Category: Housing research

The top five reasons for multigenerational living are financial, care arrangements and support, adult children yet to leave, starting or continuing education, and older (grand)parents moving in. The reasons behind the trend towards multigenerational living are not quite as simple as the list implies. Cultural factors are also part of the story. Home ownership of a detached dwelling is critical to successful multigenerational living. There is usually greater flexibility to modify and adapt the home as needs change, which is not possible in apartments or rental properties.

These are the findings in a book chapter by Edgar Lui, Hazel Easthope, Bruce Judd and Ian Burnley. They end the chapter by discussing policy implications and include the need to adopt universal design principles in all new properties and major refurbishments. They add that although these principles have been around for more than 50 years they are yet to materialise in home designs as voluntary codes  which are unlikely to be agents of change.

The title of the chapter is “Housing Multigenerational Households in Australian Cities: Evidence from Sydney and Brisbane at the Turn of the 21st Century.” 

The title of the book is, Housing in 21st-Century Australia: People, Practices and Policies.

Brief introduction to the book by Routledge: “Over the last two decades new and significant demographic, economic, social and environmental changes and challenges have shaped the production and consumption of housing in Australia and the policy settings that attempt to guide these processes. These changes and challenges, as outlined in this book, are many and varied. While these issues are new they raise timeless questions around affordability, access, density, quantity, type and location of housing needed in Australian towns and cities. The studies presented in this text also provide a unique insight into a range of housing production, consumption and policy issues that, while based in Australia, have implications that go beyond this national context. For instance how do suburban-based societies adjust to the realities of aging populations, anthropogenic climate change and the significant implications such change has for housing? How has policy been translated and assembled in specific national contexts? Similarly, what are the significantly different policy settings the production and consumption of housing in a post-Global Financial Crisis period require? Framed in this way this book accounts for and responds to some of the key housing issues of the 21st century.”

The terms “visitable housing” and “visitability” are essentially about people who use mobility aids having the same rights to visit friends and family in their homes. It doesn’t necessarily mean they can live there or stay overnight. The three key features associated with visitability are a step free entrance, wider doorways and a usable toilet on the entry level. These features are reflected in Part M of the UK building code.  Various states in the US have tried to encourage uptake of visitability, but it is not mandated.

Visitability differs from full accessibility and universal design. It is a minimal baseline seen by some as a cost effective way to entice the property industry to get on board with the ideas. Although the concept has been around for twenty years, it has gained little, if any, traction. Visitability is not a concept easy to sell unless the buyer thinks they need it. And few do. 

A research project carried out in Ohio in 2015 looked at: home-buyers’ perceived value and perceptions of visitable features; developer, designer and builder perspectives; real estate agent views; estimated costs; and which house buyers were most likely to buy. The aim of the report was to create a persuasive argument for adopting visitability in new homes in Ohio. However, the researchers acknowledge industry resistance and suggest incentives to encourage uptake, or mandating the features.

The report is structured into three sections based on their surveys of three groups: homeowners and home buyers, industry stakeholders, and real estate agents. All groups were asked to assess photos of visitable features in homes. In all instances, participants believed the homes would sell for more and sell more quickly. Industry stakeholders estimated the features would cost less than one per cent of construction costs. This is in line with other research.

The title of the report is, Perceived value of visitable housing in Ohio. It is also available through Academia.edu. 

Elements of the research are also available in an academic paper by the same authors in, Homeowner and homebuyer impressions of visitable features.  

Why do we keep building homes as if we are never going to grow old? The answer is complex. But the perceptions of developers, designers and builders gives us some insights. A Brisbane study collected data from site-visits, building documents and interviews with industry stakeholders. Four key themes emerged showing why nothing has changed: voluntary approach, otherness, immediacy, and inertia.

The strongest theme was the voluntary approach. It’s considered too risky to be a first mover – it could be a disadvantage. There is a view that people needing inclusive housing are not part of the mainstream market – they are “others”. Group homes and retirement villages were seen as the answer. Inclusive design was assumed to be ugly and undesirable. Therefore it couldn’t be marketed.

In terms of immediacy, the focus is the new home buyer not the long term use of the dwelling. It was also assumed that a young family wouldn’t want it. Consequently there isn’t a market for it. Inertia, was expressed as the reluctance to “change the way we do things around here”. The culture of building by rote dominates the house building system.

There is more in this study about interventions that might assist, one being regulation. Keeping a competitive level playing field is paramount in the industry. Bottom line, inclusive housing is not perceived as mainstream and therefore someone else’s responsibility. Consequently the Livable Housing Design Guidelines are insufficient in themselves to bring about change. 

The title of the open access article is, Livable Housing Design: The voluntary provision of inclusive housing in Australia. While this was published in 2014 it still remains current because no change to regulation or practice has occurred. However, we wait to see what the Australian Building Codes Board recommends to the Building Ministers Forum on the matter of accessible housing. The picture is from the gallery of Lifetime Homes in Tasmania.  

The conclusion that younger people look for different design elements in a home than older people is somewhat obvious. However, it is good to have a study that shows this. Surveying people in three age groups, researchers found some key elements that should help designers design across the lifespan. Younger people have a different design focus because they rarely consider the impact of unexpected events, even ageing, on the functionality of the home. After all, accidents happen to other people, don’t they? And no-one aspires to growing old or developing an impairment or chronic and disabling condition. 

The title of the publication is, “Requirements and opinions of three groups of people (aged under 35, between 35 and 50, and over 50 years) to create a living space suitable for different life situations.” The abstract below gives a good overview of the topic. 

Institutional access is via Science Direct, or a free read via ResearchGate.

Abstract: The role of this study was to determine which changes people think they need to make in their home in response to getting older. At an advanced age, the likelihood of different limitations, such as vision impairment, hearing impairment, or physical inability, are increased. At present, when faced with such limitations, tenants are often forced to leave their long-term living spaces, as these spaces cannot serve their “new” individual needs. This transition from the privacy of their home to a new environment is often a painful change. They must leave a well-known environment, as their homes cannot be adapted to their new needs. The aim of this paper is to develop a comprehensive approach for the design of an exterior and interior space which can serve people through all stages of life, particularly in terms of mobility. This means that, even if an unexpected situation incurs changes in an individual’s movement abilities or physiological limitations not only by natural aging, but also according to accidents or disabilities their living space can be adapted to the given conditions. The results of a survey conducted in Germany and Slovakia are presented. In the survey, respondents expressed their opinion on what they considered important in creating an adaptive environment, considering various life changes. The results of the survey are statistically processed and analyzed by the ANOVA method, a form of statistical hypothesis testing. The results are processed graphically and presented in tables, along with explanations. The results could be of an interest to the architects and designers of such environments. Based on the results of the survey, studies of possible modifications of flats and houses are developed. These results are analyzed in terms of three age groups: people aged below 35, those aged 35–50, and those aged over 50. People under 35 are considered to be quite young, with different views on life and on the environment. Their priorities typically differ from those of people around 50. People aged 50 more; have been under medical treatment for a consistent amount of time. This group of people is still active; however, they experience different design requirements for their potential home.