Intergenerational Cohousing: Designing for Social Change
Evolutionarily, humans are social beings, originally based in tribal communities where people lived communally. Our lives were open and codependent on other people, and this is because humans biologically require support from others. Thrown into wild, we need each other in order to survive; isolation means death. Although we have moved away from our hunter gatherer days and the dependency is no longer as primally physical, people still have just as much of a need for the support of friends, family, and neighbors in order to survive. However, the way that civilization and the way we design our spaces have evolved do not reflect the fact that connection and belonging remain to be essential human needs. Changing the design of living spaces to be more communal and intergenerational can help solve the loneliness epidemic and shift the stigmatized cultural norms surrounding aging. Bringing us back to our communal roots will help reinforce the values of respect and inclusion for all, promoting happier, more meaningful lives. I will be illuminating the connection between cultural values and design. By showing that cultural values impact how we design, I am arguing that it also goes the other way: that intentional design can impact cultural values.
Let’s rewind for a moment to remember how we got to where we are. The advent of agriculture dissolved herding and hunter gatherer culture. Humans growing food in place gave rise to civilization. Later, during the time of industrialization, people started leaving home to go to work, commuting to factories and, later, offices. Through this, something inherently communal was lost. By the 20th century, the efficiency that came as a result of industrialization permitted a private, domestic lifestyle, where households focused more on the nuclear family, becoming more closed-off from relatives and neighbors. The late 20th century into the 21st century saw a rise in urbanization, and now, even though 55% of the world’s population lives in cities closer together, the only times we are forced to confront our neighbors is in short elevator rides or quick mailbox hellos (“68%”). This is not community. This is not belonging. Our individualistic values are reflected in the emergent design of the fenced off single family home, and anonymous hallways lined with faceless apartment units. This is important because the design of these living spaces has profound effects on our well being. And as a result, we are more lonely than ever.
On a daily basis, only around half of Americans have meaningful in-person social interactions. Nearly half of Americans report sometimes or always feeling alone (Luo). While everyone occasionally experiences loneliness as a natural part of the human experience, recurrent loneliness increases risk for a wide range of health problems. Due to its impact on stress hormones, loneliness has been shown to increase the risk of heart disease, arthritis, type two diabetes, stroke, dementia, and suicide attempts (Luo). Older adults are particularly at risk. 7.7 million Americans aged 65+ were characterized as socially isolated (Cudjoe). However, our cultural perception surrounding aging and the elderly doesn’t help the matter.
In the US, when people reach a certain age, they are separated from society and placed in nursing homes where they are supposed to go to live out their lives. Families, oftentimes unable to care for their loved ones, defer to these homes that leave their elders feeling neglected, invisible, and isolated. The Global Alliance for the Rights of Older People’s 2015 report called “In Our Own Words” explored this concept of ageism through 2,000 consultations with older adults from 50 countries. A male in his 50’s said, “I see myself without a future.” A female in her 70’s said, “I am considered a spent force with nothing left to contribute to society.” These norms surrounding what it means to age have an extremely profound effects on their lives and drastically affected the “space” we think older adults are worthy of existing in.
There are different norms surrounding aging in different cultures, and the implications of this can be seen if we look into how lifespan differs by race. Take the concept called the Hispanic paradox, for example, which shows that despite having lower income and education levels, US Hispanics tend to outlive non-Hispanic whites by several years (Holloway). While there are many factors that affect lifespan, studies have shown that one of the strongest correlated factors for the Hispanic paradox is that there are stronger networks of social support and communal culture in the Hispanic community (Holloway). This paradox shows the impact and the importance of designing for an inclusive, communal culture because it can be a matter of life or death.
Cultural values that have negative perceptions of aging impact how society treats the elderly, but also how they view themselves. Shyan Tan’s study “Confucian Values as a Buffer Against Age-Based Stereotype Threat for Chinese Older Adults” in the Journals of Gerontology focused on different perceptions of aging worldwide and the effect that has on aging populations. This study built off research that had shown that stereotype threat, which happens when the fear of confirming a preconceived, negative stereotype causes one to underperform, can hinder older adults’ memory. They tested whether this also occurs for Chinese older adults, and if intervening with Confucian principles that highlight the concept of filial piety, or respecting elders, would protect these older adults from the effects stereotype threat. They used culturally Chinese older adults in the US, and had them take a memory test in order to test cognitive decline. Prior to this, some participants were also reminded of Confucian traditions of filial piety and were assured that the younger generation maintained these values of respect. Others had no reminder. The results showed that the group that wasn’t reminded about filial piety performed worse on the memory tests; the fear of confirming the negative stereotypes about old people actually impaired their memory performance. Simply being reminded that they are respected helped eliminate the stereotype threat, allowing them to perform better. These findings confirm the effects that cultural perceptions of aging have on the aged, highlighting the power of cultural values and how important it is to shift negative perceptions of aging.

Designing for communality is the answer. Communality is not only a predictor of health and longevity, but also for happiness. Professor Robert Putnam from Harvard University noted, “the single most common finding from a half century’s research on the correlates of life satisfaction is that happiness is best predicted by the breadth and depth of one’s social connections,” (Zhang). If social connections are the key to happiness, our design must foster these connections. Jay Walljasper, in the article “How to Design Our Neighborhoods for Happiness,” found that people find greater connections to the people around them when they share yards and common spaces. Architect Ross Chapin built off of this idea in his book Pocket Neighborhoods, which explored how we can foster thriving personal and familial life and a sense of community through designing buildings and outdoor spaces to promote connections with neighbors. Chapin believes that strong relationships form naturally with shared common spaces, such as joined backyards or garden courtyards. His solution is groupings of four to 12 households designed with these shared spaces in mind. This concept, known as cohousing, began in Denmark in 1972. Pioneered by a Danish architect and psychologist, the cohousing community design promotes social interactions through common courtyards and community gardens, as well as a common house with shared facilities (“Cohousing”). These self-managed communities make shared decisions together and create social ties that help achieve a high quality of life for all members.

The design has evolved throughout time to place a larger emphasis on the communal spaces. Today about one percent of the Danish population, or about 50,000 people live in cohousing (“Cohousing”). In the US, however, the concept of cohousing is only beginning to take shape. As of 2017 there were around 148 cohousing communities in the US, (“Cohousing”). The Cohousing Research Network did a survey of cohousing communities, confirming the benefits of cohousing for children, parents, single people, and seniors. They found that “96 percent of cohousing residents surveyed reported an improved quality of life,” (“Cohousing”). While these communities have proven to be successful, there is even more potential with more heterogeneity. In 2017, The Cohousing Association of the United States created a new ‘Aging in Cohousing’ initiative to “empower older adults to self-organize into high-functioning communities of support,” (“Cohousing”). While this is a great idea, having the aging population segregated in their own communities maintains the separation between older adults and society. The Cohousing movement was initially inspired by an article by Bodil Graee in 1967 that was titled “Every child should have 100 parents,” showing that the movement was geared toward benefiting children (“Cohousing”). However, why can’t the movement be beneficial for children, elders, and everyone in between at once? Creating intergenerational cohousing communities will break these barriers, connecting all members of society to help address the issues of social isolation and shift the negative culture surrounding the aging population through integrative exposure and connection.
Saettedammen, the first cohousing community in the world in Denmark, and one of the few intergenerational ones, is comprised of 71 people; singles, couples, retirees, and young families with kids. The land, including the shared walkways, gardens, and common house, is cooperatively owned, while the surrounding 28 houses are privately owned by residents. They hold weekly communal dinners and monthly community meetings about the shared responsibility of tending to the space (Melker). Jytte Helle, an older woman who lives in Saettedammen said, “something about living here keeps me younger. I’m convinced that if I lived exclusively with elderly people, I would degenerate. Living with younger people is a gift on a daily basis,” (Melker). However, the benefits go both ways. Gary Fields, another community member said, “The thing that our kids get, which is even more rare in this society, is they have regular interactions with elders, with seniors. They’re very aware of the whole process of people getting older and retiring and having physical problems and death,” (Melker). Designing for these intergenerational spaces has potential for profound cultural change.
Architect Stephen Kenney said, “architecture is a manifestation and expression of culture. As such it must acknowledge and respond to the cultural needs and values of the society with which it interacts,” (Kenney). We must acknowledge that our current designs are not serving the needs of our culture. In this era, humans are craving a return to belonging and connection. We need our designs to acknowledge its power and help foster this reality. Instead of being ruled by the forces of culture dictating design, we can dictate culture through our design. What would it look like for elderly, young adults, and families to be living all together in connective community instead of separated and isolated? By creating the spaces, values of respect and inclusion will fall back into place. Winston Churchill once said, “We shape our buildings; thereafter they shape us.” We must intentionally reshape our buildings so that they shape us in ways that we want. While this concept is seemingly intuitive, our current design does not reflect this intuition and is not fostering social inclusion, and therefore happiness. Rethinking how we design our living spaces to be more inclusive will allow us to take our health and happiness back into our own hands.
Work Cited
Chapin, Ross. Pocket Neighborhoods: Creating Small-Scale Community in a Large-Scale World. Taunton Press, 2011.
“Cohousing in the United States: An Innovative Model of Sustainable Neighborhoods.” The Cohousing Association of the United States, 6 Mar. 2017, www.cohousing.org/sites/default/files/attachments/StateofCohousingintheU.S.%203-6-17.pdf.
Cudjoe, Thomas, et al. “The Epidemiology of Social Isolation: National Health and Aging Trends Study.” The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 2018, doi:10.1093/geronb/gby037.
Holloway, Renee A., et al. “The Hispanic Social Advantage: An Answer to the Hispanic Paradox?” PsycEXTRA Dataset, 2003, doi:10.1037/e416902005–320.
Kenney, Stephen. “Cultural Influences on Architecture.” Texas Tech University, 1994.
Law, Lon. Co-Housing, the Future Way of Living. 30 Aug. 2018.
Luo, Ye, et al. “Loneliness, Health, and Mortality in Old Age: A National Longitudinal Study.” Social Science & Medicine, vol. 74, no. 6, 2012, pp. 907–914., doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.11.028.
Melker, Saskia de and Melanie Saltzman, directors. Cohousing Communities Help Prevent Social Isolation. Public Broadcasting Service, 12 Feb. 2017, www.pbs.org/newshour/show/cohousing-communities-help-prevent-social-isolation.
“Report: In Our Own Words.” The Global Alliance for the Rights of Older People, 9 Mar. 2015, www.rightsofolderpeople.org/new-garop-report-in-our-own-words/.
Shen, Yiye. Beijing Siheyuan.
Tan, Shyuan. “Confucian Values as a Buffer Against Age-Based Stereotype Threat for Chinese Older Adults.” The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 2018, doi:10.1093/geronb/gby049.
Zhang, Donia. “Cooperative Housing and Cohousing in Canada: The Pursuit of Happiness in the Common Courtyards.” Journal of Architectural Research and Development, vol. 2, no. 1, 2018, doi:10.26689/jard.v2i1.279.
“68% Of the World Population Projected to Live in Urban Areas by 2050, Says UN.” United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 16 May 2018, www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/2018-revision-of-world-urbanization-prospects.html.
