Forced "Aging In Place" Harms Our Seniors & Our Communities
- Jonathan Berk
- Apr 24
- 6 min read
Updated: 18 hours ago
Let's start this story with some great news. Americans are living longer, healthier lives overall. In fact, American's average life expectancy has nearly doubled since 1900! In 1900, the average life expectancy in the United States was 47 years; by 1950, it had increased to 68, and today, the average American life expectancy has reached 80. While this is undoubtedly positive news, the significant increase in life expectancy has altered societal demands for housing and transportation, putting even more strain on an overstressed housing market in many parts of the Nation, one designed and planned for a Nation with an average life expectancy far younger than that of today.
According to AARP, the average American will outlive their ability to safely drive by nearly ten years. Given that much of American development over the past century has been centered on car-dependent suburban sprawl, this poses a significant issue. Seniors living in suburban regions, who should be able to age gracefully, might find themselves isolated at home when they can no longer drive. Furthermore, as property values and the related property taxes increase, it becomes more difficult for seniors with limited budgets to maintain their larger homes. Additionally, many states have an aging housing supply, with homes in some parts of the Northeast averaging 60-70 years old and requiring costly repairs.
Although many Americans state their preference to "age in place," there is a growing interest in "aging in community," which is not necessarily tied to the same physical structure but another home in a familiar place. As observed in Massachusetts, this feeling is increasing among our senior population. However, due to the limited availability of new smaller housing options in most areas, many seniors have no choice but to stay in their larger homes. These homes often have unoccupied bedrooms that could be offered to young families eager to create their own memories if we create opportunities for our seniors to Age in Community without the need to Age in Place in costly, burdensome larger homes designed to house growing families.
If current trends continue across the US, one out of every five people will be 65+, further exacerbating housing supply and housing size discrepancies. Remember, when a bulk of the housing supply was built in much of the Northeastern United States, the average life expectancy was between 47 and 68. Now, with the average life expectancy in America is over 80 and more and more Americans reaching 100, our housing supply needs to be allowed to "right-size" to adapt to this changing demand and growing population.
Forced Aging in Place Harms Families
In numerous states today, as populations grow and Americans encounter a more competitive housing market, the term "overhoused" is often used to refer to an increasing segment of our population. For example, in Massachusetts, the average household size has declined from 3.5 people per home to 2.4 people per home since the 1960s. This shift is due to people starting families later in life (the reasons for which could be discussed in another post) and an aging population staying in the homes where they once raised families. Furthermore, with limited opportunities to build new housing because of decades of restrictive exclusionary zoning policies, a rising number of family homes in Massachusetts are now occupied by one and two-person households.
A remarkable statistic in Massachusetts highlights the percentage of households aged 65 and older residing in homes with three or more bedrooms. In 1980, 35% of these households lived in such homes, but today that figure has risen to 55%. Meanwhile, the proportion of younger households occupying family-sized units has significantly decreased since the 1980s. Of the total family sized homes in Massachusetts (3+ bedroom) 50% are occupied by individuals or couples over 56. That's up from 30% of all family sized units in 1980.
We urgently need to correct this imbalance by 'rightsizing' our housing supply. No one is suggesting that senior citizens should be displaced from their homes; quite the opposite! It's time to provide more options through various housing types, for our seniors to age with dignity in the communities where they raised their families, to allow the housing market to meet the needs of our population at various stages of life. For decades, most Massachusetts communities have largely restricted construction to large single-family homes, leaving seniors with no viable downsizing option other than leaving their community. We can, and indeed must, develop housing options that allow our seniors to "age in community" rather than merely aging in place, while also addressing the surplus of empty bedrooms across Massachusetts. This change must be implemented in every large city and the smallest rural town in Massachusetts, as it is vital for the future sustainability of our Commonwealth and to offer the next generation the chance to start families and raise children in our communities.
Forced Aging in Place Harms Senior Health
As seniors have no choice but to remain in larger, rapidly aging homes, they face the burden of continually rising property taxes, increasing annual heating and cooling costs, and seemingly endless and rapidly escalating home repair expenses. Besides the financial strain of staying in these large homes, seniors also experience the social isolation that occurs when their built-in social network of friends, neighbors, family, or a spouse is no longer available. Without a support network to assist with groceries, household chores, and other needs, the physical consequences of social isolation can be severe and costly. Social isolation can cause health effects comparable to smoking a pack of cigarettes a day, leading to increased blood pressure, anxiety, heart disease, obesity, early onset dementia, Alzheimer's, and even premature death. The negative health effects of isolation can also result in the need for more advanced medical treatment sooner than would have been necessary if a healthier lifestyle had been possible.
A recent survey of American adults 50+ by AARP found that 73% of American's want to age in their communities. While the typical path to a new retirement home was a retirement community, most adults 50+ surveyed stated that was not what they were looking for. They wanted community, to remain close to friends and family in a place that allowed them to maintain important social networks. Our seniors want to age with dignity and we should work to give them the opportunity to do just that.
Barriers to Building Senior Housing
A recent Marketwatch report indicates that "over 564,000 new senior-housing units are required to meet the increasing demand by 2030, but only 191,000 will be added at the current development pace. These units include independent living, assisted living, memory care, and active adult housing." Similar to the broader housing shortage, constructing senior housing in the areas where it is most needed is extremely challenging. Take Massachusetts, for example, a state known for its highly restrictive zoning policies and cumbersome permitting processes, which hinder the construction of nearly all types of housing across the majority of the Commonwealth.
Over the past decade, Marblehead, Massachusetts has seen a 21% rise in households headed by senior citizens. Despite this, residents opposed the development of a proposed 108-bed senior living facility, which would have been the first in the swiftly aging community. There were multiple lawsuits from both the applicant and nearby residents, numerous appeals, and even an arson attempt during construction—all aimed at stopping the new senior housing project.
In March 2016, following a community process that lasted nearly nine months, the Marblehead Planning Board unanimously approved the project. However, in May 2016, the Marblehead ZBA denied the necessary variances for its construction. Over a year later, in October 2017, the land court sent the case back to the ZBA to reconsider the requests. By December 2017, the ZBA granted the requested variances. In January 2018, three separate lawsuits were filed in opposition. Some neighbors publicly opposed the senior housing, with one stating at a public hearing that the residents would "likely be infirm, so it’s not going to matter that much whether they’re in Swampscott, Marblehead or Peabody.” In November 2019, almost two years after the appeals were filed, a Superior Court Judge upheld the variances for the project. In December 2019, Lisa and Phillip Mancuso filed a Notice of Appeal, once again delaying the project. By January 2021, the Appeals Court upheld the special permit issued by the ZBA, five years after the ZBA first heard the appeal. The facility finally opened to its first residents in 2023, eight years after the project's initial filing.
The challenging before us is to ensure that our seniors can age with dignity within their communities while also maintaining a sufficient housing supply for the next generation to establish and grow families of their own. If we do not thoroughly reassess how, where, and what kinds of housing we offer, this issue will worsen as our senior population expands rapidly. Without changes, we will continue to deprive our seniors of the chance to age with dignity and limit the opportunities for future generations who wish to start their own families.
The re:Main re:Think Newsletter will feature housing policy reforms and innovations from down the street and around the World, delivered to your inbox every other week, aimed at inspiring the reforms necessary to deliver a future with an abundant supply of housing options in strong, vibrant communities.
Jonathan Berk is an urbanist, placemaker, housing advocate, and the founder of reMAIN, a platform dedicated to advancing the development of missing middle housing in pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods. This platform supports the creation of infill housing by collaborating directly with municipalities, connecting strategic development sites with local developers and new funding sources, and helping communities achieve their stated housing objectives.
Comments