Ledlijana Gashi, Lifecare Residences; Becca Stuart-Jack, PRP; Louise Kerr, Mills & Reeve; Sarina Kiayani, ARCO; Ali POwell and Commercial Acceleration.
The panellists led an insightful discussion and inspired a thought-provoking discussion. Thank you to: Anne-Marie Nicholson, AMN Architects; Kael Gilliam, Hoare Lea; Sonia Patel, Inspired Villages Group; and Vicky Hill, Greenwood Hill Ltd.
