Want to know what older people want in home design? The Housing for Life: Designed for Living guide was developed for the South Australian Government with an emphasis on population ageing and supporting active ageing policies. The report documents the features and factors that older people themselves identified as important as well as industry perspectives. It also outlines the economic arguments for considering the housing needs of older people. Examples of floor plans are included. The report is 16 pages in PDF. The key principles identified through the co-design process are:
Choice: Older people want choices about how they live
Quality: It is better to invest in quality fixtures and fittings now for better efficiency
Wellbeing: Wellbeing is a direct result of connectedness with community and home.
Design: The concept of passive and flexible design
Cost: They prefer smart investment and the ability to personalise their homes
Smart: Smart technology and renewable energy stand the test of time
Access: Proximity to transport, services and the community is fundamental
> Technology has a critical role to play in meeting unmet needs for independent living, connected living and well-designed housing.
> Older people are a diverse group and no single design will meet all needs.
> Co-design between the housing sector and end-users is essential for accurate and relevant design.
> Quality design and product are highly valued and of equal importance to design features that address ageing-related challenges.
> Features that are valued in age friendly housing and neighbourhood design are energy efficiency, natural lighting, connection between indoor and outdoor spaces, walkability, proximity to transport and services, connection to community balanced with privacy and security, and capacity for personalisation.
A related report from the US has similar recommendations. Researchers in South Dakota found lack of demand was overstated and that the role of terminology plays an important part in consumer perception. In their study, participants assessed the appropriateness of different situations using vignettes. Participants were also asked about the relevance of UD in everyday life, and whether UD sounded environmentally friendly, attractive, or expensive.
The report has an executive summary and recommendations that follow other US studies in recommending visitability features (similar to Silver level of Livable Housing Guidelines). This is because the original concept of UD provides for an iterative process of continuous improvement and adaptation. “Therefore, any attempt for widespread implementation will likely be cumbersome and counterproductive”.
The title of the report is, Housing Across the Lifespan:Consumer knowledge and preferences. By Leacy E Brown, Jane Strommen and Susan Ray-Deggs.
Editor’s note: From a purist UD position I agree that regulation or a standard can be counterproductive. From a pragmatic position it needs regulation in housing because it is the only way to get cohesion of results across this fragmented industry.