Recent years have witnessed a considerable expansion in the UK in the development of new retirement villages. Whilst retirement villages and retirement communities have existed since Roman times and are clearly enduring and sustainable as a concept, we know very little about what it is like to actually live and age over time in these rapidly growing environments. In her plenary presentation, Mim Bernard sought to answer two simple questions:

• are new retirement villages sustainable in environmental and design terms; and
• are they sustaining, in social and community terms, for those who live in them?

Mim considered these questions by first looking at the UK policy context and policy drivers. With the renewed political focus on older people since the 2005 General Election, such villages are being portrayed as suitable housing and care options for both ‘fit and frail’ older people. Moreover, the UK Government’s National Strategy for Housing in an Ageing Society (DCLG, 2008) highlights retirement housing in general - if not retirement villages in particular - as key to the development of sustainable communities and ‘lifetime neighbourhoods’. With this as the background, Mim’s presentation then went on to consider what we mean by the phrase ‘new retirement communities’ before turning to the slowly accumulating evidence base on their sustainability. She drew parallels between critical gerontology and the debates and literature around sustainable environments. In particular, issues from the sustainability literature around equity between and within generations, and the communitarian basis of much of the sustainability movement, resonate strongly with a critical gerontological approach.

Drawing on work conducted by colleagues in the UK (see for example: Croucher et al., 2003, 2006, 2007; Darton et al., 2008; Evans and Means, 2007; Evans and Vallelly, 2007; Peace and Holland, 2001; Tinker et al., 2007; Vallelly et al., 2006) and from the Keele studies of such communities (Bernard et al., 2004, 2007), she then discussed what retirement villages are like as 'built environments' and whether or not they are being built to last. This was followed by an exploration of how retirement villages do or don’t function as particular societies or communities, and whether they are indeed sustaining for residents at times of crisis, illness or loss; in terms of well being; civically; and socially. Mim concluded her presentation by looking at a number of issues connected with existing and future research before challenging the audience to think about whether, in their own old age, they would like to live in one of the new UBRCs - or ‘University Based Retirement Communities’. Today, in the United States, there are now reckoned to be approximately 50 retirement villages and retirement communities either on, or affiliated with, neighbouring University or college campuses - with another 50 or so in development. They have been variously described in the popular and promotional literature as ‘Retirement communities for the PhD set’; or billed in terms such as ‘Grandparents Are Returning to College, to Retire’; ‘Boomers on Campus’; or ‘Age at your alma mater’. One of the newest of these developments - due for completion in July 2009 - is Belmont Village Westwood in Los Angeles. The six-storey, 162-unit building is for retired faculty and staff of the University of California in Los Angeles, as well as for parents of current faculty and staff.

For a full text of this presentation, please go to: http://www.keele.ac.uk/research/lcs/csg/downloads/index.htm

References

Bernard, M., Bartlam, B., Biggs, S. and Sim, J (2004) New Lifestyles in Old Age: Health, Identity and Well-being in Berryhill Retirement Village, Bristol: Policy Press.

Bernard, M., Bartlam, B., Sim, J. and Biggs, S. (2007) ‘Housing and Care for Older People: life in an English purpose-built retirement village’, Ageing and Society, 27(4): 555-78.

Croucher, K., Hicks, L. and Jackson, K. (2006) Housing with Care for Later Life: A Literature Review, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Croucher, K., Hicks, L., Bevan, M. and Sanderson, D.(2007) Comparative Evaluation of Models of Housing with Care for Later Life, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Croucher, K., Pleace, N. and Bevan, M (2003) Living at Hartrigg Oaks: Residents’ Views of the UK’s First Continuing Care Retirement Community, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Darton, R., Bäumker, T., Callaghan, L., Holder, J., Netten, A. and Towers, A. (2008) Evaluation of the Extra Care Housing Funding Initiative: Initial Report, PSSRU Discussion Paper 2506/2, Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent, Canterbury.

DCLG (2008): Lifetime Homes, Lifetime Neighbourhoods: A National Strategy for Housing in an Ageing Society, London: Department for Communities and Local Government, Department of Health and Department for Work and Pensions.

Evans, S. and Means, R. (2007). Balanced Communities? A Case Study of Westbury Fields Retirement Village, Bristol: St Monica Trust.

Evans, S. and Vallelly, S. (2007) Promoting Social Well-being in Extra Care Housing, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Peace, S.M. and Holland, C. (eds) (2001) Inclusive Housing in an Ageing Society: Innovative Approaches, Bristol: Policy Press.

Tinker, A., Hanson, J., Wright, F., Mayagoitia, R.E., Wojgani, H. and Holmans, A. (2007) Remodelling Sheltered Housing and Residential Care Homes to Extra Care Housing: Advice to Housing and Care Providers , London: King’s College London and University College London.

Vallelly, S., Evans, S., Fear, T. and Means, R. (2006) Opening Doors to Independence: Supporting People with Dementia in Extra-care Housing, London: Housing 21.