Recently an article calling on the senior housing industry to explore senior co-housing communities as an option for Baby Boomers prompted a planning consultant colleague to ask me:
“What are some recommendations for designing senior-friendly
co-housing communities that accommodate aging in place?”
An excellent question that deserves a thoughtful answer by looking at the multiple interrelated issues. This is article 1 of 2 articles.
Why Co-Housing?
Co-housing is a Danish lifestyle and housing model that emphasizes shared spaces to create a community. Charles Durrett and Kathryn McCammant are credited with raising awareness and supporting the development of co-housing and senior co-housing communities in the U.S. (If you’d like to learn more, explore their website and read their informative books.) Co-housing communities are intentional communities, typically developed by the people who want to live there who have shared lifestyle goals. Sharing is a major tenet of this model, as public versions of gardens, indoor gathering spaces, kitchen and dining areas are emphasized over their counterparts in individual units, where these spaces are usually smaller than in typical housing. These choices of the use and allotment of space promote the ability to build a community by interacting with your neighbors. The design of spaces should support this goal.
Why Senior Co-Housing?
All age co-housing vs. senior co-housing
Ideally, regular co-housing communities should be designed so that people of all ages and abilities can live and thrive there. Just because I am older or a person with a disability doesn’t mean I shouldn’t have the option to live in my community of choice. But does the design of the individual units, shared spaces, and grounds allow for this? or do they exclude me? And we don’t want people who move in when they are physically independent to be forced to move out when their abilities change, and to be dis-abled by design features that work against them. These are real issues known as environmental press: this occurs when there is a poor fit between the environment and the person’s abilities and needs–creating a form of stress called press. Environmental press pushes people to function at an artificially lower level, increasing dependency on others and on services, and driving up costs.
But it’s also unfair to broach these issues without acknowledging that virtually all traditional housing in typical communities is not designed for people of all ages and abilities, so why would we expect it from co-housing?
Some people choose to move age-segregated housing and/or communities for a particular lifestyle and/or to have specific needs met. When they are designed properly for the population and provide relevant services, these can be terrific options. The overarching issue is: no one should be forced to move from their home or community of choice because it wasn’t properly designed for the real needs of real people.
Case Study
There’s a co-housing community that I visited on a few occasions over several years. It was built in phases. Several years after phase 1 was built some people began having difficulty living in their homes. Older adults and a youth with a neurodegenerative condition were struggling to live well in their homes, which were multi-storied. While the community had intended to be inclusive of people of all ages and abilities, the design of the housing made this impossible.
Eventually, this experience tightened the community’s goal of being inclusive. However, on a tour of a later phase of the community a few years after, I found several features in the new units that also create barriers. In fact, I use them regularly in my presentations to show what not to do. They include: gravel paths, a step to/from the patio, a step to/from the patio into the residence, a shower with a curb that’s at least 5” high–on new construction! These are not only issues for people with mobility issues, but residents who are bringing their packages from the separate parking area to their homes, or dealing with strollers. Each of these features creates mobility and access barriers and may increase the likelihood of a fall, especially outdoors and in the shower. As we age, we may experience a reduction in our balance. This can be exacerbated by dehydration, medications, and medical conditions. The last thing we need is to step up and down in a wet slippery environment. We also know that when we are in situations when a built environment is too challenging for us, meaning it’s at odds with our needs and abilities, we are likely to struggle (environmental press). In this example, this struggle could result in a person getting assistance from someone in order to shower safely, which may have financial costs, but will most likely impact dignity due to loss of independence. Or, the person may attempt to push through the struggle and continue to bathe themselves although they are not safe, and have a fall, potentially making the home even more incompatible temporarily or permanently. In some cases, the person will greatly reduce their bathing because it is too challenging. All because of the design of the shower. And when a no-step shower unit could have been installed.
This case study is not to find fault with this particular co-housing community. That would not be fair as this same scenario can be seen anywhere, in 99% of our housing stock, and in all types of multi-generational and/or senior housing. In fact, on a recent visit to a facility operated by one of the nation’s leading and well respected assisted living providers, we found showers with curbs and other simple but impactful design barriers, which limit residents’ independence and increase demands on already limited and overworked long-term care staff.
When we ask “Why senior co-housing?” it’s an opportunity to expand the lens to our larger, typical communities and ask “Why senior housing at all?” We examine this and provide helpful information and specifics in article #2.