Elder Co-Housing in the United States: Three Case Studies

Author(s): ANNE P. GLASS

Source: Built Environment (1978-), Vol. 38, No. 3, Co-Housing in the Making (2012), pp.
345-363
Published by: Alexandrine Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23290268
Accessed: 23-03-2022 11:30 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23290268?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Alexandrine Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Built
Environment (1978-)

This content downloaded from 88.226.106.31 on Wed, 23 Mar 2022 11:30:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Elder Co-Housing in the United
States: Three Case Studies
ANNE P. GLASS

Borrowing from the Danish and Dutch model, elder co-housing communities now
exist in the United States as an innovative alternative to more traditional housing
options for older adults. This article presents case studies of the first three such
communities, which differ distinctly from each other. Glacier Circle in Davis,
California, was the first to open, in December 2005, with eight units. It has the
oldest population, comprised of long-time friends, with the average age at move-in
of 81.7 (range of 75 to 91). ElderSpirit Community opened two months later in
Abingdon, Virginia, with a mean age at move-in of 70.4 (range = 63 to 84). With
over twenty-nine units, it is the largest community, and includes both residents
who own their homes and some who rent government-subsidized units. ElderSpirit
Community espouses mutual support and spirituality as values. In October 2007,
Silver Sage opened with sixteen units in Boulder, Colorado. Silver Sage targets
'pro-active adults aged 50+', and thus had a younger mean move-in age of 64.3
(range from 54 to 81). The case studies encompass how these communities came
into existence; their physical designs; demographic profiles, health, and levels of
satisfaction of their residents; and physical design lessons learned. The results of
these case studies demonstrate elders can create their own communities and will
benefit others who are looking for alternative ways of living as they age.

Elder co-housing communities, in which
older adults can choose where and with
whom they want to live as they age, are a
new arrival in the field of retirement housing
options in the United States, although inter
generational co-housing communities have
existed since the 1980s, when McCamant
and Durrett (1994) imported the idea from
Europe. While 'senior' co-housing or 'living
groups' (Brenton, 2008) have flourished in
countries like Denmark and the Netherlands
for several years, it was not until a two-year
period between 2005 to 2007, that the first
three elder co-housing communities opened
in the United States, in California, Virginia,
and Colorado. This article will describe (1)
how they got started, (2) development and
funding, (3) the resultant communities, (4)
the residents, and (5) some physical design
lessons learned. Since that time, only one
other such community has opened, in New
Mexico (2010), but several others are under
construction or in the planning stages.
These communities offer some unique
features that are appealing to ageing Ameri
cans, especially an enhanced sense of com
munity. While a comprehensive description
and analysis of the sense of community and
mutual support components are beyond
the scope of this article, research by the
author suggests that the potential for mutual
support is being realized and that these
communities can facilitate an effective means
for older neighbours to look out for each
other. This presentation of these first three
pioneering communities in the United States

BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 38 NO 3 345

This content downloaded from 88.226.106.31 on Wed, 23 Mar 2022 11:30:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 CO-HOUSING IN THE MAKING
demonstrates that older adults can create
their own ageing environments and may help
others searching for alternative ways to live
as they age.
In the United States, living arrangements
for older people have generally fallen into
four categories. The first and most popular
choice is to 'age in place', remaining in the
home in which one is currently living. In
some cases, home modifications or services
may become necessary to promote this goal.
In models such as the Beacon Hill Village
(Beacon Hill Village, n.d.) and in some
'naturally occurring retirement communities',
services may be available that facilitate indi
viduals being able to stay at home. At the
opposite end of the spectrum is the nursing
home, or 'skilled nursing facility', which is
for those who are very dependent in their
activities of daily living. Less than 5 per cent
of older Americans are in a nursing home
at any one time, but the chance of spending
time in a nursing home increases significantly
with age (Jones et al., 2009). Assisted living
is a third type of housing, which offers
some help and supervision with activities
of daily living, but more autonomy than a
nursing home. Finally, there are retirement
communities, and the United States has
been a leader in the development of such
communities (Glass, 2012; Streib, 2002;
Trolander, 2011). There are several variations
of retirement communities, but three of the
most common are (1) the leisure-oriented
communities, which are heavily amenity
laden and attract those seeking an active
lifestyle; (2) independent living apartments,
which might offer services such as light
housekeeping, but not personal care; and
(3) continuing care retirement communi
ties, which offer three levels of care on the
same campus: independent living, assisted
living, and nursing home care.
Into this landscape, a new alternative has
emerged - elder co-housing, which represents
a somewhat radical idea in the United States
- that older people can come together and
create and manage their own communities.
346 BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 38 NO 3
This content downloaded from 88.226.106.31 on Wed, 23 Mar 2022 11:30:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
It can be considered a 'community of identity'
(Gilleard and Higgs, 2005, p. 118) as Grant
(2006) discusses, 'where the residents are pri
marily responsible for, and have to work at,
preserving a spirit of harmony and coopera
tion to ensure their [community] provides
the quality of life they desire' (p. 108).
Sense of community and mutual support
have consistently been the top reasons that
respondents chose to live in one of the early
elder co-housing communities (Glass, 2009),
and co-housing communities are physically
designed to encourage the development of
a sense of neighbourhood and community.
They characteristically include private living
units, in addition to common space and
facilities, and common meals are usually
scheduled at least a couple of times a week.
Living close together and interdependently
'in community' is somewhat foreign to the
American ideals of rugged individualism and
independence; even now, intergenerational
co-housing only serves a niche market of
about 5,000 people (Williams, 2005).
While it is still not widely known in the
United States, the recent application of the
co-housing concept to adult or elder-only com
munities presents many interesting aspects
that distinguish it from other housing options.
One is the resident participation in the
design process. Generally, a group of inter
ested potential residents come together early
in the process and develop the design plans
as a joint experience, which builds their
emotional investment in the community.
Second, residents manage the community
themselves and make decisions by consensus.
There are no care staff or administrators
running things, which is in and of itself
unusual in American elder housing, where
many models assume dependency and a need
for services on the part of older residents.
There will likely be many variations
and permutations of this intentional self
directed community model in the United
States as older adults explore new ways to
develop a 'family among friends'. In fact, it is
noteworthy that three very different models
 ELDER CO-HOUSING IN THE UNITED STATES: THREE CASE STUDIES
are represented even among these three
early communities. As presented below, the
first community was Glacier Circle in Davis,
California, which is the smallest neighbour
hood and has the oldest population. Opening
two months later, ElderSpirit Community in
Abingdon, Virginia, is the largest community
and focuses on providing affordable housing
for low-to-moderate income elders who are
interested in mutual support and spirituality.
In Boulder, Colorado, Silver Sage, the third
community, has targeted 'active adults' and
thus has the youngest mean age population
among residents of the three.
Methods
Having obtained the approval of the Univer
sity of Georgia Institutional Review Board to
conduct this research and develop the instru
ments, the author visited all three sites, collect
ing data through both qualitative open
ended interviews and quantitative survey
instruments, and also including some content
analysis of relevant documents. All participa
tion by residents was voluntary and their
responses were confidential, although a few
actual names are used when they are matters
of public record, such as the founders or
developers. The questions focused on the
individuals who chose to move to elder
co-housing, their experiences, and whether
it was meeting their expectations. Questions
in the interviews and surveys also dealt with
self-reported health, satisfaction, mutual sup
port, and the physical environment. This
paper will focus primarily on how these com
munities were created and the way their en
vironmental aspects have affected the experi
ence of the residents.
Glacier Circle was visited in 2008 and
eleven of the twelve residents completed
data surveys; six residents were interviewed.
A follow-up telephone interview was made
in 2011 to obtain an update, but no other
formal data collection was made. Silver Sage
was visited in 2011; surveys were completed
by fifteen of the twenty-five residents and
BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 38 NO 3 347
This content downloaded from 88.226.106.31 on Wed, 23 Mar 2022 11:30:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
eight interviews were conducted. The most
extensive data collection has occurred at
ElderSpirit Community, where the author
has collected data annually since it opened
in 2006. Interviews and/or surveys were
conducted at least once with thirty-four of
the original thirty-nine charter residents and
nine additional residents, for a total number
of forty-three residents represented. It should
be noted that the researcher had a prior
relationship over a decade ago with some of
the original ElderSpirit Community planners;
the possibility of consequent bias on the part
of the researcher is recognized. However,
only five of the original planners ultimately
became 'charter members'.
Glacier Circle
The Idea
Glacier Circle, the first elder co-housing
community in the United States, opened in
December 2005 at the end of a cul-de-sac on
a new street in a new subdivision in Davis,
California, a town of about 65,000 people. The
impetus for Glacier Circle started with Ellen
Coppock. At the time, a large new continuing
care retirement community was about to
open in Davis, and Ellen, her husband, and
many of their peers were considering moving
there. The large size of that community did
not appeal to Coppock, however, and she
was looking for an alternative. She and her
husband sent letters to everyone whom they
thought might also be interested. A group
started meeting regularly in her living room
with initial discussions focused generally
on ageing. As one respondent remembers
this period, the idea grew out of those get
togethers, and interest was sparked actually
to build something new. Coppock shared her
vision of how she and her friends might live
together. When asked about her vision in
2008, she described it as:
A place where you know your neighbours quite
well and feel like you are part of a community. I
began to fear of being very lonely as we got old
 CO-HOUSING IN THE MAKING
and maybe not able to move around and get out.
Who would come to visit us? And even though
we liked several of our neighbours, we never ran
in and out of each other's houses... We would
just communicate occasionally when we would
see each other. Here we check on each other,
and we care about each other, and we help each
other out. We never promised to do more than
you would have done in your own home, but of
course, it is lots more than that.
The Process
Glacier Circle was privately developed and
the respondents felt fortunate to have found
an architect (see Haney, n.d.) who understood
their vision. While it is considered self
developed, fortuitously, they were guided
in every step by a personal friend, Virginia
Thigpen, who was an experienced developer.
They felt they would not have been successful
in trying to do it on their own without her
expertise.
The group that first came together in 2002
in the Coppocks' living room started meeting
every week; during this time they organized,
looked for land, and developed their design.
The actual design process, in which the
potential residents were involved, took 16
months. In the initial meetings there were
twenty to thirty people present, but after
the first few months, it narrowed down to a
core group of about eight who were really
interested and committed to the project. Four
married couples who had known each other
for decades comprised this core group; the
wives were members of the same women's
group. At the beginning, they did not
even use the term 'co-housing' to label this
endeavour, but rather, spurred by Coppock's
vision, they came on their own to an image of
a collective way of living. When an initial site
failed to meet necessary requirements, some
of those involved were afraid this setback
would mean the end of the plan. However,
their developer/building contractor friend
had knowledge of a new sub-division under
construction and thought they might be
able to use some of the lots in this planned
development. At that point, they formed a
348 BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 38 NO 3
This content downloaded from 88.226.106.31 on Wed, 23 Mar 2022 11:30:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
corporation and put in a special request for a
zoning change to allow the community to be
built there. As one respondent described it:
There were weeks and weeks of hearings at the
City Hall and we would go down there - all these
grey heads in the audience - and not only that,
there were many of us who were just old relics
of the town of Davis in 1951, and so it was like
the prominent elders of the whole town. So they
decided to change the zoning and we were able
to peel off this cul-de-sac.
Construction started in March 2005 and
was completely finished a year later, so
from the start of the design to move-in was
3 years (Haney, n.d). Residents commenced
moving into their new homes beginning in
December 2005, before the final touches were
completed. The total cost of the project was
$3.2 million.
The Result
From the street, only the entrance to the
Common House is visible. The community
is built on less than an acre (0.83 acre [3,360
m2]) with eight residential units and a 1,435
square foot (133 m2) Common House that also
contains an 'affordable' apartment upstairs;
the current tenants maintain the Common
House. There are three types of units, each
with two bedrooms: bungalows, cottages, and
two two-storey townhouses, which measure
1,023 ft2 (95 m2), 1,204 ft2 (112 m2) to 1,348 ft2
(125 m2), and 1,536 ft2 (143 m2) respectively.
It was planned so the extra bedroom in
each unit could be used by a live-in aide
if necessary. The units are directly behind
the Common House with a paved curved
walkway in the middle amid a professionally
landscaped garden. The units cost in the
$350,000 to $450,000 range, and included
'divvying up the land'. Residents own their
homes and each property includes a private
yard and patio. The Common House and
other common space are owned by the group,
and split eight ways. The monthly resident's
fee in 2008 was about $300, and has not
increased since then.
 ELDER CO-HOUSING IN THE UNITED STATES: THREE CASE STUDIES

IgLdCICR Cll

Figure 1. Entrance to
Common House, Glacier
Circle, Davis, California;
view from the cul de sac.

Figure 2. Glacier Circle:

view from the back of the
Common House looking
out towards landscaped
common space with
residencies on either side.

As a group, they pay for maintenance of
common property through the Homeowners'
Association. They also have a professional
chef prepare the common meals which they
had twice (now three times) a week, a part
time administrative assistant who helps with
paperwork, and a professional gardener,
though some residents do some gardening
themselves.
The architect was sensitive to accessible
design and all units have few or no step
foundations and a bedroom and bath on the
first floor (Haney, n.d.). Doorways and bath
rooms are designed to allow for wheelchairs.
Attention to bright lighting was intentional;
windows are plentiful, each unit has a sky
light, and all units are oriented to the south.
Several respondents mentioned how bright
and light their units were, and two had
installed solar panels and now pay nothing

BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 38 NO 3 349

This content downloaded from 88.226.106.31 on Wed, 23 Mar 2022 11:30:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 CO-HOUSING IN THE MAKING

for electricity. Recognizing that residents were
downsizing, the architect also purposefully
included significant storage space for each
unit.
The Residents
At the time of my visit in 2008, there were
twelve residents living in the eight units; I
collected survey data from eleven. There
had already been one death of a 'charter
resident' and another had moved to a nursing
home, but his spouse remained at Glacier
Circle. In this community, as in the others,
all respondents were white. Based on the
eleven respondents, the mean age at move
in was 81.7 with a range from 75 to 91 (table
1). These residents had all moved in together,
basically during a six-week period, between
the end of December 2005 and 1 February
2006. The majority (82 per cent) moved in as
married couples (table 2). With one exception,
this community was comprised of people
who had known each other a very long
time, most for over 50 years. Their children
had grown up together. They were all long
time members of the Unitarian Universalist
Church. Most were highly educated and
had middle-to-high incomes from careers
such as professors, teachers, and therapists.
Respondents thought these relationships
were a significant strength of the community.
A follow-up telephone interview in 2011
revealed that the oldest resident in the
earlier sample had since died; the current
mean age of the ten remaining respondents
was 85.8 (range = 80 to 93). Five self-rated
their physical health in 2008 as fair or poor,
although only two said it had worsened in the
past year (see table 3). Ten rated their mental
health as good to poor, although again, only
one said it had worsened in the past year.
Seven (64 per cent) reported either needing
no help with instrumental or basic activities
of daily living or only with housework,
while three (27 per cent) needed assistance
with at least one basic activity of daily living.
Regarding future-proofing (Brenton, 2001), or
addressing the issue of how to keep younger
people moving into the community, at least
two respondents stated that they had a son
or daughter who wanted to move into Glacier
Circle, if the timing were to work out.
Their experiences appeared to be meeting
expectations. On a scale of 1 = strongly disagree
and 5 = strongly agree, their mean score on
Living in this neighbourhood meets my expecta
tions was 4.6. As far as overall satisfaction,
with a scale of 1 = strongly dissatisfied and
5 = strongly satisfied, their mean score was
4.7. From a list of several aspects related to
the quality of one's living situation, those

Table 1. Age distribution for Glacier Circle, ElderSpirit Community, and Silver Sage.

Glacier Circle ElderSpirit Silver Sage

Age at move in Current age Age at move in Current age Age at move in Current age

Mean 81.7 85.8 71.2 75.0 64.3 67.9

Range 75-91 80-93 63-84 66-89 54-81 58-84

Distribution
#% #% #% #% #%
17
# %

<55
7 47
0 0 0 0

55-64 6 19 4 27
6 40
0 0

16 50 20 63 10 67
17 17
65-74
3 27
0

75-84 73 10 31 8 25
7 73
8

85+ 3 27 0 4 13 0 0

Notes: Reported data reflect the following samples: Glacier Circle data collected 2008 (n = 11) and age
data updated in 2011 (n = 10). ElderSpirit Community data collected 2010 (n = 32). Silver Sage data
collected 2011 (n = 15). 'Current age' = age in 2011 for all sites.

350 BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 38 NO 3

This content downloaded from 88.226.106.31 on Wed, 23 Mar 2022 11:30:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ELDER CO-HOUSING IN THE UNITED STATES: THREE CASE STUDIES

Table 2. Demographic profiles for Glacier Circle, ElderSpirit Community, and Silver Sage.
Glacier Circle ElderSpirit SiZfer Sag e

# % # % # %

Number of units 8 29-31 16

Number of residents 12 36 25

Gender
Female 7 64 27 84 10 67
Male 4 36 5 16 5 33

Marital Status
Never married 0 0 6 19 0 0

Married/domestic partnership 9 82 9 28 12 80

Divorced/separated 1 9 9 28 2 13

Widowed 1 9 8 25 1 7

Education
High school graduate/GED 0 0 1 3 0 0

Some college 1 9 3 9 1 7

College graduate 1 9 8 25 1 7

Some graduate level work 2 18 4 13 4 27

Graduate degree 7 64 16 50 9 60

Number of Living Children

None 0 0 11 34 3 20
1-2 2 18 10 31 9 60
3-4 7 64 8 25 3 20
5+ 2 18 3 9 0 0

Income
Under $20,000 0 0 6 21 0 0

$20,000-under $35,000 1 9 14 48 2 15

$35,000-under $55,000 1 9 6 21 1 8

$55,000-under $75,000 2 18 2 7 2 15

$75,000+ 7 64 1 3 8 62

No answer 0 3 2

Notes: Glacier Circle data collected 2008 (n = 11). ElderSpirit Community data collected 2010 (n = 32).
Silver Sage data collected 2011 (n = 15).

Table 3. Health status of respondents at Glacier Circle, ElderSpirit Community, and Silver Sage.
Glacier Circle ElderSpirit Silver Sage

Physical Mental Physical Mental Physical Mental

Health Health Health Health Health Health
# (%) # (%) # (%) # (%) # (%) # (%)

Current Self-Reported Health Status

Excellent 1(9) 0 6(9) 9(28) 7(47) 5(33)
Very good 1(9) 1(9) 13 (42) 12 (38) 4(27) 7(47)
Good 4(36) 5(45) 9(29) 9(28) 3(20) 3(20)
Fair 3(27) 4(36) 2(7) 2(6) 1(7) 0

Poor 2(18) 1(9) 1(3) 0 0 0

Health Compared to a Year Ago

Improved 2(18) 2(18) 5(12) 7(22) 5(33) 7(47)
About same 7(64) 8(73) 22 (54) 21 (66) 9(60) 8(54)
Worse 2(18) 1(9) 5(12) 4(13) 1(7) 0

Notes: Glacier Circle data collected 2008 (n = 11). ElderSpirit Community data collected 2010 (n = 32).
Silver Sage data collected 2011 (n = 15).

BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 38 NO 3 351

This content downloaded from 88.226.106.31 on Wed, 23 Mar 2022 11:30:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 CO-HOUSING IN THE MAKING
with which the respondents were most
highly satisfied at that point all related to
the physical environment: attractiveness of
buildings and grounds (M = 5.0), physical lay-out
of community (M = 5.0), and environmentally
friendly lifestyle (M = 4.9). (The item, someone
close by to call in case of an emergency, which,
as will be reported, was ranked highly for
the other two communities was added after
this survey was done and was therefore not a
choice in 2008.) The follow-up contact in 2011
confirmed that there has been no turnover
and the residents are still managing their
community.
Design Observations
Having an experienced developer/building
contractor as a friend who helped them with
every step, as her 'hobby', was recognized as
a huge benefit to Glacier Circle. Respondents
noted that, 'for a group that doesn't really
know much about building or government
regulations and all of that, ... it would be
terribly hard to do it without somebody who
has some expertise'.
There were some differences of opinion as
to whether this community was large enough.
352 BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 38 NO 3
This content downloaded from 88.226.106.31 on Wed, 23 Mar 2022 11:30:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Some felt the group size was ideal, and they
appreciated that they could all fit around
the special round table they had made for
the Common House. Other respondents
indicated that they had thought from the
beginning that it should be larger, but the lot
would not accommodate additional units.
One individual thought being about twice the
size would have been ideal, with a maximum
of no more than twenty units; another would
have preferred somewhere in the twenty to
thirty unit range. It was stated that additional
people would have made it less costly, there
would be more hands to help, and it could
potentially improve communication, all with
out losing the intimacy.
While Glacier Circle incorporated many
thoughtful design elements, a few environ
mental issues were mentioned. One was
that, unlike traditional co-housing, which
typically limits parking to the perimeter of
the community, each unit at Glacier Circle
has a garage and driveway. This convenient
access has not been problem-free, however.
Though wider than in the original plans, the
spaces are still very narrow due to the layout
and limited acreage. More than one resident
reported scraping their cars. A second
Figure 3. Glacier Circle,
Common House: communal
kitchen and dining area with
custom-made table.
 ELDER CO-HOUSING IN THE UNITED STATES: THREE CASE STUDIES
observation was that one of the residents
in the two-level homes had already been
forced to put in a stair lift to accommodate
her mobility problems, but fortuitously,
the stairway had been designed with that
possibility in mind. A third issue was that
some respondents noted that while each
unit had step-free access, not all the doors
were wheelchair-accessible. Finally, they
also commented that the Common House
was not being used as much as they thought
it would be. Casual get-togethers such as
gathering for coffee in the morning or to chat
in the evening had not happened as they had
imagined.
Overall: Ellen Coppock stated, 'It has turned
out very much as I envisioned it'.
ElderSpirit Community
The Idea
The second elder co-housing community in
the United States, ElderSpirit Community,
opened in February 2006 in the small town
of Abingdon (population approximately
8,000), in the Appalachian Mountains in
southwest Virginia. This community took
a long time to come to fruition, with the
first 'seeds' planted during 1991 to 1995.
At that time, a college administrator and
ex-nun named Dene Peterson first initiated
discussions with a group of long-time friends
within an organization called the Federation
of Communities in Service (FOCIS), about
how they would live in their ageing years.
In 1995, a six-member committee called
FOCIS Futures was formed, consisting
of three women and three men, to begin
exploring the potential of somehow living
together. By 1998, the decision was made
to build a community in Abingdon. The
FOCIS Futures group took an organizational
role, but a 501C-3 entity named Trailview
Development Corporation (TDC) [now called
the ElderSpirit Development Corporation
(EDC)] was created in 1999 to own the land,
BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 38 NO 3 353
This content downloaded from 88.226.106.31 on Wed, 23 Mar 2022 11:30:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
borrow the finances, and build the buildings.
Peterson became Executive Director of TDC,
and, with guidance from the TDC board,
served as the developer. By 2000, the idea of
using the co-housing model had surfaced,
and one of the FOCIS members travelled
to Denmark to visit elder co-housing com
munities there. Inspiration was also drawn
from the work of Drew Leder, who men
tioned the idea of an 'ElderSpirit Center' in
an article about spiritual communities for
elders (Leder, 1997).
The Process
Peterson, who became a charter resident
of ElderSpirit, stated that fundraising for
ElderSpirit began with writing to fifty
people, all FOCIS members, to ask them to
invest $1,000 at 5 per cent for 10 years. The
result was twenty-four investors, which
enabled them to purchase 3.7 acres for
$44,500. Once they had the land and a site
plan, they obtained a grant of $240,000
from the Retirement Research Foundation.
TDC ultimately raised over $3.6 million,
primarily from three public sources and a
variety of private funding sources, including
foundations, private donations, and $1.4
million from selling the houses. According to
Peterson, the three public sources of support
were the HOME Investment Partnership
Program, which provides grants to states and
localities to support the creation of affordable
housing for those with low incomes; the
Virginia Housing Development Authority;
and the Federal Home Loan Bank of Atlanta.
Of the total funds raised, about $880,000 must
be paid back. They are currently paying off
a portion each year, primarily with income
from the rental units. They did not get tax
credits. Despite the original site plan that
contained twenty units, Peterson and the
TDC determined that it would take twenty
five to thirty units to make it work financially;
they ended up with twenty-nine units. In
addition to providing subsidized rental units
based on income, they kept the prices low on
 CO-HOUSING IN THE MAKING
the owned units to make them affordable as
well.
The groundbreaking was held in March
2003. The actual building process ran into
multiple glitches, including 150 rain days,
and as one individual stated, 'Everything
that could have happened did'. An expensive
retaining wall was necessitated by the slope
of the land, at a cost of $235,000. There was
not enough money to complete the Common
House and weather delays contributed to
that as well. The four small apartments in
the Common House complicated the con
struction requirements and did not open
until April 2007. The Common House and the
small 'Spirit House' were not completed until
November 2007, after most residents had
moved in. Residents contributed additional
finances to complete the Common House.
While activity related to the physical
property was taking place, Jean Marie Luce
led efforts to bring together prospective
residents to begin to build a sense of com
munity and to involve them in the design
process. From the beginning, there was a
clearly stated focus on a broadly imagined
spirituality, of which mutual support would
be one component. In 2001, a small group
of FOCIS members comprised of Jean Marie
Luce, Monica Appleby, and Anne Leibig, with
the author as a consultant, developed a Model
of Late Life Spirituality (Glass, 2009), to help
articulate how life might ultimately take form
at ElderSpirit. In addition to mutual support,
the identified dimensions in this model were
Inner work, Taking care of one's self, Community
service, Reverence for creation, and The creative
life. This group also created a 'Goodness of
Fit' questionnaire (Glass, 2009), which was
placed on the ElderSpirit website to help
people in self-selecting for residency. This
questionnaire was later adapted by Silver
Sage and a version is also on their website.
The Result
Almost all the twenty-nine units at
ElderSpirit have one side facing the common
354 BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 38 NO 3
This content downloaded from 88.226.106.31 on Wed, 23 Mar 2022 11:30:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
green space. This community encompasses
thirteen owned units, which are one-storey
and grouped in duplexes and triplexes on
one side of the common area, and sixteen
subsidized low-income rental units, which
are located on two floors in two separate
buildings on the other side and also include
the four homes in the Common House. The
two-storey design was mandated because
of the steepness of the site, with the result
that all units can be entered from ground
level. The upper-level units have parking at
the door, while other residents must park
in lots at either end of the community. The
Common House is about 2,000 ft2 (188 m2),
not including the four small rental units. A
'Spirit House' was erected on the opposite
end from the Common House, and is used
for informal programmes, weekly meetings
of a community-wide Quaker group, and a
weekly Buddhist meditation. Additionally,
there is a house adjacent to the ElderSpirit
property, physically located 'up the hill,' and
predating the building of the community.
Two women have lived here for several
years as the plans for ElderSpirit developed
and became a reality, however, and two other
women drawn by the ElderSpirit model
moved into an apartment in this house. Thus,
these four individuals are very involved with
and part of ElderSpirit; in effect, adding two
more units to make the total number thirty
one. Residents moved in over a period of
several months; in the first month, February
2006, only three homes were occupied.
TDC continued to own the land; home
owners owned the footprint and external
aspect of their homes. The base price for
two-bedroom homes with 960 ft2 (89 m2) was
$122,679, and $99,479 for the 760 ft2 (71 m2)
one-bedroom homes, although these prices
have increased since then. Homeowners
paid $150 per month for maintenance. If a
home is sold, half of the appreciation goes
back to ElderSpirit. The rents for the sixteen
subsidized rental homes, which are similar
in size, ranged from $300 to $505 monthly.
Property management is handled by the
 ELDER CO-HOUSING IN THE UNITED STATES: THREE CASE STUDIES

Figure 4. ElderSpirit Comunity,

Abingdon, Virginia: view towards the
common space with owned homes to
the left and rental homes on the right.

Figure 5. The Common House,

ElderSpirit Community.

Figure 6. The 'Spirit House'

ElderSpirit Community.

BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 38 NO 3 355

This content downloaded from 88.226.106.31 on Wed, 23 Mar 2022 11:30:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 CO-HOUSING IN THE MAKING
TDC, and ElderSpirit is resident-managed
through the ElderSpirit Community Resi
dents' Association, which makes decisions
by consensus. Many policies were decided
by residents one year before 'move-in'. Since
the TDC owned the common areas and
rental units, however, ElderSpirit was in that
way different from other co-housing com
munities and adjustments were required. It
took about 2 years of hard work and many
committee meetings for the residents to
implement policies and covenants for their
new community. Many respondents reported
finding the sheer excitement of being part
of a pioneering new model of how old age
could be lived to be energizing, however.
As one said, 'we can really appreciate it so
much more than having been dropped in
where everything was up and running... We
got it done!'. The completion of the Common
House (November 2007) helped too, as this
respondent notes, 'The Common House
getting finished was just a big boost in many
ways. Psychologically as well as logistically,
and then once the common meals started, I
think that gave people a much greater sense
of cohesiveness'.
The Residents
Ultimately only a handful of the original
planners, including five members of the
FOCIS group, ended up moving in as
'charter members'. Other residents moved in
from all over the country, from as far away
as California, some after reading about it in
the New York Times (Brown, 2006) and other
national media. An initial study of the charter
members found the mean age at move-in was
70.4 (range = 63 to 84) (Glass, 2009). Due to
turnover, the combination of individuals
represented in the sample queried in 2010
was slightly different; their average age at
move in was 71.2 (range = 63 to 84) (table 1).
Projecting forward to 2011, the average age
for this sample increased to 75 (range = 66
to 89). Five (16 per cent) of the thirty-two
respondents were male (table 2). Consistent
356 BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 38 NO 3
This content downloaded from 88.226.106.31 on Wed, 23 Mar 2022 11:30:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
with the focus on affordable housing, over
two-thirds (69 per cent) of the sample
reported incomes below $35,000, but they
had higher levels of education than would
commonly be found in low-to-moderate
income housing, with half of them having
graduate degrees. A wide variety of former
occupations was represented, including
cook, teacher, therapist, office worker, and
community organizer. Compared to the
Glacier Circle respondents, who all reported
having children, ElderSpirit respondents
were much more likely to be childless, with
a third (34 per cent) reporting no children,
and higher percentages were unmarried (19
per cent) or divorced/separated (28 per cent).
All respondents continued to be generally
independent in their activities of daily
living, except for temporary problems due to
surgery or illness. For self-reported physical
health in 2010, twenty-eight of the thirty
one who responded said good, very good, or
excellent, while thirty of thirty-two judged
their mental health to be in one of these
three categories (table 3). Only five and four
individuals, respectively, said their physical
or mental health had worsened compared to
their self-reported health a year ago.
The 2010 respondents had a mean score
of 4.5 for their overall satisfaction, where
5 equalled Strongly satisfied. The top three
rated aspects were Cost (M = 4.9), Convenience
of location (M = 4.8) and Someone to call in
an emergency (M = 4.8). The mean level of
agreement with the statement about Living in
this neighbourhood meets my expectations was
4.1, on the scale with 5 equalling Strongly
agree. Common meals were held twice a
week, with the residents participating on
cooking teams, each assigned a week at a
time.
By 2010, an analysis of the thirty-nine
'charter residents' showed that twenty-two
(56 per cent) still lived in their original units,
two (5 per cent) moved to another unit within
ElderSpirit, and four (10 per cent) comprised
of two married couples moved out of Elder
Spirit, but built houses down the street and
 ELDER CO-HOUSING IN THE UNITED STATES: THREE CASE STUDIES
were still involved. Thus twenty-eight (71
per cent) remained involved in ElderSpirit
4 years after opening. Of the other eleven,
four were original dwellers in the Common
House apartments; none became involved in
the community. One died and the other three
(two of whom were mother and daughter)
moved away. Three other residents found this
choice did not suit them and moved away,
while two moved due to family reasons.
Finally, two were forced to move, one due
to the no-smoking policy and one due to the
rental units' income eligibility requirements.
Design Considerations
Parking at either end of the community is
one physical layout aspect of ElderSpirit that
has caused challenges, although a wagon was
available for transporting groceries. Residents
whose units were on the primary level must
walk some distance to their cars. Some felt
this was a hardship, particularly at times
when a resident was physically challenged
and required a walker or wheelchair. Another
layout issue was that this particular site
required two-level buildings. The upper
units face the parking lot and a retaining
wall, which is not as attractive as facing green
space. The split-level has also caused some
unintended division within the community,
with the upper-level residents tending to be
more closely involved with their immediate
neighbours on an everyday basis and slightly
less involved with the main level residents.
One respondent mentioned, for example,
'the way the architecture makes us a separate
community up here', saying 'there's no casual,
down there I see people gathering spon
taneously on porches and stuff'. Respondents
also expressed some dissatisfaction with the
lack of personal storage space.
Respondents also suggested future com
munities should evaluate carefully the options
for financing and developing the residential
community. These options include con
tracting with a professional developer, and
creating or working with an already existing
BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 38 NO 3 357
This content downloaded from 88.226.106.31 on Wed, 23 Mar 2022 11:30:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
housing development corporation. Further,
they suggested others should carefully con
sider the benefits versus the costs of having
residential units in the Common House
(other than guest rooms), as this choice added
significantly to the building requirements
and subsequent costs.
Feelings were mixed regarding the choice
to have both owners and renters in the same
community. While some respondents saw
no problem, fifteen identified it as an issue,
particularly when owners were asked to con
tribute additional funds, in order, for
example, to complete the Common House.
An associated issue was the further compli
cation of having government-funded rental
units, which added multiple layers of bureau
cracy. On the positive side, it made housing
available to elders of limited income, and
indeed, without this funding, ElderSpirit
might not exist. The complications of proper
ly interpreting rules, however, have resulted
in evictions as well as the need to pay
someone to oversee the required paperwork.
Overall: As one respondent stated, 'We want
to make this as rich of a time as we can...
[Other elders are] not doing what we're
doing. I think it is pretty rare. It's quite a gift'.
Silver Sage
The Idea
Silver Sage, the third elder co-housing
community, opened in 2007 in the city of
Boulder, Colorado, which has a population of
approximately 100,000. The impetus behind
Silver Sage was a developer, Jim Leach,
President of Wonderland Hill Development
Company, who already had extensive experi
ence with sustainable building and develop
ing intergenerational co-housing communi
ties, and who had become convinced that
there was a market for elder co-housing. The
story both he and his wife told during their
interviews, is that during an early meeting
and presentation about the vision for the
 CO-HOUSING IN THE MAKING
community, his wife found it so compelling
that she thought they should move there
themselves.
The Process
The first brainstorming session about elder
co-housing was called together in October
2003. A year later, there was a marketing
plan and a group of potential residents were
having regular community meetings. The
'Design Team' was formed in December of
2004, and a formal agreement of the roles and
responsibilities of the team, the developer,
and the architect was drawn up in 2005.
As a developer with extensive experience
in creating co-housing communities, Leach
described the path he had used for the
project. Basically, the development company
assumed the risk and financed the project
through a regular construction loan at the
bank. They required people to invest a mini
mum of 5 per cent of their purchase prices
(although this amount has increased to 20 per
cent since the recession), and they presold
about 50 to 60 per cent of the units. The rest
were bought while Silver Sage was being
built, although the very last unit did not sell
for almost a year. They were thus able to pay
back the bank loan, as individuals closed
on their own homes and took out their own
loans, as needed, for the purchase.
This community also has a component of
affordable housing, following the specific
criteria established by the City of Boulder.
In the Boulder model, they were able to
purchase the land at a discounted price,
according to Leach:
Because indirectly the city had funded part of the
land costs through the Housing Authority. Then
we were required to sell these units below their
cost to build. It also gets funded by the market
rate units paying more, which is typical for all
new housing built in the City of Boulder. But
the 'affordables'... people have to qualify to buy
They can't make too much money and they have
to make enough ... it's a narrow band.
The city's strategy is to promote the build
358 BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 38 NO 3
This content downloaded from 88.226.106.31 on Wed, 23 Mar 2022 11:30:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
ing of these units, and then they become part
of the housing stock and remain permanently
affordable, meaning they are deed-restricted.
At resale, they cannot be sold at a higher price
other than allowing for modest appreciation.
Groundbreaking was held on 10 August
2006 and move-in started in October 2007,
although all the final touches were not com
pleted until 2008. The total cost of building
this community was just under $7 million.
The Result
Silver Sage is comprised of sixteen units built
on an acre lot on one block in North Boulder,
with a view of the Flatiron Mountains. It
is directly across from Wild Sage, an inter
generational co-housing community, also
developed by Wonderland. On the street
side facing Wild Sage is a two-storey contin
uous building. On the main level, it houses
six units and the 2,500 ft2 (232 m2) Common
House. An additional six units are on the
second floor, with all units opening to
the outside. The Common House also has
another 2,500 ft2 partially finished on the
lower/basement level. At either end, there is
a duplex opposite the main building, and the
courtyard in the centre contains a community
garden and sitting areas. The six 860 ft2 (80
m2) affordable units, which sold for $100,000
to $150,000, are compliant with the Americans
with Disabilities Act and mixed in among
the other units. The prices for the other units
ranged from about $400,000 to over $700,000.
The external spaces are either common space
or 'limited common elements', which were
described as 'owned by the community but
reserved for the exclusive use of a particular
unit'. These limited common elements were
to be maintained and transferred by the unit
they abut. Operating like a condominium
association, the monthly Homeowners' Asso
ciation payments were scaled such that
those in the affordable units run from $300
to $350 monthly, up to the $450 to $550 range
for owners of the other units, and these fees
include some of their utilities.
 ELDER CO-HOUSING IN THE UNITED STATES: THREE CASE STUDIES

Figure 7. Silver Sage,

Boulder, Colorado: a view
from the common courtyard
space looking towards
the Common House, with
homes on the second floor
and external stairway
visible.

Figure 8. Silver Sage: a

view from the second storey
looking across common
courtyard space towards
garages, woodworking
shop and bike shed.

Across the courtyard and along the other Residents

side of the block are a wood shop and

several garages and parking spaces for the
residents, as well as a bike shed, which is
an important feature in a bike-friendly town
like Boulder. Active and passive solar designs
were incorporated, supporting the goal of
building the entire community as sustainably
as possible within the financial constraints.
This sample of the twenty-five residents (n =
15) had a mean age at move-in of 64.3 (range
= 54 to 81); at the time of the 2011 survey,
they were currently 67.9 on average (range =
58 to 84) (table 1). By far, the majority were
married (80 per cent), highly educated, and
tended to have mid-to-higher incomes (table

BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 38 NO 3 359

This content downloaded from 88.226.106.31 on Wed, 23 Mar 2022 11:30:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 CO-HOUSING IN THE MAKING
2). Their past, and in some cases, current
occupations included consultants, attorney,
architect and educators. They were also
healthy, both physically and mentally, with
almost all reporting both to be at least in the
good category (table 3), and compared to the
past year, there was only one respondent who
reported worsened physical health. They
were independent in their instrumental and
basic activities of daily living.
With 5 equalling Strongly satisfied, the
mean overall satisfaction at this site was
rated 4.6, and the aspects with which the
sample reported the highest satisfaction were:
Attractiveness of buildings and grounds (M =
4.9), Someone close by to help in emergency (M
= 4.8), Physical design of my living space and
Security and safety from crime (both tied at 4.7).
The mean score on Living in this neighbourhood
meets my expectations was 4.1 on the scale of 1
= Strongly disagree and 5 = Strongly agree. They
have experienced very little turnover: there
was one unexpected death early on, one unit
has been sold, and another is currently on the
market. About 20 per cent of the residents
had prior experience in living in co-housing
and they were also able to start out with a
set of agreements already in hand, which
provided quite an advantage.
Design Observations
Not having garages near the units can be
problematic at times for older residents.
According to respondents, the lack of an
internal stairway from the main level to
the second level compounded the problem.
At least one respondent also viewed the
large external stairway in the middle of the
courtyard as visually divisive. While there is
an elevator, it opens only to the outside on
the second floor. As one female respondent
stated:
When this gets slippery and icy out here, even
getting to the elevator is really hard. The year
I had all that trouble with my knee, I felt like a
prisoner in here, just because it was too hard to
even get to the elevator. Then when I got to the
360 BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 38 NO 3
This content downloaded from 88.226.106.31 on Wed, 23 Mar 2022 11:30:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
elevator, then what? Then I had to go downstairs
and my garage is clear across the alley. It felt like
having to climb Mt. Everest to get in my car.
Regarding common space, some respond
ents noted the Common House was too big.
As one respondent stated, it is 'way bigger
than it needs to be, I think everybody would
agree with that. We've ended up renting out
two spaces in it'. They also chose to funnel
their funding into the main floor, which holds
a large state-of-the art kitchen, a large dining
space, a living room, a room for sewing
and crafts, and a meditation room. Most of
the basement was left unfinished, and thus
unused, except for a guest room, bathroom,
and laundry room. As another female
respondent observed, however:
I think our Common House is critical, I think
that's what makes it the community it is. So I
mean it is used quite a bit, not a huge amount,
certainly not as much as anybody ever thinks it's
going to be. But I think it's mainly the meals that
happen there that create the community side of
things, and that's the glue. We all attend when we
can.
They have chosen to organize their twice
weekly common meals as potlucks. Several
respondents said this approach just seemed to
work well for them, but one also mentioned
'We have a lovely stove. Most people hate
it [because it is large and intimidating].
And that's one reason why we don't cook
communal meals'.
Respondents also expressed concerns
about the overall size of the community. The
small number of units and residents 'puts
quite the burden on all of us financially to
run this place with sixteen households, and
also physically, just the amount of help that
there is', as one male respondent stated. It
was suggested that 'maybe twenty units is
the minimum, maybe twenty-two, twenty
five units' that would be a more optimal size'.
Overall: as one respondent stated,
I think just sharing the experience makes it better.
Just having someone, not just one person, not just
your partner or your best friend, because that can
 ELDER CO-HOUSING IN THE UNITED STATES: THREE CASE STUDIES
Figure 9. Silver Sage:
communal kitchen in the
Common House.
get lonely. I think loneliness is one of the hardest
ageing things, that's my opinion, and I never feel
lonely in co-housing.
Discussion
There is definitely a sense that residents of
these three early elder co-housing communi
ties are looking out for each other and mutual
support is occurring, but a full discussion of
the meaning and form of this mutual support
is beyond the scope of this article. This
current article focuses on the creation and
environmental aspects of these communities,
and the opportunity to compare them yields
several important observations.
First, respondents in both of the smaller
communities indicated that a larger number
of units would be preferable as a way to
spread the costs, as well as the work, that
are necessary to maintain the community.
Their comments give support to findings
of earlier studies of Dutch elder co-housing
communities reported by Brenton (1998,
2001), which found twenty to thirty units
was typical, with twenty-four units identified
as the ideal number. It was suggested
that having this number of units, housing
BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 38 NO 3 361
This content downloaded from 88.226.106.31 on Wed, 23 Mar 2022 11:30:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
between thirty and forty residents, was
optimal, as that number was not too large to
allow one to become 'lost in the crowd', but
was substantial enough to handle the strain
of individual demands.
Secondly, in all communities, the Common
House played an important role, but was not
used as much as had been anticipated. Future
communities should carefully weigh the
costs of the building per square foot and not
overbuild. Future communities should also
be aware that many of those on the 'design
team' prior to construction do not end up
living in the community, thus other residents
will be living with their design decisions.
There is a need to be aware of design features
that could be unintentionally divisive, such as
the second floor arrangement at ElderSpirit
and the large external stairway at Glacier
Circle. Buildings should be designed such
that residents of all units, including those on
any upper storey(s), enter and exit through a
shared common area.
A third observation is that while these
three communities are labelled co-housing,
they do not in all ways completely fit the
model, particularly in relation to the 'design
for social contact' characteristic (Fromm, 1991;
 CO-HOUSING IN THE MAKING
Williams, 2005). One example is parking, and
in the two communities where some resi
dents have to walk a distance to get to
their cars, this situation has caused some
dissatisfaction, particularly when it is icy
or rainy, and especially for those who are
dealing with health problems. On the other
hand, the common space with parking at the
perimeter is a co-housing design hallmark,
as it promotes the kind of social contact
that builds sense of community (Durrett,
2009; Williams, 2005). Another example is
the common meals; while highly valued in
all three communities, only at ElderSpirit do
teams of residents actually work together
to make the meals, as some (Durrett, 2009)
recommend in the co-housing model.
Fourth, while offering a model for low-to
moderate income housing, the complicated
structure of ElderSpirit Community, incorpor
ating both owners and renters of government
subsidized units, has added to the challenges
of creating a community. If subsidized units
are used in future communities, perhaps
the possibility of a waiver to promote more
commitment to participating in the commun
ity would help.
On the positive side, it is clear from these
three case studies that, while not without
challenges, older adults can create and
run their own communities, providing an
inspiring model for all of us. Silver Sage had
a clear advantage in their evolution as they
had several residents who had personal and
extensive prior experience with co-housing
and they were able to 'hit the ground
running' by using an already established
set of ten 'agreements' as a starting point,
whereas ElderSpirit had to create every
policy from scratch. However, the latter are
proud of what they have been through and
created together, and these sentiments were
echoed at the other communities.
For some elders, especially those without
close family (whether physically or emotion
ally), the ageing process can be frightening if
they see themselves walking that path alone.
Concerns about our lack of social interaction
362 BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 38 NO 3
This content downloaded from 88.226.106.31 on Wed, 23 Mar 2022 11:30:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
and sense of community in the United
States have been voiced by many (see, for
example, Putnam, 2001). Considering that
baby boomers are more likely to be childless
(National Center for Health Statistics, 2005),
and most American elders do not wish to
live with their children anyway (Harper and
Bayer, 2000; Krout et al, 2003), a wide variety
of housing options is needed for our diverse
ageing population (Folts and Muir, 2002;
Krout et al., 2003).
An ElderSpirit respondent noted, 'We think
of this as a good way to retire and to help each
other, but it's so strange to most people', and
a Silver Sage respondent stated, 'It's definitely
a deeper kind of relationship with neighbours
than is typical than in almost any other kind
of housing in America. And in that sense, it's
a little foreign for our culture'. This model is
'strange' to many people in the United States.
The interdependence inherent in co-housing
may be antithetical to a nation that so strongly
values complete independence, making wide
spread acceptance a challenge. Following
the model demonstrated in Denmark and
the Netherlands to support 'living groups'
(Brenton, 2008), organizing a centre of rele
vant training and education, which includes
skills in living together and consensus decision
making, would help interested groups make
this idea work.
In this way, individuals can remain
independent in their housing and be part of the
larger community, but still have the support
and comfort provided by interdependence
among a group of their peers. This simple
but radical idea means nothing less than
elders taking control of their own ageing
back into their own hands and away from the
medicalized bureaucracy that sees ageing as a
disease and older adults as dependent.
REFERENCES
Beacon Hill Village (n.d.) Available at: http://www.
beaconhillvillage.org/. Accessed 28 February
2009.
Brenton, M. (1998) 'We're In Charge' CoHousing
 ELDER CO-HOUSING IN THE UNITED STATES: THREE CASE STUDIES
Communities of Older People in The Netherlands:
Lessons for Britain? Bristol: Policy Press.
Brenton, M. (2001) Older people's cohousing
communities, in Peace, S.M. and Holland, C.
(eds.) Inclusive Housing in an Ageing Society:
Innovative Approaches. Bristol: Policy Press, pp.
169-188
Brenton, M. (2008) The Cohousing Approach to
'Living Neighbourhoods'. Fact Sheet #29. London,
UK: Housing Learning & Improvement
Network. Available at http://networks.csip.
org.uk/_library/Resources/Housing/Support_
materials/Factsheets/Factsheet29.pdf. Accessed
22 June 2011.
Brown, P.L. (2006) Growing old together, in new
kind of commune. The New York Times. 27
February. Available at: http://www.nytimes.
com/2006/02/27/national/27commune.html?ex=l
298696400&en=a389effcc8c0675b&ei=5088&part
ner=rssnyt&emc=rss. Accessed 21 August 2006.
Durrett, C. (2009) A Senior Cohousing Handbook:
A Community Approach to Independent Living.
Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.
Folts, W.E. and Muir, K.B. (2002) Housing for older
adults: new lessons from the past. Research on
Aging, 24, pp. 10-28.
Fromm, D. (1991) Collaborative Communities:
Cohousing, Central Living and Other Forms of
New Housing with Shared Facilities. New York:
VanNostrand Reinhold.
Gilleard, C. and Higgs, P. (2005) Contexts of Ageing:
Class, Cohort and Community. Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Glass, A.P. (2009) Aging in a community of mutual
support: the emergence of an elder intentional
cohousing community in the United States.
Journal of Housing for the Elderly, 23, pp. 283-303.
Glass, A.P. (2012) Retired communities, in
Carswell, A. (ed). The Encyclopedia of Housing,
2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 633-637.
Grant, B.C. (2006) Retirement villages: an
alternative form of housing on an aging
landscape. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand,
27, pp. 100-113.
Haney, J. (n.d.) Glacier Circle Senior Community
- Notes From Julie Haney. Available at: http://
www.jmh-architect.com/pdf/jmh_energy_
Glacier Circlesc_notes.pdf . Accessed 7 June
2011.
BUILT ENVIRONMENT VOL 38 NO 3 363
This content downloaded from 88.226.106.31 on Wed, 23 Mar 2022 11:30:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Harper, L. and Bayer, A.H. (2000) Fixing to Stay:
A National Survey on Housing and Home Modi
fication Issues. Washington DC: AARP.
HOME Investment Partnerships Program (n.d.)
Available at: http://www.hud.gov/offices/cpd/
affordablehousing/programs/home. Accessed
15 August 2011.
Jones, A.L., Dwyer, L.L., Bercovitz, A.R. and
Strahan, G.W. (2009) The National Nursing
Home Survey: 2004 Overview. Vital Health
Statistics, 13(167), DHHS Publication No. (PHS)
2009-1738. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for
Health Statistics.
Krout, J.A., Holmes, H., Erickson, M.A. and Wolle,
S. (2003) Residential relocation, in Krout, J.A.
and Wethington, E. (eds.) Residential Choices and
Experiences of Older Adults. New York: Springer,
pp. 27-48.
Leder, D. (1997) Spiritual Passages: Embracing Life's
Sacred Journey. New York: Tarcher/Putnam.
McCamant, K. and Durrett, C. (1994) CoHousing:
A Contemporary Approach to Housing Ourselves.
Berkeley, CA: Habitat Press.
National Center for Health Statistics (2005) Birth
Rates and Fertility Rates. Available at: http://
www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/statab/t001x01.pdf.
Accessed 27 May 2007.
Putnam, R.D. (2001) Bowling Alone: Collapse and
Revival of American Community. New York:
Simon and Schuster.
Streib, G.F. (2002) An introduction to retirement
communities. Research on Aging, 24, pp. 3-9.
Trolander, J.A. (2011) From Sun Cities to The
Villages: A History of Active Adult, Age-restricted
Communities. Gainesville, FL: University Press
of Florida.
Williams, J. (2005) Sun, surf and sustainable
housing - cohousing, the California experience.
International Planning Studies, 10, pp. 145-177.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to acknowledge the
Retirement Research Foundation for partial
funding of this research and would also like to
thank all the co-housing community residents
who graciously gave of their time to participate
in this study.