Ok, we all know you will never be old… but just in case, can we talk about it?

Rose Gilroy reports on the first of a series of events asking tough questions about later life.

24 men and women in their 50s and 60s were invited to Northern Stage in July 2013 to participate in ‘conversations’ about ageing.

Previous projects undertaken by the researchers* on the viability of co-housing for older people aimed to address widespread dissatisfaction with the physical and social architecture of specialist housing. Conversations evolved which were less about co-housing and where we might live and more about how we might live. Creative approaches such as drawing and role play led people to explore their views on later life very deeply.

It isn’t easy to have difficult conversations about what will happen when we get old – our families and close friends may not want to talk about it either.  We tried to reflect this in our choice of invitation, printed on a playing card as a reminder that often we leave a ‘good’ old age to chance.  Participants were chosen to include those both in and out of waged work and because they were known as people who were prepared to engage by the researchers.

Cartoons that made wry comments on ageing were scattered on the table to help break the ice.  Paper table cloths were used and people were encouraged to write down their thoughts or observations.

Sets of questions, again on playing cards, were placed on each table of four people. The groups were encouraged to look at the questions and, if one struck a chord, they should use it to engage the others. Blank cards were also provided so that participants might write their own.

At the close, participants were encouraged to scribble on the graffiti sheets pinned on the wall to share their reflections on their experience, its broader application as a method and who else ought to be included in these conversations.

We were nervous, would people respond to what we thought might be key questions:

How do I avoid empty days? How do I find recognition when I no longer have formal status? How and where will technology feature in my life? How can I manage transitions? How do I celebrate my achievements? How can I keep a supportive network of people round me? Where do I want to live and how?

The response was very positive. Some participants found the evening challenging but commented “we need the space to explore our own feelings on how to live, not just how others organise it.”  There was enthusiasm for the method of using conversation cards and many suggestions about making this into a kit for naturally occurring groups to use.

Questions that occurred to us as a result of this event included:

Might younger people have ideas to put forward; what about older people from minority communities – do they have similar issues? Men seem to find it more difficult to open up about these issues so how about engaging men only groups?

The issues raised are currently being analysed in preparation for further `conversations` and will be taken forward into publications and (possibly) a conversation kit.

*Researchers: Rose Gilroy, School of Architecture, Planning and Landscape; Barbara Douglas, Quality of Life Partnership; Moyra Riseborough, Independent Housing Consultant

invitation for august

The Housing Question

At a basic level, the current housing crisis represents short supply: insufficient homes of the right kind, in the right place, at the right price. But if we look beyond the ‘monitor and manage’ assessment of housing stock, to consider ‘how and where’ people live in relation to others and their local environment, it is clear that the current crisis far exceeds what is usually debated as the ‘housing question’.  For those, like me, who reject what mainstream market models have to offer, there is growing optimism that civic groups are uniquely equipped to imagine and realise more ‘neighbourly neighbourhoods’ that embrace novel low-impact, collective and democratic alternatives. This is evident in the way that renewed interest in community-led housing directly engages with integrated aspects of social, economic and environmental sustainability: housing is viewed as a function of wellbeing and waste-reduction in situations where participatory practices challenge isolated cultures of privatised consumption.

I am personally inspired by cohousing as a pragmatic approach to neighbourhood scale collaborative housing. The concept derives from Danish boflesskab (living-togetherness) and Swedish kollektivhus (collective housing) dating from the late 1960s but it captures the enduring ideals of a much longer communal imagination.   In absolute terms, completed resident-led cohousing schemes are few in number (accommodating an estimated 9.5 thousand households in the USA; fewer than 500 in the UK), yet estimates of ‘forming’ groups suggest considerable unmet demand.  A recent map of Kollektivhus in Sweden (shown below) indicates the potential ‘normalisation’ of cohousing when resident groups are able to form mutually beneficial alliances with non-profit housing providers.  The defining features of cohousing include the clustering of smaller-than-average private residences; extensive shared outdoor space; common facilities for shared daily use; and consensus-based collective self-governance. Project construction can be resident led, developer led, or joint venture, but all projects typically adopt a process of participatory co-design. Typical clustering is illustrated below in North American cohousing.

The most exciting social and environmental gains arise in cohousing from a ‘soft infrastructure’ of sharing that would not routinely surface or be supported in a conventional street of private dwellings.  This argument is made by Jarvis and Bonnett (2013) through a comparison of different forms of village-like housing and community arrangement.  Straightforward examples of  ‘saving space and sharing time’ include collectively owned and maintained domestic appliances, DIY and garden tools, and the routine ‘free-cycling’ of bulky household items (as illustrated below).  In cohousing the aim is to strip all nonessential or infrequent space (and energy) uses out of the individual dwelling.  Significantly, the way that space and amenities are collectively designed and managed routinely establishes social interactions and trust that rest with and replenish a shared mental outlook that is essential to this degree of sharing.  This is best illustrated in the way cohousing neighbours regularly sit down to eat meals that they prepare and eat together in the common house. A flavour of the complex socio-spatial relations involved in collective living is provided by  Richard Sennett (2012, x) who argues in his book Together that collaboration is a craft that ‘requires of people the skill of understanding and responding to one another in order to act together’.

Dr. Helen Jarvis

School of Geography, Politics and Sociology, Newcastle University UK

http://www.ncl.ac.uk/gps/staff/profile/helen.jarvis
http://experimentsincommunity.wordpress.com

Twitter @Communityvita

Download Jarvis, H. and Bonnett, A. (2013) Progressive Nostalgia in Novel Living Arrangements: A Counterpoint to Neo-traditional New Urbanism? Urban Studies, 50, 11, pp: 2349-2370

http://usj.sagepub.com/content/50/11/2349