Abstract: Due to social shifts, demographic changes and spatial challenges, housing is at the top of the social agenda in Flanders. Recently, communal housing concepts are put forward to strive against these general developments. This paper presents research on multigenerational dwelling, as one possible renewed communal housing concept for Flanders. The authors develop a working definition for multigenerational dwelling, which lays the foundation for the main part of the paper: the translation of a theoretical framework into an architectural design. Methodologically the authors use design to experiment with this new housing concept in a specific, but realistic setting. More specifically, they organize a workshop with four Flemish architecture firms to investigate different modes of sharing space within a multigenerational dwelling. Furthermore they formulate key considerations for further research and the implementation of this renewed way of dwelling in Flanders.
On the About Us page, it states, “The Home Modification Information (HMinfo) Clearinghouse, established in 2002, is an information service tasked with collating, reviewing and creating the evidence base for best practice in modification of the home environment to support people with problems in self care, participation and autonomy.” The Clearinghouse is based in the University of New South Wales.
Click here for the home page and the various menus about research, products and services
This is a major work by Bruce Judd, Diana Olsberg, Joanne Quinn and Oya Demirbilek (2010). It challenges the often held assumption that older people are “taking up space” in big houses that they no longer need – assumptions that their homes are “underoccupied”. This qualitative research shows a very different picture. When people retire, they typically spend more time at home (about 85% of their time), so it makes sense to have “spare” space for home activities, including accommodating family members who live away.
Edited transcript from live captioning of Margaret Ward’s presentation at the Australian Universal Design Conference 2014.
Synopsis: While major industry players support the Livable Housing Design Guidelines, their implementation in mass market housing is not yet evident. This presentation takes the perspective of the Australian Network for Universal Housing Design and plots the history from the setting up of the National Dialogue for Universal Housing Design, to the development of the Livable Housing Design Guidelines, and the achievements to date of Livable Housing Australia. It asks the question – what more can be done to progress universal housing design in Australia?
Edited transcript from live captioning of Kay Saville-Smith’skeynote presentation at the Australian Universal Design Conference 2014.
Synopsis: The Christchurch earthquakes which flattened much of the city provided an opportunity to start from scratch and implement some of the good design ideas, including universal design, that have been around for some time. However, this has not happened and there are many reasons for this, not least of which is the stance of the insurance industry. The issue of affordability is a complex one, as it is a market driven issue where the actual cost of the building is not the main issue. Universal design and affordability can co-exist, but there are many attitudinal barriers and well-worn arguments touted in the industry that say it cannot be done.
Article by Margaret Ward and Jill Franz, published in Housing and Space: Toward Socio-Spatial Inclusion (Social Inclusion, Vol 3 No2). An Open Access Journal.
This article outlines the findings from interviews with industry personnel about incorporating the 8 features agreed in the Livable Housing Design Guidelines. This is a telling paragraph: “In summary, when providing the eight features for visitability, the interviewees identified two themes for non-compliance (“lack of thought” and “otherness”) and three themes for compliance (“fashion”, “requirement’ and “good practice”). Although all dwellings provided some features, no dwelling provided a coherent path of travel necessary to make a dwelling visitable. Some examples of this incoherence were: a step-free driveway which led to a step at the door; a wide front door which led to a narrow corridor; and a narrow internal doorway which did not allow entry of a wheel-chair to a spacious bathroom. The provision of these access features separately and severally did not provide visitability as an outcome in any of the dwellings.
This academic paper and presentation was made at the 2011 State of Australian Cities Conference (SOAC) in 2011 by Jane Bringolf. It raises the issues of housing an ageing population in a context of industry considering retirement villages and aged care are the places to put older people. However, the majority of people will age in their current home – a home that is not suitably designed for this purpose. However, some 150,000 new homes are built each year – still to the same old cookie cutter method – and there is no sign of change even in 2015.