An ageing population raises the question of providing adequate housing that enables older people to age in place without losing autonomy and independence. Except for the issue of accessibility, no framework exists that specifically outlines a standard to achieve and, as a result, interventions on existing or on new buildings may be inconsistent without leading to a desired rise in living standards. This research addresses this issue by presenting a framework for the assessment of the age-appropriateness of housing through a number of metrics that detect and identify physical and non-physical features of a home environment to enable ageing in place. The study combines data from a qualitative systematic literature review of 93 papers and qualitative data from structured interviews with four experts in the field. As a result, 71 metrics were identified, divided into eight main domains, to describe the framework. This paper provides an improved understanding of the housing features that enable ageing in place. The tool categorizes and rates qualitative and quantitative aspects that contribute to the age-friendliness of housing, resulting in an easy to adopt assessment framework. This is a valuable means for stakeholders engaged in improving the current housing stock or in constructing new buildings for older people.

Current forecasts predict that, in line with increasing global populations and extended life expectancy, older adults will dominate the population structure. To accommodate this demographic shift, governmental policies point to ‘ageing in place’ as key. This article outlines research findings of an initial investigation into the uptake of technology to support ‘ageing in place’. The study sets out to identify both incentives and barriers to the uptake under four key activity criteria— medical, monitoring, mobility and social—at three built environment scales—home, street and neighbourhood, for urban, semi-urban and rural locations—to support older adults to live independently in their community. Results show that whilst there are significant and justified concerns over the limitations of physical conditions to support ‘ageing in place’, most physical conditions along with age are not barriers to the uptake of technology, as uptake is high regardless of circumstances. However, the study revealed that uptake is dependent on level of training, if shown to lead to increasing independence, includes a level of ‘enjoyment of use’, and does not replace existing physical relationships. The study also identified that there is limited research around the use of technology for either mobility or social activities outside the home; rather, research focus is concerned with medical monitoring in the home. Finally, research overlooks the role of geographic demographics to support ‘ageing in place’. The results of this research can provide useful guidelines co-created with older adults for the development of new policies to ‘ageing in place’.

Co-production in research offers the potential for multiple benefits, including amplifying the voices of the marginalised, reducing power inequalities between academic researchers and co-researchers outside of academia, increased likelihood of impact, and improvement in the research process. But alongside increased interest in co-production, there is increased awareness of its contextual constraints. Key amongst these are institutional orthodoxies in academia, including time-limited, project-based research and precarious employment for junior researchers. To examine how the potential benefits of co-production can be achieved within the constraints of current academic systems, a case study project was assessed against a documented set of expectations for the co-production of research with older adults. The case study was a research project conducted with seven almshouse communities in England on the topic of social resilience. The wider almshouse communities—staff, trustees, and residents—were involved in co-production. The assessment concluded that co-production led to rich data and deep understanding. Co-production aided the development of skills and experiences of the co-researchers, resulted in changes in practice, and challenged power differentials, albeit in limited ways, but could not ensure the sustainability of relationships or impact. Key elements for effective co-production included the approach to and governance of the project, the formation of a Residents Advisory Group, and planning for the limited commitment that individuals and organisations outside of academia may be able to contribute to research.

Urban Community Land Trusts (CLTs) have been acclaimed for their politically transformative potential: de-commodifying land and providing permanently affordable housing under community control. Few studies include CLT residents and this paper features two case studies to help fill the gap. St Clements in East London, UK, and Citizens House, Southeast London, both created by London CLT, collectively have 34 households living in them. Unlike more geographically focused CLTs, London CLT provides governance, knowledge, and skills to support people across London to build the affordable housing they campaign for. The selection criteria prioritised the needs of those failed by the existing housing market, who had long-standing connections to the borough, and contributed to community life. London CLT hoped residents would have a transformational impact on the neighbourhood, spreading the ethos of community control. Using the conceptualisations of territorialisation and conviviality, new knowledge has been produced about residents’ experience of negotiating shared lives. While residents are happy with their homes, and value the neighbourliness that comes from knowing others better, investing time and energy in more organised activity and decision making has been slow. The two spaces display both the affectivity and distancing associated with territorialisation and the ‘rubbing along’ and ambivalence of conviviality.