They say
that the only way to eat an elephant is one bite a time. Slowly, steadily, methodically. Having now written two posts on the overlap between
urbanism and senior living, I suspect that my task is much like eating an
elephant. Describing the many aspects of
urbanism versus senior life is a multi-faceted and complex undertaking. And writing 800-word blog posts seems to be only
nibbling around the edges.
Furthermore,
I didn’t begin to consume the elephant in the best order and now find myself with
the need to fill a logical gap.
I began the
subject with a suggestion that neither the American approach of
institutionalized eldercare, often in non-walkable settings, nor an anecdotal
Venetian example of an older gentleman maintaining urban relationships but perhaps
without adequate care or socialization seemed to be quite right. I then continued with an explanation of how
market forces are keeping seniors in their drivable suburban homes
even when other options, such as urban settings, might better meet their needs.
But that omitted
a logical step, the question of whether urban settings are appropriate for
seniors. Having questioned whether the
Venetian example was a good model, it was a gap I should have filled.
So, today
I’ll backtrack and try to make my case for living one’s later years in an urban
setting. With that missing piece
addressed, I’ll then begin to tackle other questions such as how to bring more seniors
into urban areas and how to remedy some of the deficiencies of senior life in
drivable suburbia. The slow and steady
consumption of the elephant can continue.
Having written
this blog for nearly three years, I know that a frequent response to urbanism is
“But not everyone wants to live in dense urban areas!” It’s a classic strawman response, implying that
removing barriers to urban residential development will lead inevitably to
everyone being marched downtown to reside in Soviet-style concrete boxes and
then arguing against that falsely-assumed final result. The argument is nonsense, but is repeated
sufficiently often that I’ve dubbed it the Coercion Myth.
So let’s
start there. Living in urban settings wouldn’t
be right for all seniors. Those who live
in a strong suburban family setting where they fill an essential element of
family life, those who have a sufficiently robust transit connection that they
can meet their daily needs from a suburban location, or those with medical
conditions that preclude them from enjoying urban life won’t benefit from urban
options. And therefore no one is
suggesting that all seniors must live downtown.
But that
still leaves a lot of other folks for whom urban life can be a good fit. And the predominant reasons are mobility and
the possibilities that flow from mobility.
After a long life of enjoying the freedom that the American approach to
land use conveys to those with a driver’s license, it can be quickly isolating to
lose driving privileges. Even if family
members are willing to act as chauffeurs, it can be limiting to rely on someone
else for the mobility that one has taken for granted for a half century or
more.
There can also
be mental health aspects. Having the
independence to walk to a hardware store for a screw to finish a household
repair gives a sense of power which can lead to aging well. And making new friends, whether over coffee
in the morning or at a pub in the afternoon, can also be life-sustaining.
Andrew Price, writing in StrongTowns, makes
the case well, noting the value of retained mobility and social connections for
seniors. (The argument that Price makes
is slightly different from the argument that I’m making. He argues that we should quit building places
where seniors can become isolated. I’m
arguing that seniors who find themselves in isolating places should have the
option of relocating to more sustaining urban locations. But the arguments are two sides of the same
coin.)
I often link
other articles within this blog. Most
are optional as they only provide further facts behind an argument I’m making. But some are so well-written that they truly deserve
to be read. Price’s article is one of
the latter. If your day permits, I
encourage you to savor the arguments that he offers, including the tale of the parallel
grandmothers.
Once again,
urban life isn’t going to be the right fit for all seniors. But it can be a fine solution for many. In a world where many are clamoring for more
urban life options, seniors can be added to the list, providing yet one more
reason why we should quit making suburbia the default land-use paradigm.
With the
missing logical step restored, we can now resume dining on the elephant in a
logical order. Next up will be a look at
a range of urban senior housing solutions, including the argument that the
apartment in which the Venetian gentleman lived might not be the best solution for
all. From there, we’ll look at how to
bring touches of urbanism to seniors who are stuck in suburbia. (The photo above is of a senior living
facility within a mixed-use neighborhood in Oregon.)
As always,
your questions or comments will be appreciated.
Please comment below or email me.
And thanks for reading. - Dave Alden (davealden53@comcast.net)
No comments:
Post a Comment