Changing Aging Blogs
[Is your blog changing aging? Let us know at changingaging AT gmail DOT com]
- Ageless Marketing
- A Little Red Hen
- Better Than I Ever Expected
- Boomers
- Cab Drollery
- Duplex Planet
- EChronicles
- Ecumen's Changing Aging Blog
- EdlerAbuse.org
- Elder Law Issues
- Elder Storytelling Place
- Embodied Aging
- Global Ageing Network Blog
- Maya's Granny
- O'Folks
- Real Sage Advice
- Remembering Matters
- The Boomer Chronicles
- The Savvy Boomer
- The Story of Stuff
- Time Goes By
- Women's Voices for Change
Politics
- Daily Kos
- Grasping Reality
- The Huffington Post
- Talking Points Memo
- Think Progress
- The Washington Monthly
Media & Culture
- CJR Daily
- FAIR's Media Views
- FuturePundit
- Infomaniac: Behind the News
- Social Media
- Romenesko
- Truemors
Health & Science
News
Changing Aging Books
Search
Recent Posts
- ChangingAging.org Redesign -- Please Bookmark!
- Disaster in Buffalo
- Power Up Friday
- Blanchard WinsDays
- Kevin Frick writes...
- Monkhouse Monday
- Getting Closer!
- Blanchard WinsDays
- Power Up Friday
- My Pick for Health and Human Services
- Understanding Health Care Reform
- Facts Are Stubborn Things: Social Security Edition
- Monkhouse Monday
- Localism is Coming
- Krugman Can't Wait...
Recent Comments
- Tom Mondloch on
And Aging Too... - DeanOR on
And Aging Too...
Category Archives
- AGING 100
- Aging
- Culture
- Dementia
- Eden Alternative
- Erickson School
- Green House
- Health Policy
- Longevity
- Media
- Rockets
Monthly Archives
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
Subscribe to this blog's feed
Blog Data
« Power-Up: Stress Brain Drain | Main | Aspens in the Autumn »
October 5, 2008 |Permalink |Comments (2)
And Aging Too...
Witold Rybczynski makes the case for smaller homes:
Smaller houses on smaller lots are the logical solution to the problem of affordability, yet density— and less affluent neighbors— are precisely what most communities fear most. In the name of fighting sprawl, local zoning boards enact regulations that either require larger lots or restrict development, or both. These strategies decrease the supply— hence, increase the cost— of developable land. Since builders pass the cost of lots on to buyers, they justify the higher land prices by building larger and more expensive houses—McMansions. This produces more community resistance, and calls for yet more restrictive regulations. In the process, housing affordability becomes an even more distant chimera.
The post WWII suburban housing development is a sterile, social capital poor environment within which to strive for a vibrant old age.
Comments ( 2)
My wife and I live in the middle of a million people in a small house on a small lot, in a neighborhood that feels like a small town inside the metropolitan area. We're 70 and 67. The city itself is half a million people and is quite healthy socially and encourages density and in-fill building. We have a regional urban growth boundary, although it's a constant struggle to keep developers reined in. There are some disadvantages to density. There can be occasional noise problems, we've had a lot of re-modeling and construction around us, we could use more room for guests, etc.
Some advantages: People are very environmentally conscious, so we have clean air and water. We have a great, mostly organic super-market a couple of blocks away and a farmer's market a few blocks in the other direction. We know our neighbors and have a supportive community. People like it here and tend to stay. The community is fairly diverse and interesting. Medical care is abundant and nearby. There are lots of activities, and we have friends of all ages, although most are younger than us - including some in their 20s. We especially value the families with children so that we can enjoy the kids, and everyone is trying to make the city livable for families to keep them in the city. We will be getting a light rail line that we can walk to. Downtown is very accessible. We don't have to drive the car much, and my wife has been biking a lot. We go for pleasant walks in the neighborhood. As "gentrification" sets in, we see changes and the area becomes more expensive. Since we own our home, that's not really a problem, but we hope it doesn't changes the 'hood too much. We don't patronize the shops and restaurants often, but it's nice to have them and walk to our favorite Thai restaurant. Bluegrass musicians jam in the park nearby all Summer, and we have excellent classical concerts and are members of the art museum so we can drop in for free whenever we feel like it. It's a fun, invigorating place to be.
I sometimes wish it didn't take quite so long to get out of the city to go on a hike, but when we do, we're in beautiful protected countryside and even real wilderness. If we didn't live in the city, I think we would choose rural living or a small town on the coast rather than the 'burbs, but I'm not sure I would choose rural living if I were without my spouse. Of course, one of us will be without our spouse one of these days. Since we don't have family nearby or a work group, the neighborhood has become our community, and we like it and the availability of the larger city around it and the protected rural areas and wilderness outside the city.
I agree with Dean in his view that higher density housing, located near "resource hubs" creates important housing options for our elders. It also creates an efficient way to make home based services available to those elders, enabling them to live at home as long as they want to and can. This highlights an important public policy issue and an important advocacy imperative with local and regional planning agencies to prioritize intentional elder friendly communities.