In the age of climate change Australians are reassessing the risk of floods, fires and severe storms on their homes. But what about assessing the risk of capabilities in later age in home design? Perhaps they should be assessing both. Any proposed renovations should consider both climate and later age to ensure a safe and secure home into the future.
Geoff Penrose makes the point very well in the April 2025 edition of the Lifemark Universal Design Newsletter. Lifemark promotes universal design principles for homes with a focus on health and wellbeing for all occupants. Their design standards provide the necessary information for that 100% probability factor – later age.
“Universal design helps everyone feel at home.”
“A Lifemark® rated home is easy to live in for anyone at any stage and can be life-changing for people living with an impairment, age-related illness or injury.”
The Lifemark standards reflect those in the Australian National Construction Code’s Livable Housing Design Standard. That’s because they are underpinned by a universal design approach. Unfortunately, while the National Construction Code is supposed to be national, not all states have adopted it. That means, many new homes will still have steps to the entry and be unsuited to an ageing population.
In a LinkedIn post, David Chandler wrote about the reaction of powerful voices to the NSW Building Reforms. He said that the development industry “predictably recoils” whenever a new regulation that raises building standards is presented. This is one of the reasons the housing industry has fought the Livable Housing Standard. It would require the building certifier to pay closer attention to the design and construction.
Get it right first time
Chandler goes on to say that rather than costing more, it pays to get it right first time and to resist cutting corners. This is exactly what universal design advocates have been saying for years. Get it right first time – it’s cost effective. Chandler, the former NSW Building Commissioner, addresses this topic in a Radio National broadcast.
Mainstream housing remains one of the last areas to be subject to mandated universal design principles or access standards. Public infrastructure, such as commercial buildings, shopping centres and transport, is subject to at least some basic access requirements. Regardless of the evidence of social and economic benefits, mainstream housing developers remain resistant to change.
A conference paper from Ireland adds to the existing literature on why universally designed homes are good for everyone. The paper is a prelude to a larger study with a detailed cost benefit analysis.
There is a substantial body of evidence indicating that investment in universally designed homes can result in savings in other areas of expenditure.
Investment in universally designed homes is particularly cost effective when compared to age-specific housing and long term residential care. Reduction in injurious falls is a saving for the health budget as well as quality of life for the occupant.
The authors cite research by others on the economic value of universal design which indicate the benefits outweigh the costs. Consequently, policy interventions to encourage construction of accessible housing are justified. However, future research should include longitudinal studies to assess the full impact of benefits.
This paper examines the social value and economic benefits of Universal Design (UD) Homes. It focuses on assessing the potential financial savings arising in various areas of expenditure due to investment in UD Homes. Investment in the provision of UD Homes can result in improved quality of life and more cost-effective forms of investment.
UD Homes are particularly cost-effective in the context of age friendly housing. It has the potential to reduce the need for long-term residential care and to avoid injurious falls.
Note: This research underpins a forthcoming cost benefit analysis (CBA) under development by the Irish National Disability Authority (NDA). This paper and the associated CBA research have been informed by a comprehensive stakeholder consultation process. This includes persons with disabilities and older persons, Disabled Persons’ Organisations (DPOs), Approved Housing Bodies, Irish Local Authority representatives, officials of housing and disability policy focussed Government departments and other public bodies, academics and industry representatives.
When economists, property developers, real estate agents and governments discuss housing issues, they are thinking of people in the workforce. Left behind are any discussions about people not of workforce age. According to Richard Duncan there is a worsening yet quiet crisis of housing for older adults. They are ageing in homes that put them at risk of injuries, reduced activity and social isolation.
“Without changes, our homes can impose restrictions on our lifestyle and hazards to our daily routines years before we might otherwise expect to see these kinds of activity constraints.”
Key issues
Duncan lists the key issues for what is considered traditional housing design. He discusses steps and stairs, hallways, bathrooms, lighting and kitchens. As people age in their current homes they live smaller lives and do fewer daily activities. Caregivers are at risk as well – lifting, pulling and manoeuvring. This is especially the case with older couples helping each other.
Lack of planning
We all know we are going to grow older, but we do not plan for it when it comes to housing. Older people often wait until a crisis occurs before they think about it. And even then they shun a grab bar or a ramp to help them when the time comes.
Our culture does not encourage people to plan ahead or to do much about their existing home. In the United States the home remodelling industry is doing quite well. But there is no real sign of the housing industry taking the lead on this issue except for segregated housing and retirement villages.
In Australia we have the help of the Livable Housing Design Standardwhich aims to bring the housing industry on board with universal design. However, not all states and territories have adopted the Standard due to industry resistance. Nevertheless it is good to see community housing and state housing projects implementing the Standard.
Move house or stay put?
Moving house sounds like the perfect solution until you look more closely. Seeking out a home with a better layout requires stamina even when there are suitable properties. When there are few, if any, options the task becomes harder. And this is at a time when physical, mental and cognitive abilities are already stretched. Then there are the logistics of moving. It’s no wonder people prefer to take a risk to stay put.
The title of Duncan’s article is, The Housing Dilemma for Older Adults: The Quiet Crisis. Homes that are safe and convenient for later life are good for any age – that’s universal design. We should be designing out this quiet crisis.
Healthy ageing requires community thinking
The North Carolina Medical Journal has a policy brief on opportunities and barriers to healthy ageing. The articles highlight how individuals caregivers and government can address the wellbeing of all in a cost efficient way.
Authors highlight challenges, behaviours, and community infrastructure for people to live healthier, longer and more productive lives. This is the case both in Australia and the United States.
The introductory section of the publication gives an overview of the different articles which include:
Research from AHURI found that 70 per cent of households reported one or more major building problems in 2022. Policy for housing quality standards is fragmented across governments and ministers’ portfolios. And industry lobbyists are getting the way of improving the quality of our homes. The Livable Housing Design Standard is a case in point.
Policy for housing standards is weak and overly reliant on voluntary measures. We need a national strategy to improve housing standards.
Image: front cover of the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI) report.
The research report uses two case studies to show that change is possible, but takes persistent effort to overcome lobbyist resistance. They recommend that purchasers get a performance report at the point of sale or lease. The rental sector should also have minimum standards mandated.
Relative to other countries, housing standards are not only fragmented but in some cases ineffectual. Too many standards are voluntary. Without mandated standards we cannot expect improvements in decarbonisation or accessibility for our homes.
The report highlights the lack of national leadership, and a strong lobbyist influence in maintaining the status quo. Governance processes are less than transparent, and voluntary standards are ineffective.
Case studies: Healthy Housing, Livable Housing Design
The case studies focus on the Healthy Housing Standards in Aotearoa New Zealand, and the Livable Housing Design Standard in Australia. The Healthy Housing Standard was eventually watered down to just insulation and smoke alarms.
In Australia, the Australian Building Codes Board controls the National Construction Code. According to the researchers, compared to other rule-making agencies, “there is a lack of transparency in the ABCB”. Among other missing information on their website, there is no annual report of the Board.
The report charts the history of the Livable Housing Design Standard from the National Dialogue on Universal Housing Design to the final Standard. An interview with a property industry professional confirmed their stance on retaining the status quo. That is, they lobbied for no change to standards or regulation. Hence the whole process took 20 years and still the state governments are lagging behind in adopting the Standard. Industry has not given up on their position.
Review reveals weak governance processes
An independent review of the process taken to assess the economics of adopting the Livable Housing Design Standard outlined 8 recommendations. They were based on four guiding principles that the ABCB should follow: transparency, robustness, integrity and fairness.
AHURI researchers found the Livable Housing Design Standard provided important lessons for the ABCB. The processes were not fit for purpose for this Standard.
“When forced to take up the issue by the nation’s building ministers, the ABCB ran a very slow process. They were actively lobbied by the building sector to adopt a voluntary strategy despite the obvious failure of that approach.”
The report is lengthy and is really about “why is it so difficult to get changes to the building code when those changes would benefit so many?”
The section on the case studies concludes with the need for significant policy changes. Without them, we are unlikely to address the issues facing the environment and the move to net zero by 2050.
A report for FAAB Small Homes repeats much of what is found in Australia in relation to updating to housing design to suit the current and future population. Yet resistance by the housing industry to updating housing standards and codes remains. And older people are not seeking universal inclusive design in new homes either.
Although we, as individuals, know we are ageing, the concept of universal design and easier access to and throughout the home is not a selling point with consumers. In the report one builder-developer was surprised that older people were not interested.
“We didn’t get much out of it at all … it really surprised me, maybe clients don’t think they will ever be in that situation. … I bring it up with all my clients. But they’re, ‘oh, it’s not going to happen to me’.”
Jane Bringolf reported in 2011 the same issue of ‘selling’ universal inclusive features, even to older people. After all, ageing and disability is not an aspirational factor for one’s ‘dream home’. That is why we need regulation to suit the population into the future. The idea of getting old, even when people observe their parents, does not compute. Hence the market is not asking for it and housing industry stakeholders use this as a means of maintaining the status quo.
Policy makers have been talking about population ageing, ageing-in-place and age-friendly communities for several years. But has there been any progress? The focus is still on residential care homes and this is the policy blind spot. Most older Australians are living in their own homes. So how do policies support them? And what about renters?
Three housing researchers analysed 85 policy documents against the World Health Organization’s (WHO) guidelines on age-friendly cities. They found these policies reflected outdated views of older age. That’s because the policy focus in on care and support services. This means less attention to housing, transport, walkability and cultural diversity.
Most older Australians aren’t in aged care – they are living in the community.
Policy blind spots mean they live in communities that aren’t age-friendly.
Being age-friendly for older people means age-friendly for all ages.
The research also reveals a failure to recognise the diversity and impact of the ageing process. In particular, is the lack of recognition of diverse cultural needs.
“There is almost a complete blindness to their impacts on ageing and other social determinants of health.” Regardless most older Australians want to live where they are.
In another study, researchers asked what motivates older homeowners and renters to age where they are or to relocate. It seems older renters are not given a fair choice. For homeowners, family ties matter.
Owners with children living nearby were more likely to want to stay. They might then have a reason to call on their housing wealth and become the “bank of mum and dad”. Renters, however, want the same choice but face the most disruption. Many had to move out of their neighbourhood to find a place to rent.
This is another area where policy change is needed and for many, social housing is the answer. However, social housing is in short supply.
There’s a glimmer of hope on the horizon with the new Livable Housing Design Standard. This mandated Standard in the National Construction Code provides for accessible features such as a level entry into the home. It will support many more people to age in place and reduce the need for costly home modifications.
While it will take many years for new accessible homes to make an impact, it does mean that rental housing will be included in mainstream housing stock. However, states and territories are showing reluctance to adopt this essential Standard in the face of industry lobbying. But none of us is getting any younger.
See CUDA’s short online course which provides all the technical detail for implementing the Livable Housing Design Standard.
The UK organisation for accessible housing, Habinteg, has released new research on the social and economic value of wheelchair users homes. The research was carried out by the London School of Economics. They did a cost-benefit analysis of wheelchair user housing and a qualitative analysis of how their home impacts wheelchair users in everyday life. Together they showed benefits, particularly to government, outweighed the costs.
“… it’s not just the quality of accommodation and its suitableness for living, but it’s affecting everything else to do with my life.”
“I was living a life that I chose to live, not one that was chosen for me.”
The UK already has a mandated standard of basic access features in new housing called Visitable dwellings. This covers door widths and corridors. However, it fails to guarantee true visitability to everyone and is not adaptable for households over time. There are two other standards which are not mandatory: accessible and adaptable dwellings, and wheelchair user dwellings.
People in later life who use wheelchairs (aged 65+)
They found that a working age wheelchair user, the benefit was £94,000 over a ten year period. A later years household was £101,000 over a ten year period, and for a child, the benefit was £67,000 over ten years. The financial value was divided between health, local government and the national government.
Benefits of wheelchair housing
The interviews with wheelchair users revealed the personal benefits of improved quality of life. Of being able to work, to come and go independently, and have peace of mind. Being able to work provides additional disposable income and tax revenue for the government. It also means less welfare payments and hours of home care services.
The Queensland Government is leading the way with their new Modern Homes Standard. Queensland will begin rolling out mainstream universally designed eco-friendly homes based on the new standards in the National Construction Code (NCC) from October 2023. While the energy efficiency requirements might cost more, the universal design features will cost little, if any, more.
The universal design features are a level entry, wider doors and corridors, a toilet on the entry level with extra circulation space, and a step-free shower. The Livable Housing Handbook has more detail.
The benefits to consumers are obvious, but the benefits to government perhaps less so. Consumers will eventually have homes that are suited across the lifespan that cater for most life events. Governments stand to save on unnecessary extended hospital stays, and early entry to aged care. They will also save money on government funded home modifications.
However, this has not stopped the housing industry from heavily lobbying against the universal design changes at state level. They claim that the industry has too many problems, it’s technically difficult and it would cost homeowners $40,000.00 more. Are these claims true or are they myths and misunderstandings?
Dispelling the myths
Here are some of the common claims by industry where the cost claims are confused with specialist disability housing or the old adaptable housing standard. So these claims are easily dismissed.
You can’t do level entry to the home on steep sites or on small lots.
Steep sites are exempted from dwelling access requirements. Or you can make the entry via the garage.
You can’t do Livable Housing features in a studio apartment.
It’s often easier in studio because they only have 2 doors and no corridors.
These bigger bathrooms really add to the cost.
No big bathroom required because it can be achieved in less than 4sqm. See Livable Housing Handbook.
You can’t do it on narrow lots.
Narrow properties use space smartly with minimal corridors relying on shared circulation and open plan spaces.
Grab rails make the place look ugly.
Grab rails are not required. They can be added later if ever they are needed.
People just want a regular-looking home.
The design tweaks are not noticeable other than a level entry.
People don’t want a disability bathroom.
They won’t get one. The Standard asks for a small extra space in front of the toilet pan.
Some people want a traditional closet WC.
They can have one. Only one toilet pan on the ground or entry level needs to have some extra space in front of it.
People don’t want a front yard full of ramps.
They won’t have one. Access is from the street, parking space or garage.
The extra accessible parking places will add enormous cost to apartments.
There are no changes to parking requirements. Only the internal fit-out applies to apartments.
Door manufacturers will have to re-tool to make new products.
The door sizes are standard already.
Only a few people need these changes.
These provisions are for improving amenity and liveability for everyone. It’s about future-proofing a consumer’s biggest asset.
It’s going to be expensive.
The main cost will be some timber noggins for wall reinforcement in the bathroom.
There’s a cost of living crisis.
That’s why it’s even more important to build homes that protect families from future-shock – the cost of adaptation if life circumstances change. It makes them more sustainable.
I’ve built this kind of home before and I know it costs a lot more.
This is not Specialist Disability Accommodation or housing to the Adaptable Housing Standard. These do cost more. The Livable Housing Standard normalises these common design features. That’s why they are called universal design features. And there is little, if any, extra cost.
It’s bound to cost more because this is all new and we have to learn how to do it.
These features have been applied in seniors living since 2004 and specialist disability homes. Community housing associations apply these features. There is nothing new or onerous.
It’s not a good time for the industry to do this.
It is never a good time for industry. Meanwhile it is a very good time for people wanting to move into a home with no steps.
Why we need it
Building homes based on last century ideas of housing the population has to change and it has to be more than fashion changes. We are living much longer and want to stay put as we age. The pandemic has made people even less eager to go to aged care. People who use mobility devices want to visit family and friends in their own homes. In summary we want homes that are fit for purpose for all family members regardless of what life has in store.
The Livable Housing Design Standard is a tweak to existing designs, but it is these little details that make the difference to longer term liveability for all family members.
The size of Australian homes will easily accommodate all the new provisions in the Livable Housing Design Standard. We wait for Victoria, ACT, NT, South Australia and Tasmania to keep to their promises to follow Queensland’s lead. However, NSW still agrees with industry lobbyists and is saying “no”. ABC News has an article on Queensland’s commitment to housing fit for purpose in the 21st Century.
Publicly funded home modifications are a regular feature of My Aged Care and the NDIS schemes. NDIS participants seeking independence and desires to age in place are increasing, but our housing stock is not fit for this purpose. Consequently, homes need adaptation as people age or acquire a disability. However, there is a clash of values between what the client wants, what the funder wants, and what the occupational therapist (OT) deems functional. That’s a finding from researchers at the Hopkins Centre.
Our homes are not designed for disability and ageing. Consequently, modifications are essential for remaining safely and independently at home. They are an essential part of the NDIS and My Aged Care schemes.
The chart shows the key overarching themes from the research
Researchers interviewed OTs experienced in prescribing home modifications. They wanted to gauge their experiences in the assessment process. They found that clients (homeowners) value aesthetics and property values. On the other hand, funding bodies value the cheapest option, and OTs are looking for the most functional outcome. OTs are also confronted with different decision making criteria across the various schemes.
Consequently, it is up to the OT to balance the desires of the client with those of the funder using their professional knowledge. Not an easy task, and unlikely to lead to optimum outcomes. And OTs become de facto bureaucrats in this process, which can also be a challenge to their professional values.
But what is “value”?
The research paper discusses the various aspects of value from different perspectives. The best outcomes are achieved when there is open discussion between the client, the funder and the OT. This encourages a better alignment of values.
While this paper is focused on the OT professional, it links closely with the notion of disability and ageing stigma. The idea of having a grab bar or a ramp appears to be an affront to one’s dignity. Older people see this as the beginning of the “downhill run” of life. The new Livable Housing Design Standardwill help minimise this stigma by providing a step free entry and better bathroom design. Until we have sufficient stock, OTs will continue to provide home modification assessments.
There is also a webinar on the Hopkins Centre website that discusses client perspectives of home modifications. In a nutshell, they see modifications as value for money if they meet their specific needs to a high standard. Also, the process of getting a modification has to be straightforward without wasting time and money.
Phillippa Carnemolla’s research showed the number of care hours saved and improved quality of life with appropriate modifications.
Future-proofing is best
For those who can afford to renovate their home now, it is worth considering future-proofing, rather than leaving it “until the time comes”. The Livable Housing Design Guidelines are a good reference for anyone updating their home at any point in their life. This Guideline is the basis of the mandated Livable Housing Design Standard, but has more useful information for homeowners.
Basic access features are now mandated in the latest edition of the Australian National Construction Code (NCC). This achievement took 20 years of dedicated advocacy for universal design in housing. This was achieved against the backdrop of strong housing industry lobbying for the status quo.
A paper presentedat the International Universal Design Conference, UD2022, documents the achievements brought about by people power. It follows three previous papers and could, and should, be the last chapter. But that depends on ongoing political decisions.
While the features are mandatory in the NCC, not all states are ready to adopt these changes. Also, the features are very basic and will not meet the needs of an ageing population. Hence, advocates continue their work.
At the end of my presentation at UD2022 in Italy, I had two questions that indicated disbelief that this could be for ALL housing – many thought it was just for social or special housing. Jane Bringolf.
Or you can have alook at the slides in the short PPT presentation to get a quick overview.
Abstract: This paper follows three previous ones which have reflected on the grassroots campaign in Australia to mandate a basic access standard in all new housing. The original negotiations with government and the housing industry for this reform were at first disingenuous then reluctant despite human rights obligations.
A tenacious campaign over two decades by user stakeholders, researchers, and principled housing providers finally convinced political leaders to mandate national access provisions for all new housing in the National Construction Code. The paper discusses what assisted and hampered this campaign. It then discusses why politicians eventually favoured the interests of ordinary people over the self-interests of the housing industry.
Livable Housing Design: Not our problem
Why do we keep building homes as if we are never going to grow old? A paper from 2014 illustrates that the answer is complex. But the perceptions of developers, designers and builders gives us some insights that remain today. A Brisbane study collected data from site-visits, building documents and interviews with industry stakeholders. Four key themes emerged showing attitudes remain the same: voluntary approach, otherness, immediacy, and inertia.
There is a view that people needing inclusive housing are not part of the mainstream market – they are “others”. Therefore, the answer to the problem is group homes and retirement villages. Inclusive design is assumed to be ugly and undesirable. Therefore, marketing these features will not work. Image from the gallery of Lifetime Homes in Tasmania.
The Centre for Excellence in Universal Design in Ireland has found housing the most difficult area to address in terms of inclusion. A 2024 PhD thesis looks at the issues and compares them with the progress, or lack thereof, in the UK. Even with regulation, new builds in England have been found to be mediocre or poor.
Similarly to Australia, builders of small developments are adopting universal design features. However, larger housing schemes in Ireland are failing to adopt such features.
The research findings suggest a small minority of new housing is at least functionally accessible. And even in Australia, even in states where the Standard is adopted, it is unknown if the features are actually present in new builds.
Environments that include older people include everyone else too. So it’s good to ask older people what works for them. The findings from a Helsinki study indicate that neighbourhood design, public transport and green environments influence mobility and social integration. Mainstream housing design is a key factor in supporting older people to stay within their communities.
The title of thedissertation by Ira Verma is, Housing Design for All? The challenges of ageing in urban planning and housing design – The case of Helsinki.
From the abstract: The results indicate that the neighbourhood design, public transport network and proximity of green environments influence mobility and the sense of integration within a community. Moreover, the length of residency was related to the familiarity of the living environment, which gave residents a sense of security, and supported their activities of daily life. Furthermore, the results show that older residents preferred the local services that were the most accessible ones.
A study on planning to move in later life is based on the notion that people will need to move regardless. If this is the case, the question becomes, who does the planning? The researchers are taking medical approach in two ways. First, by suggesting older people should be encouraged to plan their move. Second healthcare professionals can “help them better adjust to a new living environment”.
Does educating homeowners about universal design influence any repairs following a home insurance claim? Researchers found that almost all homeowners included universal design features in repairs. This lead to a voluntary 6- week online training program to educate contractors who work with customers to discuss and promote universal design with policy holders at the time of a claim.
A study on planning to move in later life is based on the notion that people will need to move regardless. If this is the case, the question becomes, who does the planning? The researchers are taking medical approach in two ways. First, by suggesting older people should be encouraged to plan their move. Second healthcare professionals can “help them better adjust to a new living environment”. 