Analysing the Socially Enhancing Elements of Space in Four Senior Cohousing Sites

Architecture provides the stage for social interaction, potentially supporting the formation of relationships between people, or reinforcing withdrawal, separation and segregation. Nowadays, with the shifting of traditional family and community systems, loneliness is becoming an increasing problem, especially for our rapidly ageing population. In Europe, people over 65 years of age now comprise one-fifth of the population 1 and are arguably the most prone to feeling isolated due to wavering ties with their working environment, grown-up children and other contacts. Additionally, the currently prevalent old-age housing solutions, such as retirement homes, are becoming outdated due to their tendency for being overly institutional, often detached from the general urban tissue, isolating, expensive, as well as limiting in terms of the resident’s personal agency. My work focuses on developing an alternative to the institutional accommodation of older people. I aim to develop architectural solutions for autonomous, yet socially integrated, community-based ageing where people can reside with a group of like-minded individuals of their own choosing. Alarmingly, loneliness can accelerate ageing and contributes to the development of disease, while maintaining social ties has been shown to have a positive effect on health and retaining cognitive abilities in old age. Having a limited social network can be linked to a higher probability of overall (premature) mortality in older adults2. It is therefore not only a matter of optimising comfort, but of forming healthy environments for a rapidly growing elderly population.

As architects, we can investigate how social interactions and space are related in order to attempt to influence social behaviour. In The Hidden Dimension, Edward T. Hall3 discusses how, for example, park benches arranged back-to-back inhibit conversations, while chairs placed around a table, such as in sidewalk cafés, or traditional train compartments, help conversations start. He uses these examples to derive the notions of sociopetal and sociofugal architecture. Sociopetal architecture supports social contact, whereas sociofugal architecture hinders it. Various authors also make similar observations on the effects of spatial features on human conduct, including Gehl4, Whyte5, Cullen6 and Hertzberger7. However, research in design aimed towards supporting social interaction has so far mostly been focused on highly public, inner-city environments, although some studies in the residential context can be found. In this research, I attempt to investigate the communal space within senior cohousing communities. Here, communal refers to shared spaces that are primarily used, as well as managed and maintained by the resident community members, not the general public.

Jan Gehl4 acknowledges that architecture can not directly influence social activities, however, it can affect the possibilities for meeting, seeing and hearing people by making it possible to meet casually, to be with others in a relaxed, undemanding way and maintain established contacts easily. Whyte5 also notes that there is a close connection between the qualities of space and the activities it hosts. Gehl4 further explains that poor quality spaces mostly only support a minimum of necessary, unavoidable activities. When the quality of spaces is increased, the necessary activities take part just as frequently as before, but optional activities also begin to occur if there is a good place to stop, talk, sit, eat, play or do other things. For an activity to occur, there must be an opportunity for a starting event, an initial stimulus that can be accommodated by the spatial setting.4 But what are the conditions that can induce starting events?

Socially Enhancing Architecture

Despite the different perspectives taken by the authors, common themes could easily be extracted, such as the appropriate distances, sensory, atmospheric and quality demands on the environment. A starting event can be as little as seeing someone approaching and feeling compelled to exchange a greeting and start a conversation. The spatial conditions for this event can include, for example, sharing a common pathway or approaching within sight of the observer, being close enough to speak without shouting, and ideally in a comfortable location that can support prolonged stays. As explained in terms of sociology, when a behaviour is rewarding, it will be reinforced. When it is not, it will be extinguished. Additionally, if the cost of the behaviour is too large, causing fatigue, it will also not take place repeatedly. The greater the reinforcement, the more often the behaviour, affecting the cohesiveness of the group in question.8

The main observation is that a space needs to be not only physically, but most importantly – socially comfortable.5 Socially comfortable spaces are the ones that allow for choice and contact regulation to take place easily and can support the birth of spontaneous, casual contacts, contributing to the development of personal relationships between residents, enhancing solidarity and communal responsibility, therefore mitigating the sense of loneliness and isolation

My investigation looks at how specific, socially enhancing elements of architecture, as described by literature, can work in the case of senior cohousing to provide a communal space of opportunities for social starting events and prolonged use. Williams9 describes the features that influence social contacts in cohousing communities as design for social interaction in her paper where she studies two (mixed-generation) cohousing examples, which also helped guide some of my research design. My goal was to test the prospective architectural elements indicated in the literature by researching the user’s experience and use of the space. The senior cohousing communities that were investigated in my case are all located in Denmark. The four sites were chosen due to their diverse spatial characteristics and differing contextual settings to ensure a good comparison between the various types of compositions and attributes. The research involved visiting the sites and observing them from the perspective of an architectural researcher, as well as engaging the users in experimental exercises to try and obtain a less professionally contaminated overview of how the spaces are being perceived and used.

The following data analysis was comprised of three levels of criteria, regarding the scale and type of information. The criteria were based on the research done by Williams9, while also relying on the concepts observed and tested by Gehl4 and Whyte5. Level one was focused on the wider scale of each of the sites, looking at its context, the site layout, building morphology, building density and the proximity between buildings, especially regarding the shared space of the common house. Level two looked at the site from the viewpoint of the positioning and properties of the private units. The semi-private spaces that create a connection between the private and common areas were also investigated, as well as the sightlines to and from the various types of areas. Next, the common areas and shared pathways and parking organisation were looked at. Level three was focused on micro-locations. This includes ambient comfort, sensations and opportunities for personalization. Here is where my research found some aspects of communal living that have not been looked at in the literature. The sensation of other people’s presence, such as seeing someone’s light on, hearing someone’s movement through the walls and seeing if they have picked up their newspaper or not, has emerged as a new category. These elements contributed to the overall sensation of communality and solidarity.

Initial Assumptions

The literature4 5 9 indicates various examples of good practice that can be seen as an “ideal” way of planning for enhancing social conduct. Mostly, it is preferable to ensure small groups of inhabitants to prevent feelings of isolation or anonymity. Jan Gehl4 explains that residents in small communities are more quickly and more effectively able to organize themselves for group activities and to solve mutual problems. He further recommends the buildings are to be ideally placed in inward-facing clusters “like friends around a table”. Williams9 also finds this layout preferential to, for example, longitudinal ones. Ground-floor buildings are seen as best due to the fact they can have an immediate connection to the outdoor common spaces. Parking is to be placed on the edges of the community to avoid the common areas being consumed by traffic. Additionally, the common areas should be centrally located and ideally, a variety of common areas should be available for different uses. Shared pathways are important to facilitate casual meetings, and a gradation of privacy via semi-private buffer zones helps people move comfortably from more private to communal situations. Personalisation opportunities in these transitional areas help people express ownership, character and interests. Short distances are of course a preference to ensure not only accessibility but also visual contact and easy communication. Finally, when it comes to elderly people, there is a lot of talk about “downsizing” that appears in all sorts of media articles, strategies and publications of various kinds. The assumption is often made, that the older you get, the less space you need.

The Findings

Regarding downsizing, most inhabitants of the sites claimed that they still preferred spacious apartments (mostly from 80m2 up to 150m2 per unit) and that for them, it is not preferable to have a smaller space, but a space better adapted to their needs to make it more manageable.

Egebakken

At the Egebakken, the fan-shaped distribution of the pathways leading to the ground floor private units affects how many people you can expect to meet, dividing the flow into separate longitudinal streets. Another factor is the fact this site does not have a common parking lot. People can drive up to their units and therefore don’t have as much chance for spontaneous parking lot encounters.

Interestingly, the community has made the nearby forest a part of their social space that accommodates spontaneous meetings. Therefore, the context of the site can sometimes work to supplement some weaker features of the site. Here, it provides the inhabitants with a shared pathway and a secondary outdoor common space for them to enjoy.

Sonnesgården

The Sonnesgården community is located in the centre of Aarhus, a very different, more urban location than other sites. Interestingly, the apartments were the smallest of the lot (about 70m2), but the fact they are located centrally meant that the inhabitants have accepted that as a fair trade-off. Despite the size of the community (having about three times more inhabitants than the other ones) and the fact that it is a large, multi-storey building, certain architectural features still make it function as a socially enhancing structure.

The most important is the fact that the common entrance to the entire building is directly through the main space of the common house, which allows for many spontaneous meetings and engaging in ongoing activities. The common house is a typical part of senior housing communities in Denmark and usually includes a common kitchen and multi-purpose space. From the common house, the corridor leads to a single common staircase that condenses the flows of inhabitants from various floors into one communication shaft.

The most interesting part of the building is the svelegang – the covered, outdoor access balcony that leads to individual units. The entrances to the units attach to the svelegang via concave niches that form semi-private spaces. According to the inhabitants, this is a very social space that allows for many casual meetings that can grow into longer-lasting events. The svelegang also acts as a very intense common pathway. The appropriate distance between the passer-by (about 3 meters) and the person potentially sitting in the niche is also an important factor, facilitating immediate engagement, but also providing the choice not to engage. Therefore, the space provides easy contact regulation and is therefore seen as socially comfortable.

Sundbakken

At Sundbakken, the site is comprised of two-storey (ground + 1st floor) buildings. The assumption could be made that the units on the top floor that have less access to the immediate common area on the ground, would be less socially accommodating.

It turned out not to be true – the upper floors have access balconies that allow for the residents to have good observation points, therefore allowing for unobstructed sightlines and making visual contact with others. The balconies also allow the people on the top units to communicate by waving or calling across to the people on the other side.

Tanderparken

The Tanderparken site has a layout of ground floor buildings arranged around the central common house, as well as separating the site into four clusters that can form more intimate interior courtyards where the gradation of privacy is gradual.

Corner units in particular form intimate semi-private spaces in front of their units while still having a good view across the community. There, the ability to also hear your neighbour and feel them through a common wall has been mentioned as something that promotes feelings of solidarity and safety.

The analysis of research outcomes shows that some architectural elements can have the opposite effect to those described in literature when interacting with other elements or appearing in different contextual frames. Therefore, it has been noted through the observation of four investigation sites, that we should not only look at these elements separately but consider the possibilities for their interaction. In contrast to the usual proposal to stick to small groups, it was observed that larger groups can work just as well (or better) if there is enough density and opportunities to interact to avoid isolation and feelings of anonymity. It can also be established that the site’s composition is important, but other elements: shared pathways, common spaces and views of other people’s activities can override its effects. Therefore, if an inward-facing cluster structure can not be achieved due to building site constraints, other factors can be used to establish desired effects.

This can potentially help us navigate planning in non-ideal or restricted circumstances, where not all recommendations can be followed completely. With a better understanding of each element’s role and potential, an optimal effect can be achieved towards forming comfortable, socially reinforcing spaces. This is how as architects, we can contribute to help reduce loneliness and isolation for our ageing population.

In my case, the intent is to use the acquired data as a way of informing the mass customisation methodology for transforming underused housing in ageing neighbourhoods into socially enhancing, community-based ageing environments. The proceeds of the investigation, however, can be used to inform various types of residential architecture where the objective is to enhance social contact and foster group solidarity.