Description
Compared with their contemporaries in the past, today’s architects face a far more complex task in the design of housing for people as they grow older. In the age of modernism, the principle of functional separation extended even to people themselves: elderly citizens simply “moved into” a nursing home. Old age was regarded as a static phenomenon, a special case, while the actual process of growing old was largely ignored. Today, longer life expectancy together with a greater personal awareness of one’s needs and development and a greater overall politico-economic appreciation of the “human factor” has opened up a much broader and considerably more interesting spectrum of opportunities for architects than ever before.
In the present discourse, what has perhaps been given too little attention is the level at which interactions between old people, the client and architects take place during the decision-making process. Today the users, “those affected by the planning process” as Ottokar Uhl once provocatively termed them, have found their own voice as active participants in the market economy and are giving greater consideration to their own living situation. Increasingly, they are making their own provisions for old age rather than relying on public welfare provisions. While the familiar surroundings of the home remain the most favoured form of living, people are also learning to proactively take their lives into their own hands. Rather than waiting until they become dependent on help, they look ahead, actively seeking ways of living that are more appropriate to their needs as they grow older than their own four walls. And that is good – for everyone involved in the building process.
The market players are now showing interest in the niche of housing for the elderly and are introducing products whose economic concepts and social orientation differ from those of typical housing concepts. “Thematic living” on the one hand, cooperative “social contracts” on the other – the diversity of concepts responds to the heterogeneity of society, and also provides empirical values for comparing different models. A key basis for such comparisons remains age itself. Which phases can we identify, what kind of activity can we expect from people of different ages? In his illuminating essay “The Adventure of Growing Old: On Growing Old and Staying Young” Herrad Schenk1 identifies three transitional phases of old age: the Go-gos (55/60 – 70/75 years), the Slow-gos (70/75 – 80/85 years) and the No-gos (80/85+). This differentiation happens to coincide – perhaps by chance, perhaps because it accurately portrays current society? – with three groups of people for whom our architectural office has designed projects. These residential projects for the elderly – the Attemsgasse in Vienna, a housing complex in Zurich-Affoltern and the Diakonie (Christian social service institution) in Düsseldorf – were undertaken for three clients, all from central Europe, with a view to accommodating overlapping phases of life. Although they share a common cultural background, the spatial concepts employed vary considerably.
The buildings in the Attemsgasse in Vienna, built for the Austrian Housing Association (ÖSW), follow the principle of inter-generational dialogue and were designed by Baumschlager Eberle in collaboration with the architect Elsa Prochazka. One of the two buildings is conceived especially for “senior citizens” aged 50+, the other for the increasing number of “young urban professionals” who also work from home. In the design of the apartments, the team avoided rigidly defined functions (dining room, bedroom etc.), instead striving to create flexible floor plans that can be adapted to individual needs. For example, the generous two-room apartments in the building for the over 50s can be divided – should the need ever arise – to provide space for a carer. The prospective residents are therefore making provisions for their own future through their choice of apartment. An essential aspect for the planning team was the configuration of functionally neutral areas which can be used for different purposes or changed as needed to ensure their long-term usability. Given that older people spend a larger amount of their time within their own four walls, the integration of loggias into the living area is of particular importance: the transition between indoors and outside is fluid without thresholds so that residents can enjoy being outdoors while retaining privacy. Similarly, all apartments are barrier-free. Appropriately dimensioned lifts provide access to all floors, the corridors are wide enough to turn around in with a wheelchair and any steps – including those between the apartment and terrace – do not exceed a height of 3 cm. In the configuration of the floor plans as well as the ergonomics of the details, the apartments have been conceived to cater for the needs of older residents and the changing of these needs as old age progresses. The demand for such apartments could not be greater: all apartments had been rented before completion of the project in April 2008.
Housing in the Attemsgasse, Vienna, section and typical floor plan
The second project, the Ruggächern Quarter in Zurich-Affoltern, has a different proportion of private and public areas: built for the Zurich General Building Cooperative (ABZ), the complex features a building specially reserved for people aged 55 plus (the Swiss, it seems, begin to age later than the Austrians!). Fifty residents were selected by the ABZ and view themselves as a “community” and as members of a cooperative with certain obligations within the neighbourhood. The social integration of the elderly citizens is greater than in Vienna, and the spatial concept correspondingly different. Given the “community” concept of the scheme, the ground floor contains rooms that can be used by all the residents. This includes a library, fitness room and therapy room, so that private life and communal life take place within one building. The floor plans of the two to three-room apartments are likewise functionally neutral to ensure their long-term usability as needs change.
Housing in the Attemsgasse, Vienna, section and typical floor plan
Both of the above models for living in old age offer a limited degree of provision for the “worst case scenario” where residents need ongoing nursing care, either through the provision of appropriate rooms or the ability to combine spaces as required. The nursing home for the Diakonie in Düsseldorf is, by contrast, conceived for the intensive care of elderly people. Here it is immediately apparent that much more is needed to offer residents a dignified and adequate living environment. The planning of the building attempts to break down the impression of an “institution” and the concomitant associations of barracks and mass housing. Accordingly, the 90 individual rooms have been arranged in a U-shaped building on three floors. Each “arm” accommodates 15 rooms with care facilities in the connecting section between the two. This results in a series of small groups of rooms, each with their own kitchen and communal living room. An additional advantage is that nursing care can be provided with relatively few staff, and that care staff are never far away. Here too, even when mentally or physically impaired, residents in the Diakonie can decide for themselves the degree to which they would like to take part in communal life or be on their own.
Nursing home for the Diakonie in Düsseldorf; typical floor plan
The three examples show how with each successive stage of growing older, one’s demands on one’s living environment change. As externally determined rhythms of everyday (working) life disappear, so too do opportunities for social contact, likewise as physical mobility decreases. For older people it is therefore important that their living environment offers a platform for communication and recreation, just as the so-called “city of short walks”, which has so often been proclaimed, is of elementary importance to them. The examples described above help intensify in one way or another the ability to develop a familar, a “habitual” environment in both senses of the word. Sustainable apartments are those that are functionally neutral and can adapt to changing life situations, that are equipped with ergonomic surfaces and furnished with materials that residents find comfortable. Why then, one might reasonably ask, are not all apartments built this way? In fact, studies in Switzerland have shown that this could be achieved with an average additional investment of only 2%! The advantages are clear: the added value for the state as well as for investors is incomparably higher. Such apartments allow residents to remain in their own living accommodation for much longer with a lower risk of accidents, in turn reducing the investment required for associated infrastructure.
Originally published in: Eckhard Feddersen, Insa Lüdtke, Living for the Elderly: A Design Manual, Birkhäuser, 2011.