An ageing population

Population ageing, which refers to the increasingly large proportion of older people within the total population, is according to United Nations (2017a) one of the most significant and important challenges of our twenty-first century and without parallel in the history of humanity. At present, Europe has the highest percentage of its population aged 60 and over, namely 24 per cent, and this proportion is expected to reach 34 per cent in 2050 (United Nations, 2017b). As in Europe, Belgium is challenged by a growing number of people reaching retirement age. In 2017, 24.6 per cent of the Belgian population was 60 years and older, and demographic projections predict that by 2050 this will shift to 32.4 per cent (United Nations, 2017b). Even more, the older population is itself ageing. In Belgium the share of persons aged 80 years and over (also referred to as ‘the oldest old’) was 5.5 per cent in 2015 and it is projected that 10.6 per cent of Belgians will be 80 years or older by 2050.

These demographic projections are having implications for social protection systems such as pensions and health care (United Nations, 2013a; European Union, 2015) but also clearly underline the need to ensure adequate and qualitative home environments for older people (Pittini & Laino, 2011), all the more because, in Belgium, a large number of older people are living independently in the community. For the community-dwelling older people, data from the Belgian Ageing Studies (BAS) pointed out that 95.2 per cent of older people live independently (alone or with a partner) in a single-family house, an apartment or a studio. Only a minority live together with their children (2.5 per cent) or in alternative housing (2.3 per cent), such as sheltered housing, kangaroo housing ¹ or collective housing (De Witte et al., 2012).

Inadequate housing for older adults in Belgium

To date, the Belgian housing stock can be described as ‘rather old, with many older people households concentrated in badly equipped and badly isolated houses, which are often too large for their needs’ (De Decker & Dewilde, 2010, p. 258). Vanneste et al. (2007) indicate that in Belgium, 15 per cent of dwellings were built before 1919, and 17 per cent between 1919 and 1945. A large number of the oldest houses are being occupied by older people. Because Belgium is recognised to have a low level of household mobility (van der Heijden et al., 2011), and relocation rate decreases with age, it is argued that dwellings tend to age together with their inhabitants. Results from the Belgian Ageing Studies have indicated that 40.1 per cent of people aged 60 and over in Flanders live in dwellings that are highly inadequate for old age. Recent analyses also indicate that 82.9 per cent of people aged 60 and over are homeowners (De Witte et al., 2012), which helps clarify why older people are not likely to leave their proper house and home environment. Having a home of one’s own is considered to be an important step in our housing career and older people hold on strongly to this conviction (Meeus & De Decker, 2015). Moreover, despite the presence of this unadjusted housing stock for older people, not many of them are likely to adjust their dwellings. In fact, the older people get, the less likely they are to do so (De Witte et al., 2012). As a result, a considerable number of older people continue to live in their proper, but problematic, dwellings.

Because of different events in the areas of health and housing, living requirements and preferences about the most suitable housing among future generations of older people can change (Smetcoren, 2016). Therefore it is necessary to have a wide variety of housing to choose from. Unfortunately, at present, this is rather limited in Belgium, as the following brief overview of housing possibilities available for older people demonstrates:

1. (i)    A 1st option regarding housing possibilities for older people concerns moving into a residential care facility, referring to the larger-scale traditional nursing homes where there is a strong medical approach. However, previous research has emphasised that the majority postpone a move to an institutional care setting, and for most older people this is only considered as a last resort, when other options are no longer possible (Löfqvist et al., 2013; Smetcoren, 2016). Reasons why older people do not want to move into nursing homes often entail negative stereotypes, such as the fear of losing autonomy, lack of privacy and poor quality of care (Löfqvist et al., 2013), but also high costs are mentioned as hindrances (Walloon Government, 2014). Looking at the Belgian residential housing landscape, it is predicted that there will be a shortage of 22,000 places in retirement homes in the years to come (Belga, 2016), which will bring about a shortage of places for dependent older people for whom care by friends and family can no longer be provided.
2. (ii)   A 2nd option would be for older people to live together with their children. Although this was once a more common living arrangement, at present co-residence with children occurs less and less in Belgium (De Witte et al., 2012). In 1990, there were 20,000 Flemish people aged 80 and up who lived together with one of their children; in 2007 this number was half as large (Lodewijckx, 2008).
3. (iii)  A 3rd option refers to alternative supportive housing types, such as assisted living facilities (service flats) and collective housing or living-in-groups, or whatever forms that cannot be placed within the previously mentioned types. These are typically small-scaled living environments where the focus is more on the ability of the resident to live independently and to a lesser extent on the availability of medically oriented care. Furthermore, they are usually custom-built for older people who cannot find a solution for their needs within the traditional groups of residences. Examples for collective or intergenerational housing are still rare in Belgium. However, they entail several benefits: for example, according to older residents, the presence of mutual support that goes beyond helping each other in times of need (Glass, 2013; Gerards, 2016). Although such alternative supportive housing types are still rare in Belgium, it seems highly valuable and worthwhile to explore this aspect further. To date, there have been studies on this matter (e.g., see Vlaams Bouwmeester, 2014; Abbeyfield projects, Abbeyfield, 2014). In Belgium, Abbeyfield is already present in Brussels (e.g., Etterbeek) and Wallonia (e.g., Lixhe) and there are future projects being planned in both Flanders and Wallonia. Regarding these initiatives, we think that there is also added value not only in presenting additional new perspectives, but also in reflecting about how existing initiatives (such as existing dwellings) could be improved in terms of older people’s wellbeing.
4. (iv)  This brings us to a 4th option, which seems to be highly valued by older people (De Witte et al., 2012; Smetcoren, 2016): if possible, to try to continue to live in one’s proper dwelling, at home, and try to ‘age in place’. A recent study, which questioned 2,000 Belgians aged from 60 to 85, shows that more than 80 per cent of older people wish to continue living at home as long as possible (Fondation Roi Baudouin, 2017). Home is a source of attachment for inhabitants. The meaning one can attach to a home confirms that the dwelling is much more than solely a ‘physical’ place. Often, the time lived in a particular home helps to develop a feeling of belonging to the place and the neighbourhood. In Belgium, this attachment is referred to by 84 per cent of older people (Fondation Roi Baudouin, 2017).

If necessary, there are several services available which can support older people in their proper dwelling and enable them to age in place. There is a huge challenge to further explore how the existing housing stock where older people age can be improved in terms of older people’s SWB. Later in this chapter, the output of the ‘research by design’ demonstrates various views and explorations in this respect.

Ageing in place: The importance of the home environment in later life

During the last decade, there has been a growing attention for the concept of ‘ageing in place’, which can be defined as ‘the ability to live in one’s own home and community safely, independently and comfortably, regardless of age, income or ability level’ (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2013, n.p.). Extensive academic literature on the preferences of older people themselves has shown their desire to age in place (Means, 2007). As the definition of ‘ageing in place’ demonstrates, it is not limited to the presence of a particular ‘bricks and mortar’ environment; it also relates to the surroundings of a person’s neighbourhood. Recently, also, Flemish and Walloon policy has started to acknowledge the importance of the immediate surroundings in the neighbourhood of people’s residences and of a qualitative and liveable living environment (Flemish Government, 2014; Walloon Government, 2014). Indeed, it is clear that, in line with the older people themselves, both policy-makers as well as the general public have responded to people’s desire for ageing in place (Cutchin, 2003). It is explicitly recognised that people’s subjective wellbeing is key in this aspect.

Although policy objectives regarding ‘ageing in place’ are being set up, they are ambitious and the road to success brings with it many queries and challenges that will need to be tackled. Indeed, notwithstanding the popularity of the concept of ‘ageing in place’ among policy-makers and older people, recent studies stress the need for a broader approach (Golant, 2011; Hillcoat-Nallétamby & Ogg, 2014), in the course of which ‘ageing in place’ is seen as a possible option rather than ‘a ”one-stop” solution to later-life aspirations and needs’ (Hillcoat-Nallétamby & Ogg, 2014, p. 1790). Furthermore, ageing in place might not signify that all older people should stay put or want to stay put (Means, 2007; Smetcoren, 2016).

Ageing in place and the subjective wellbeing of older people

As discussed earlier in this book (see Chapter 2), to date, no universally accepted definition of ‘wellbeing’ can be given, but most researchers agree that the concept has affective, cognitive and contextual components (Desmet & Pohlmeyer, 2013). Considering ‘wellbeing’ from an architectural perspective, we tend to differentiate between ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ wellbeing. ‘Objective wellbeing’ (OWB) concerns the realisation of objective parameters regarding wellbeing, that is, conditions that are external to an individual. Such data can be collected without subjective evaluations being made by individual people. ‘Subjective wellbeing’ relates to more subjective parameters regarding wellbeing, where psychological parameters are at stake, which can at least in part be considered as possible ‘consequences’ of the environment wherein one resides.

In general, OWB can be considered as a determinant of SWB (Desmet & Pohlmeyer, 2013). Empirical research on happiness is still fairly recent (Eid & Larsen, 2008), but Lyubomirsky et al. (2005) have shown that inter-individual differences in SWB are more a matter of intentional activities, that is, how we live our lives, than of our circumstances. So, people have the power to actively contribute to their happiness. It is therefore intriguing to consider architecture and interior architecture not only as a feature of our circumstances, but also as a platform for intentional activities that can be stimulated through design. This opens up exciting opportunities for the design community in general, and architecture and interior architecture in particular (Petermans & Nuyts, 2016).

The preparation, set-up and aim of design studio assignment

Architectural practice has its own kind of knowledge production, relying on the capacity of designing. As a consequence, in the last few years, ‘research by design’ has become a buzzword, used in the contexts of professional, educational and research environments (van de Weijer et al., 2014). According to Loeckx (2009, p. 25),

Looking at the application of research by design for our research purposes, it is clear that this can bring valuable insights in the understanding of wellbeing of older people and the contribution of architecture and interior architecture in this respect.

The aim of the design studio was to develop spatial scenarios on ‘lifelong living without care’ and ageing well in place for a selected semi-detached house close to the central train station of Hasselt, Belgium. No particular specificities were provided to the students as to the (future) inhabitants of the project; they were asked to be creative and come up with valuable and insightful proposals and scenarios.

Figure 4.1 shows the selected ‘case’ for the design exercise, which can be considered to be a typical example of a Belgian architectural project.

Figure 4.1  Semi-detached house, location of design studio exercise.

Contents of the studio exercise

In their studio assignment, students were asked to explore different possibilities intended to stimulate lifelong and ‘care-less’ ageing in place in this particular setting, and reflect and design ‘broadly’, without taking too many practical considerations into account.

For this particular exercise, the first bachelor design studios of both the architectural and interior architectural training program collaborated. In total, 132 students participated, divided into 44 mixed design teams (mostly two architecture students and 1 interior architecture student). The design exercise was organised in March 2017, at the start of the second semester, and it took four weeks from start to finish.

At the start of the design studio, every group received the plans of the location, as well as a short theoretical introduction on design for wellbeing and challenges regarding housing for older people in the Belgian housing landscape. The concrete assignment entailed three key challenges for each design team, which were intended to foster diversity in design output:

1. 1. Reorganise the ground floor of the semi-detached house to a compact and appealing living environment.
2. 2. Prepare the house for lifelong living by adding polyvalent living spaces (e.g., a communal space and/or a multifunctional room).
3. 3. Optimise the relation between the inside and outside spaces and organise the outer space as a fully-fledged living space.

Under the supervision of experienced architects and interior architects and the involved researcher, the 44 groups of students developed new spatial scenarios for the selected setting.

At the end of the exercise, each design team presented their output to a jury, consisting of presentation drawings (scale 1/50), a presentation model of their design as a whole (scale 1/50), a detailed model (scale 1/20) highlighting an important aspect of the design and including key aspects of the furniture, and a visual project summary, bringing key aspects together.

Discussion of results

In order to show how research by design can help to demonstrate valuable explorations of future architectural and interior architectural designers as to the proposed key challenges, in collaboration with the design studio teachers, four projects were selected from the total sample of 44 projects presented. The key criterion for selecting these was the score obtained from the jury, which can be interpreted as a reflection of the quality of the project. In what follows, every selected project is presented in brief. In analysing these projects, the three key challenges that were discussed earlier (i.e., attention for lifelong living, use/role of communal space and relation between inside and outside spaces) will act as key lenses.

Project 1

This design team proposed a compact solution regarding the polyvalent space between the new bedroom and the existing home (see Figures 4.2a and 4.2b).

Figure 4.2  a. Design project HSN, floor plan. b. Design project HSN, model.

Source: Heeman, Slijpen, Naveed, 2017.

Regarding the aspect of attention for lifelong living, the team introduced new functions on the house’s ground floor (i.e., bedroom and multifunctional space), which were connected to the rest of the dwelling while still guaranteeing privacy. As to the newly introduced communal space, Figure 4.2a demonstrates students’ efforts to open up the existing dwelling to the garden, so that more light and brightness could be introduced to lighten the residence. Evidently, at the same time, the new extension brings about extra space and shows how the spatial experience of the whole has been a key topic for this design team. Concerning the relation of inside and outside, Figures 4.2a and 4.2b show how the new extension, containing a lot of glass, has almost no threshold between inside and outside, which fortifies the interior atmosphere and living quality in both the new extension and in the existing spaces of the dwelling. The roof of the new extension is also placed in a playful way in relation to the original house.

Project 2

As Figure 4.3a demonstrates, this team came up with a clear plan in which the kitchen and a new bedroom were housed in two separate extensions, which were connected to the existing dwelling by means of a communal garden room/corridor. The whole is organised around a courtyard that is accessible from the common parts (Figure 4.3b).

Figure 4.3  a. Design project JUV, floor plan. b. Design project JUV, model.

Source:  Jamar, Ulrichts & Verheyden, 2017.

Concerning attention for lifelong living, this design team organised the main functions at the ground floor of the existing dwelling. In the newly added extensions, a kitchen and a bedroom were placed for new inhabitants. As to the role of the communal space, Figures 4.3a and 4.3b demonstrate how the courtyard has a key role in this project, being the space that connects the original dwelling and the new extensions. Regarding the relation of the inside and outside, the courtyard helps to create intimacy in the city, but also brings openness and brightness in the new kitchen and bedroom. In addition, this courtyard can truly interconnect the existing dwelling and new extensions via its functioning as a corridor. The glass enclosing both new extensions guarantee a wonderful connection between the inside and outside, which heightens the living quality of these new interior spaces.

Project 3

This design team came up with a clear floor plan which had good proportions. In addition, the context was taken into account well, while providing, for instance, easy access to the garden from the street. As Figure 4.4a demonstrates, over the whole length of the terrain, getting to the garden was made possible by a path that ran from the street to deep into the garden.

Figure 4.4  a. Design project VCLJ, floor plan. b. Design project VCLJ, model.

Source: van Cornoedus, Lenaerts & Jaspers, 2017.

Regarding attention for lifelong living, the open plan ensures a flexible layout, which can be highly valuable when striving for lifelong living. As to the communal space, the kitchen added in one of the new extensions connects a family (foreseen to live in the existing dwelling in this project) and an elderly couple (foreseen to live in the newly added extensions). Next to the kitchen, a seating area and a bedroom are placed in the new extensions. Concerning the relation of the inside and outside, the awning (extension of the roof) connects inside and outside. As Figures 4.4a and 4.4b show, by providing a front garden and an enclosed garden behind the house, two different outdoor areas are created, each with their own character and function. Consequently, the division of the house is relatively easy to realise.

Project 4

As Figures 4.5a and 4.5b demonstrate, in this project the enfilade ² of spaces (properly dimensioned) ensures a flexible interpretation and use of space. This pattern was also extended outside. In this way, the transition between inside and outside is very gradual. The outdoor space is an extension of the interior space. The context of the dwelling was taken into account nicely. An outdoor space that is located back from the street offers access to the new extension. In this way, both the existing home and the extension can function separately.

Figure 4.5  a. Design project VDB, floor plan. b. Design project VDB, model.

Source: Vangronsveld, Dekkers & Boon, 2017.

Regarding attention for lifelong living, this design team opted for a flexible interpretation of the rooms. Figures 4.5a and 4.5b demonstrate the way the design team integrated various functions in the different spaces. In this project, ‘communal spaces’ (now a kitchen, living space and dining space) were interpreted in a flexible way so that, over time, the functions as they are currently foreseen, can alter. In the current design set-up, both simultaneous and non-simultaneous use of these spaces is possible. Concerning the relation inside to outside, the design team decided to persevere in the use of the enfilade pattern, safeguarding a logical connection between inside and outside.

Analysis of results

As the projects discussed demonstrate, although every design team worked on the same location, there is a great variety in the architectural and interior translation and formulation of proposals as to the three key challenges on lifelong living, the communal space in between and the relation between the inside and outside. Overall, most design teams proposed a project wherein ‘grandparents’ would be introduced as new inhabitants in the dwelling, which their children inhabited together with their loved ones, and whose dwelling would be adapted in order to guarantee (or, at least, facilitate) ‘lifelong living without (much) care’. Regarding the aspect of lifelong living, each of the selected teams proposed different scenarios and ‘solutions’, depending on the key issues that each of them wanted to put forward. This is also clear in the various architectural and interior translations as to the use of the communal space that needed to be incorporated in between, or the relation between the interior spaces and the garden. The projects share each team’s careful attention for lightness, brightness and the integration of nature. Most projects also share the safeguarding of the valuable connection with the neighbourhood and the city, so that easy connections between ‘private’ and ‘public’ spaces are possible.