Professional collaborative housing concepts for seniors

Abstract

The Netherlands faces the challenge of a rapidly ageing population, which demands more diverse housing concepts for seniors. Collaborative housing (CH) concepts are a promising solution to promote contact and mutual support, counteract loneliness, and reduce public health expenses. Professional-led CH concepts is an emerging phenomenon that could allow a faster and more accessible supply of senior dwellings than resident-led projects. However, little is known about the perceived value of use by the residents. This study raises the question: How do professional collaborative housing concepts for seniors satisfy the end user's demand? CH concepts for seniors are defined as a differentiated housing solution that focuses on promoting togetherness, provide at least one shared space, and targets the over-55s. Three professional-led CH projects are in-depth by performing mixed-method research. A thorough analysis of the cases showed that most respondents experienced benefits compared to their former dwelling, like more contact with neighbours, live with like-minded people and enjoy life more. Two types of initiators can be distinguished. The commercial-oriented initiators are the most skilled in a lean and mean development process. They deliver dwellings with high use value by emphasising smart technology and communality as an outsourced service for the resident. The ethos-oriented initiators use a custom-fit approach to assemble a motivated group of residents that form a strong foundation based on shared social values. In this development process, the communal organisation is led by the residents, in which social values could thrive. This study shows that the professionalisation of CH for seniors is promising when the initiators stay close to the end-users' needs, which asks for design disruption. However, caution is necessary because commercialising communality can cause residents' responsibility towards each other to disappear. Cases showed how financial objectives could clash with the three fundaments of CH by 1) as additional selection for an intentional community raises vacancy risk; 2) allowing for user involvement in the design and maintenance asks for intensive guidance and; 3) legal, financial and organisational challenges in delivering a common area causes extra effort and time. Caution is needed for the commercialisation of communality, as responsibility towards each other disappears, diffusing both the concepts and the communal benefits. CH concepts will have little chance without additional organisational and financial support in a scarce housing market ruled by financial interests. Governments and societal initiatives can play an important role in shifting the boundary to demand-driven developments, looking beyond profit and risk minimisation.