Having sat on a Planning Commission board for a decade plus a few years as a member and also a Vice Chair, I have experienced many things. Some good, some bad, and some left me wondering.
Yes, there are locals who turn out to resist developments. On the other hand, we have had developers who push the limit or want more leniency from ordinances.
If it is a straight development, we do not have to do anything and neither can we impose. They meet the ordinances, and we approve it. If they wish alterations, it becomes a Planned Unit Development and give and take on both sides. We would negotiate for more green space (parks, trees, parking, etc.) then. They might achieve the number of homes they wish.
The one thing we could not do is change zoning to block a development. Then you get sued.
We did plan a walkable mixed used community on 300+ acres of land. It involved single family, condos, and apartments. It also had a small commercial center for things like food stores (not fast food), cleaners and laundry, small restaurant, etc. Sidewalks, small parks, etc. It was not huge for our Township; but, it was meant to provide people with essentials without having to drive. In Michigan, you have to have a car.
Getting a transit train out of Detroit to Ann Arbor and north to Howell met a lot of resistance. It would have taken people off the highways. People were afraid of people who might come out of Detroit. There are a lot of factors that make it difficult to do the things to get people out of cars.
Developers will push the limit and claim prejudice. They bring their attorneys and note takers into the meetings we held to make sure we were following our own ordinances. We were never sued as we were careful to adhere to our ordinances which were practical. Nothing happens overnight and it may take several meetings to finally get the ducks in a row. Typically, developers were unprepared and the first meeting was a learning session.
In my experience the ordinances are often the problem in suburbia. The ordinances prioritize larger lots and segregated uses-residential removed from commercial, often by stroads. Mixed-use sounds great in theory, but in the suburb I live in it hasn’t quite lived up to the live, work, play hype.
Is it part of a BOHOA or Builder Owned Home Owner's Association? That is what ours is. Builders have 3 votes for every lot and we have one. The connected ponds aeration is not working properly and water has algae, smells, and fish die off. This is at The Lakes in Maricopa, AZ.
I understand your complaints. I was on an HOA board for 100 homes. It worked and mostly because the area was simple in construct.
Something that's missing is the lack of real innovative design in "senior residences" that takes the target market's experiences and tastes into account. A couple of examples:
1) A few years ago, I did some design work for a water feature company & we were asked to design these for a series of Seniors residences under construction. We met with their interior designers who showed us what the interiors were to look like; & they were all designed to look like a Victorian Lady's Tea Room. I kinda upset them when I suggested the residents they were supposed to attract would find Victorian stuff OLD FASHIONED.
2) My Mum went into a senior's residence & one of the issues was the demographic of the other residents. They happened to be mostly small town & rural people & being a gal from the city, she didn't fit in at all.
3) I had an older friend who moved into a seniors residence & despite the brochure, they could really never entertain guests other than renting a very institutional common room; when it was available. This really diminished their quality of life.
4) If one has a hobby, unless it fits into a narrow category, or one can do it at the kitchen table, that part of what makes a person who they are is finished
I have friends in one senior community in our region (Northern Virginia) who pretty much have free regular use of one of the communal rooms designed into their complex. This may be a function of how many participants they've recruited or a good design that did and does offer a number of such spaces for use by residents.
Before the pandemic we were tempted by a then yet to be built seniors community not far from our current home, but the pandemic experience made it clear to us just how much we value our 1950s brick rambler with its surrounding native plants yard, seasonal bird feeders, resident squirrels ad chipmunks, and the visiting hawks, foxes, and raccoons versus the shiny new glass and steel tower in its rapidly urbanizing neighborhood. Although the new center would come with health care, right now we have our clinic within walking distance along with a bookstore and our favorite coffee shop while the bus stop across the street links us to the public library and the subway to the city downtown area.
I’m very curious what city. I’ve been looking for exactly what you describe, but have yet to find it. I want to walk to a library, coffee shop, bookstore, grocery store and have relatively easy access to public transit. Boston has it, but can’t afford it as a retirement destination.
DC-Maryland-VIrginia after retiring in place, I fear it's not a solution to your problem. A lot of my friends have moved down to the North Carolina Triangle area but we don't want to go too much farther south or north from where we are.
The funniest part of this is asking why anyone thinks the housing situation today ISN’T any different than it was in 2018. Yet we’ve endured a global pandemic, a reversion to the highest inflation levels since 1982, a paradigm shift in work-at-home employment, the least affordable housing ever, and a reluctance of developers to invest in and build new homes when housing valuations are at an all-time high. All these factors have a dramatic effect on the willingness of Boomers downsizing to smaller homes.
More than that, why should a Boomer sell their house and move into “senior housing” simply because they hit some magical age rather than reflecting their needs? Seniors are more healthy and active than ever before, and there’s no imperative for them to downsize if the home they’ve lived in for decades provides a security which new housing may or may not offer—ESPECIALLY if the primary reason is merely so that Millennials and Gen Z can get their own home. (Don’t forget, many younger people don’t share the same basic adulthood goals of home ownership as do older generations.)
"More than that, why should a Boomer sell their house and move into “senior housing” simply because they hit some magical age rather than reflecting their needs?"
And their needs, in part, could be downsizing as their large family of children/in-laws have moved out, illness of some type, or as what is happening here in NH, that "progressives" (aka socialists; a rose by any other name) keep increasing the size of govt and therefore the cost. A lot of flatlanders with more money than the generations-old families demanded more services and amentities (like they had from their old digs) and that meant raising taxes that the elderly and "trailer park" folks couldn't afford any more and had to move out.
Yet, the new folks loved the low taxes - and then set out to raise them by not assimilating to the local culture.
To the latter problem - THOSE folks, because of the lack of empathy from the "not from around heah" folks (even as their ideology professes they do), aren't going to move to "senior living" places because the cost is too high.
40 years ago I bought what I thought was just to be a starter home...and because of inertia, am still in it. So now I am in a "right-sized" home for being at the tail end of the Boomers. I have no need to move and, as VB points out for many in my cohort, fairly healthy and can stay here for the foreseeable future.
Lloyd:
Having sat on a Planning Commission board for a decade plus a few years as a member and also a Vice Chair, I have experienced many things. Some good, some bad, and some left me wondering.
Yes, there are locals who turn out to resist developments. On the other hand, we have had developers who push the limit or want more leniency from ordinances.
If it is a straight development, we do not have to do anything and neither can we impose. They meet the ordinances, and we approve it. If they wish alterations, it becomes a Planned Unit Development and give and take on both sides. We would negotiate for more green space (parks, trees, parking, etc.) then. They might achieve the number of homes they wish.
The one thing we could not do is change zoning to block a development. Then you get sued.
We did plan a walkable mixed used community on 300+ acres of land. It involved single family, condos, and apartments. It also had a small commercial center for things like food stores (not fast food), cleaners and laundry, small restaurant, etc. Sidewalks, small parks, etc. It was not huge for our Township; but, it was meant to provide people with essentials without having to drive. In Michigan, you have to have a car.
Getting a transit train out of Detroit to Ann Arbor and north to Howell met a lot of resistance. It would have taken people off the highways. People were afraid of people who might come out of Detroit. There are a lot of factors that make it difficult to do the things to get people out of cars.
Developers will push the limit and claim prejudice. They bring their attorneys and note takers into the meetings we held to make sure we were following our own ordinances. We were never sued as we were careful to adhere to our ordinances which were practical. Nothing happens overnight and it may take several meetings to finally get the ducks in a row. Typically, developers were unprepared and the first meeting was a learning session.
In my experience the ordinances are often the problem in suburbia. The ordinances prioritize larger lots and segregated uses-residential removed from commercial, often by stroads. Mixed-use sounds great in theory, but in the suburb I live in it hasn’t quite lived up to the live, work, play hype.
Is it part of a BOHOA or Builder Owned Home Owner's Association? That is what ours is. Builders have 3 votes for every lot and we have one. The connected ponds aeration is not working properly and water has algae, smells, and fish die off. This is at The Lakes in Maricopa, AZ.
I understand your complaints. I was on an HOA board for 100 homes. It worked and mostly because the area was simple in construct.
Something that's missing is the lack of real innovative design in "senior residences" that takes the target market's experiences and tastes into account. A couple of examples:
1) A few years ago, I did some design work for a water feature company & we were asked to design these for a series of Seniors residences under construction. We met with their interior designers who showed us what the interiors were to look like; & they were all designed to look like a Victorian Lady's Tea Room. I kinda upset them when I suggested the residents they were supposed to attract would find Victorian stuff OLD FASHIONED.
2) My Mum went into a senior's residence & one of the issues was the demographic of the other residents. They happened to be mostly small town & rural people & being a gal from the city, she didn't fit in at all.
3) I had an older friend who moved into a seniors residence & despite the brochure, they could really never entertain guests other than renting a very institutional common room; when it was available. This really diminished their quality of life.
4) If one has a hobby, unless it fits into a narrow category, or one can do it at the kitchen table, that part of what makes a person who they are is finished
I have friends in one senior community in our region (Northern Virginia) who pretty much have free regular use of one of the communal rooms designed into their complex. This may be a function of how many participants they've recruited or a good design that did and does offer a number of such spaces for use by residents.
Before the pandemic we were tempted by a then yet to be built seniors community not far from our current home, but the pandemic experience made it clear to us just how much we value our 1950s brick rambler with its surrounding native plants yard, seasonal bird feeders, resident squirrels ad chipmunks, and the visiting hawks, foxes, and raccoons versus the shiny new glass and steel tower in its rapidly urbanizing neighborhood. Although the new center would come with health care, right now we have our clinic within walking distance along with a bookstore and our favorite coffee shop while the bus stop across the street links us to the public library and the subway to the city downtown area.
I’m very curious what city. I’ve been looking for exactly what you describe, but have yet to find it. I want to walk to a library, coffee shop, bookstore, grocery store and have relatively easy access to public transit. Boston has it, but can’t afford it as a retirement destination.
DC-Maryland-VIrginia after retiring in place, I fear it's not a solution to your problem. A lot of my friends have moved down to the North Carolina Triangle area but we don't want to go too much farther south or north from where we are.
The funniest part of this is asking why anyone thinks the housing situation today ISN’T any different than it was in 2018. Yet we’ve endured a global pandemic, a reversion to the highest inflation levels since 1982, a paradigm shift in work-at-home employment, the least affordable housing ever, and a reluctance of developers to invest in and build new homes when housing valuations are at an all-time high. All these factors have a dramatic effect on the willingness of Boomers downsizing to smaller homes.
More than that, why should a Boomer sell their house and move into “senior housing” simply because they hit some magical age rather than reflecting their needs? Seniors are more healthy and active than ever before, and there’s no imperative for them to downsize if the home they’ve lived in for decades provides a security which new housing may or may not offer—ESPECIALLY if the primary reason is merely so that Millennials and Gen Z can get their own home. (Don’t forget, many younger people don’t share the same basic adulthood goals of home ownership as do older generations.)
"More than that, why should a Boomer sell their house and move into “senior housing” simply because they hit some magical age rather than reflecting their needs?"
And their needs, in part, could be downsizing as their large family of children/in-laws have moved out, illness of some type, or as what is happening here in NH, that "progressives" (aka socialists; a rose by any other name) keep increasing the size of govt and therefore the cost. A lot of flatlanders with more money than the generations-old families demanded more services and amentities (like they had from their old digs) and that meant raising taxes that the elderly and "trailer park" folks couldn't afford any more and had to move out.
Yet, the new folks loved the low taxes - and then set out to raise them by not assimilating to the local culture.
To the latter problem - THOSE folks, because of the lack of empathy from the "not from around heah" folks (even as their ideology professes they do), aren't going to move to "senior living" places because the cost is too high.
40 years ago I bought what I thought was just to be a starter home...and because of inertia, am still in it. So now I am in a "right-sized" home for being at the tail end of the Boomers. I have no need to move and, as VB points out for many in my cohort, fairly healthy and can stay here for the foreseeable future.
North America is no different from the UK in respect of housing the boomers. One suggestion that has not gained traction in the UK is sub-divisions at scale one sub set of which would be custom-splitting http://dantheplan.blogspot.com/2017/08/migrating-to-problematic-future.html