I have long wrestled with the narrative in Australia about housing and older people. Older people, for example, are blithely considered wealthy, having bought their family homes for peanuts, which they now occupy at the expense of young families. Like many broad statements, some of that may be true.
However, for many, the reality is quite different. Some older individuals will still reside in their family homes and enjoy financial stability, but unlike previous years, more of them are carrying mortgage debt into retirement. Additionally, the number of older people struggling to get by in insecure private rentals is increasing. Housing policy rarely considers older people as part of the housing system unless it is to (a) blame them for hogging family homes and not downsizing; or (b) focus on age-specific options, such as retirement villages and aged care (housing less than 15% of older people combined).
Let’s look specifically at the issue of downsizing. Why should older people downsize? Maybe they have hobbies they enjoy using ‘extra bedrooms’ in the home; maybe they have family who regularly visit; maybe it’s too expensive. If the financial costs of downsizing aren’t a hindrance, there may be emotional and practical issues to consider. Older people living regionally don’t generally have a good diversity of housing in their community – i.e. the practical option to downsize and stay in your own community simply does not exist, since over 80% of houses are detached homes.
What could help?
During my Churchill Fellowship travels, I visited organisations around the globe, including non-profit housing providers, self-driven co-housing developments, government departments and more. I discovered two key issues holding Australia back when it comes to affordable and appropriate housing options for older people, especially those living regionally. Firstly, our cultural approach to housing as one of home ownership versus renting – housing as a commodity rather than a necessity - means that housing has been market-driven, rather than rights-based driven.
Secondly – and of real issue in the regions - is our lack of flexibility and diversity. In many overseas nations, there are myriad housing options beyond the ‘detached quarter-acre block.’ For example, accessory dwellings, collaborative and co-housing, rental retirement villages, home share arrangements, and dual key housing. And what of more flexible financing? Alternative financing schemes, such as mortgages for co-housing developments, shared equity, build-to-rent and rent-to-buy, if available at all to older people, are bureaucratically burdensome and viewed by financial institutions with suspicion.
A more flexible approach could deliver housing for older Australians that is more varied in design, cost and investment models. Instead of seeing ‘alternative’ – a.k.a. flexible and diverse housing arrangements in the regions - as niche, we should start mobilising the policy, design and community leadership needed to make them possible at scale, considering social connection as a central responsibility and opportunity of housing design. Holistic tenure-agnostic policy development and housing reform – across designs, demographics, and desires – is urgently required.