flexiblefullpage
billboard
interstitial1
catfish1
Currently Reading

A white paper assesses seniors’ access to livable communities

Market Data

A white paper assesses seniors’ access to livable communities

The Joint Center for Housing Studies and AARP’s Public Policy Institute connect livability with income, race, and housing costs.


By John Caulfield, Senior Editor | November 2, 2020

DelWebb at North Ranch, an age-qualified community in North Las Vegas with homes starting from the low $300s. Access to resort living is relatively rare for older adults, according to a  new paper on livability that also finds Americans over the age of 55 are underrepresented in communities that are safe, affordable and allow for aging in place. Image: DelWebb

Most older Americans don’t reside in “livable” communities that combine safety, security and affordability with appropriate housing and transportation options, and supportive features and services that enhance personal independence, allow residents to remain in their homes as they age, and foster residents’ engagement in civic, economic, and social life.

In a 33-page paper titled “Which Older Adults Have Access to America’s Most Livable Neighborhoods,” the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University and AARP’s Public Policy Institute draw upon information from the 2017 American Communities Survey (ACS)—whose estimates categorize 217,739 Census neighborhood block groups—as a guide to analyze AARP’s 2018 Livability Index, an online interactive source that scores neighborhoods across the U.S. to shed light on the current livability of a given location and to highlight opportunities for improvement.

The Index derives from more than 4,500 questionnaire respondents and 80 in-depth interviews, as well as input from 30 experts in various fields.

 

The paper also used ACS microdata to examine profiles of older adults residing in neighborhoods with different levels of livability to suggest opportunities for addressing inequality in access to livable communities, and to the specific elements certain populations lack even in the most livable places.

The paper’s goal is to evaluate whether access to livable communities is evenly distributed across the older adult population, to assess how older adults access livability features, and to understand the characteristics of higher performing communities.

DISCONNECT BETWEEN WHERE PEOPLE LIVE AND WHAT THEY NEED

Some key findings:

•Nearly 146 million Americans of all ages live in neighborhoods at the bottom two quintiles in terms of livability. And older adults are underrepresented in most livable communities; in the least livable quintile, adults age 55 or older made up near one-third of residents.

•Older adults who move tend to relocate to newer places with similar levels of overall livability as their previous neighborhoods. Only 11% move to more livable locations, and 14% actually move to neighborhoods with lower livability scores.

 

•There is a relationship between different types of livable neighborhoods and income, race/ethnicity characteristics, and homeownership. “At every level of livability, homeownership and income play important roles in accessing features that contribute to high scores in specific livability categories,” the paper’s authors write.

Certain themes also emerged from this research:

•Livability gap. There is a disconnect between what people have and what they need in communities to age in place.

•Housing affordability. Communities that score higher on the Index tend to have higher housing costs. High housing costs can create obstacles to accessing the benefits livable communities can provide.

•Disparities in access to specific livability features. People of color, people with disabilities, and people with lower incomes may not have access to amenities and services that support aging. As the analysis shows, even when living in high scoring communities these groups may not have access to amenities and services related to health, engagement, and opportunity.

•Mobility. People tend to move to places with similar livability levels as their previous neighborhood.

•Neighborhood preferences and location choice. Individual preferences, barriers, and available community amenities may impact people’s decisions on where to live.

POLICY SUGGESTIONS INCLUDE PROMOTING HEALTHIER ENVIRONMENTS

 

Livable communities tend to have diverse housing types that include more single-person households, where older adults are more likely to reside. This factor might explain why, on average, older renters live in more livable places than do older owners.

The likelihood of living in livable communities shifts somewhat with the person’s age. Among older adults, those ages 50 to 64 as well as those ages 80 and older have a slightly better chance of living in a high livability neighborhood than do those ages 65 to 79. Among those ages 80 and older, 18 percent reside in the top quintile neighborhoods but only 16 percent of those ages 65 to 79 do. In contrast, those ages 65 to 79 are more likely than other age groups to live in lower-livability neighborhoods.

The paper offers policy recommendations that focus on housing affordability and access, creating save neighborhoods that have ample food and culture available, environments that promote healthy, clean and natural places to live; and communities that supporting resident well-being and social lives, and enable economic and educational pursuits.

“By analyzing the Index in conjunction with Census block group data from the ACS, we have revealed specific areas that warrant focused attention,” the paper states. “Housing stock, tenure, and affordability have particular influences on the access older adults have to the most livable communities.” While this analysis could not reveal if the most vulnerable older people residing in livable communities have equal access to every feature, service, and amenity, “one expects they do not.”

Related Stories

Market Data | Oct 19, 2021

Demand for design services continues to increase

The Architecture Billings Index (ABI) score for September was 56.6.

Market Data | Oct 14, 2021

Climate-related risk could be a major headwind for real estate investment

A new trends report from PwC and ULI picks Nashville as the top metro for CRE prospects.

Market Data | Oct 14, 2021

Prices for construction materials continue to outstrip bid prices over 12 months

Construction officials renew push for immediate removal of tariffs on key construction materials.

Market Data | Oct 11, 2021

No decline in construction costs in sight

Construction cost gains are occurring at a time when nonresidential construction spending was down by 9.5 percent for the 12 months through July 2021.

Market Data | Oct 11, 2021

Nonresidential construction sector posts first job gain since March

Has yet to hit pre-pandemic levels amid supply chain disruptions and delays.

Market Data | Oct 4, 2021

Construction spending stalls between July and August

A decrease in nonresidential projects negates ongoing growth in residential work.

Market Data | Oct 1, 2021

Nonresidential construction spending dips in August

Spending declined on a monthly basis in 10 of the 16 nonresidential subcategories.

Market Data | Sep 29, 2021

One-third of metro areas lost construction jobs between August 2020 and 2021

Lawrence-Methuen Town-Salem, Mass. and San Diego-Carlsbad, Calif. top lists of metros with year-over-year employment increases.

Market Data | Sep 28, 2021

Design-Build projects should continue to take bigger shares of construction spending pie over next five years

FMI’s new study finds collaboration and creativity are major reasons why owners and AEC firms prefer this delivery method.

Market Data | Sep 22, 2021

Architecture billings continue to increase

The ABI score for August was 55.6, up from July’s score of 54.6.

boombox1
boombox2
native1

More In Category




halfpage1

Most Popular Content

  1. 2021 Giants 400 Report
  2. Top 150 Architecture Firms for 2019
  3. 13 projects that represent the future of affordable housing
  4. Sagrada Familia completion date pushed back due to coronavirus
  5. Top 160 Architecture Firms 2021