Having spent many years in the wealth management sector, I’ve recently been reflecting on how lessons from that world might apply to the provision of residential rental housing in the UK and other developed markets.

In wealth management, as in most industries, there’s a clear segmentation: the top end, the middle, and the bottom. At the top, stockbrokers, private banks, and other high-touch, high-fee providers cater to those with significant assets - offering bespoke service and (hopefully) strong performance. At the bottom, there’s little beyond generic advice and information, as those with limited assets present limited opportunity for wealth managers to add value or collect fees.

The real commercial engine, however, is the middle - the so-called “mass affluent.” In the UK, this is often referred to as “middle England,” but the concept applies across developed markets. Here, the majority of wealth management propositions are focused: while individual portfolios and fees are lower, the sheer volume of clients makes this segment highly attractive.

So, how does this map onto the Build to Rent (BTR) and Living sector? Since the early days of BTR in the mid-2010s, most new stock has been targeted squarely at the upper end of the market. This is evident in premium rents, prime locations, striking amenities, well-furnished units, and high levels of on-site service. In places like Canary Wharf, this model makes perfect sense - the local demographics and disposable incomes can support high-end rentals indefinitely.

Widen the lens to central London and its desirable, commutable suburbs, and the model still holds up. Even in regional cities with robust economies - Manchester, for example - there’s a steady appetite for glitzy new launches at the top of the market. But in smaller, successful cities like Leeds, the equation starts to shift. Despite a vibrant local economy, the pool of renters able to afford premium rents is limited - often, the only group able to fill these schemes are overseas students, which is a notable shift from past trends.

Here’s the point: the mass market for rental housing won’t be served by building ever more high-tier buildings. Instead, the opportunity lies in delivering something simpler and more affordable. This means looking at secondary locations - close to office parks, hospitals, and light industrial areas where people actually work. It means designing more compact, cleverly laid-out units that offer privacy and security. It means reducing the scale and scope of amenities to focus only on what residents truly value, as evidenced by real usage data. And it means fewer on-site staff, but not necessarily lower service levels - thanks to the rise of smart technology and AI-driven platforms that can enhance the resident experience without adding headcount.

Will these new schemes be co-living buildings, flexible living formats that incorporate short-term lets, or a new category—perhaps “BTR-lite”? I suspect we’ll see all three. What’s clear is that the next generation of assets will need to address the needs - and seize the opportunity - of the mass market in a way BTR has not yet managed.

In my wealth management days, I built consumer businesses for the mass affluent, always taking inspiration from a service exemplar: Marks & Spencer. M&S has long been synonymous with great choice, fair value, and excellent customer service for the middle market. I see a huge opportunity for someone to create an “M&S brand” for the mass market in residential rental housing - a proposition that combines affordability, quality, and reliable service for the many, not just the few.