13
Designing More Successful Social Spaces: Lessons Learned from a Continuing Care Retirement Community Study
Introduction
Some places seem to draw people together – gathering them in for conversation and laughter. Sometimes places are designed and built specifically to serve this role. As exemplified by the following quote, when this is done, these social spaces can become lively, vibrant hubs of the community.
Now that I look back, it seems to me that after the café closed, the heart of the town just stopped beating. Funny how a little knockabout place like that brought so many people together.
Other times, these well-intentioned – and seemingly well-designed – spaces sit empty, not supporting community life.
Planned retirement communities are one place where this dynamic is played out again and again. Like small towns, Continuing Care Retirement Communities (CCRCs) often contain their own coffee shops, cafes, lounges, recreation rooms, and many other social spaces shared by CCRC residents. However, even with the current body of design research on social spaces (including post-occupancy evaluations) there is still inconsistency in how well these spaces are designed to meet the residents' needs.
In an attempt to address this phenomenon, this essay explores which factors drive how well retirement community social spaces are “liked” and “used.” To uncover these factors, a correlational research strategy was conducted. The primary data source was resident ratings collected via surveys.
Correlational studies on space utilization commonly use observational techniques to gather data. Whyte's study of urban public plazas provides a good example of an observational research strategy. In his studies, Whyte used direct observation to record and describe human behavior in urban plaza settings – observing everything from jaywalking patterns to “schmoozing patterns” (Whyte 1980).
While at first glance this approach seems an obvious strategy for the study of CCRC social spaces, it can be argued that the use of observation to study retirement communities may not be the only appropriate research tactic. As an alternative approach, a survey instrument was used in this study as the primary means of data collection.
A good precedent for the use of surveys in correlational design research can be found in Kim, Lee, and Bell's research on new urbanism (Kim et al. 2008). In their work, the principles of new urbanism are explored in relation to the design of new communities, as well as in relation to the regeneration of old communities in the State of Michigan. Through the use of a survey tool they examined community design and related programs, investigated the opinions of Michigan residents, business owners, and urban planners on the core new urbanism principles and, based on the survey results, were able to make recommendations for community design and planning.
In the study presented here, a survey was used to examine how well the social spaces in retirement communities were serving residents. Survey data were analyzed using multiple regression analysis to indicate which attributes were the best predictors of “like” and “use.” In the process of identifying these attributes, several important questions were considered. These included:
- What components make up the social lives of retirement community residents?
- What is the relationship between independent living social space design elements and human needs, specifically social needs?
- What is the role of third places in the context of independent living in a CCRC?
- What is the relationship between how well spaces were “liked” versus how well they were “used”?
Important implication associated with the design of social spaces in CCRSs can be drawn from this study's findings for practicing designers and interior design educators.
Designing and Building to Suit People throughout Life
Designing to meet the needs of older adults does not mean designing only for older adults. By meeting the needs of the aged in the built environment, designed spaces then function better for users of all ages. For example, creating a no-step entrance into a building is a good strategy to help older adults negotiate an entry to a building safely. Yet this no-step entrance is also particularly useful for young mothers with strollers, wheelchair users of any age, and the visually impaired. The point here is that a no-step entrance creates easy access for users of most ages or ability levels, and design with the elderly in mind facilitates good “design for all.”
It is important, nevertheless, to understand that disability commonly increases with age. These challenges may include reductions in mobility as well as decreases in vision and hearing acuity. We know that as people age – and their level of disability increases – the design of the built environment has a greater impact (Lawton 1974). Therefore, addressing the needs of the elderly in our built environment is of particular importance.
The body of literature on universal design that meets the needs of the aged/elderly is expanding as that segment of the population in the US continues to grow. Given the increase in life expectancy, the need for designs that support the aged/elderly is more pressing than ever. The US Census Bureau predicts the older adult population (aged 65+) will almost double to over 77 million persons by the year 2040 (Day, 2011).
With this exponential growth, the demand for spaces such as senior centers or planned retirement communities is expected to increase accordingly. Further, it is anticipated that there will be an increase in the need for supportive public spaces – from restaurants, to parks, to shops. In order to successfully address this demographic shift, the design professions must prioritize and utilize research that not only addresses the physical needs of an elderly population, but also more adequately addresses the social interaction needs of this population.
The Importance of Social Interaction at Any Age
Research suggests that while social participation decreases with advancing age, the influence of social interaction on older adults' health is greater than it is on the health of younger adults (Lee, Jang, Lee, Cho, and Park 2008). According to the literature, social interaction, particularly in later life, strongly impacts satisfaction and the quality of life (Aquino, Russell, Cutrona, and Altmaier 1996; Jang, Mortimer, Haley, and Graves 2004). MacNeil and Teague argue that “Life satisfaction among the elderly is strongly influenced by three variables – physical health, socioeconomic status, and the quality of social interactions” (MacNeil and Teague 1987).
Of these three variables, the built environment influences physical health and social interaction most directly. Its importance is further highlighted by the Active Aging Initiative of the World Health Organization (AAIWHO), the goal of which is to support the elderly population with “housing in communities that encourage daily social interaction” (WHO 2002).
The early retirement years typically are marked by many options for social interaction – as individuals choose where, with whom, and how to spend their time. As time passes, many older adults experience changes in physical abilities, such as declining vision and physical mobility, thus limiting their housing options. Often, this leads older adults to spend more time near or in their living quarters.
Recognizing this issue, directors of facilities for older adults strive to increase their residents' social connection within the facilities and the greater community (Cannuscio, Block, and Kawachi 2003). This trend presents a challenge for retirement community managers as they try to find a balance between their goal to increase the social connections of residents with the financial constraints associated with facilities that have too much unused or underutilized square footage. As a result, retirement communities offer fertile ground for the study of social spaces. These facilities provide a variety of spaces within which residents can have social interactions, such as lobbies, recreation rooms, lounges, and retail and coffee shops.
The Challenge of Affordable Social Space Square Footage
It is often noted that social spaces in CCRCs are not always well utilized. John Noreika, the chief executive officer of a non-profit retirement community, expressed frustration that while many of the social interaction spaces provided in his CCRC are in high demand, others sit empty the majority of the time (personal communication, January 2008). This issue of “wasted space” is challenging for both non-profit and for-profit CCRCs. The managers of CCRCs face having to balance their marketing efforts between advertising a healthy social scene with the actuality of underutilized social spaces in their facilities and communities.
Research on naturally occurring retirement communities (NORCs) helps illustrate the importance of offering a variety of spaces for social interaction. While the details regarding what constitutes a NORC vary, it is generally agreed by experts that NORCs are a distinct geographic area not planned specifically for that houses a significant proportion of older adults. In his study of a NORC, Hunt found that opportunities for social interaction were connected with resident satisfaction (Hunt 2001). This also led to word-of-mouth recommendations promoting the condominium or apartment complex to friends or relatives. This is in keeping with the work of Fiori, who found that, “Having a variety of people in one's network is better for psychological health” (Fiori, Antonucci, and Cortina 2006). In other words, both close friendships and acquaintances are important to a satisfactory social life.
It can be argued that careful research-based planning of CCRCs can promote and support social connections among residents because attention is paid to such things as programming aspects (e.g., planned activities offered), the place culture (e.g., the behaviors and beliefs of the residents and staff), and, finally, the attributes of the physical space itself.
Why Interaction with Friends Is Particularly Valuable
In addition to the importance of creating places suited for social interaction in a CCRC, there is great value in promoting relationships within individual facilities. Research suggests that over time relationships with friends within the retirement community come to hold greater value for residents than other interactions with friends and relatives outside the community. A study of social interaction in assisted living facilities showed that “contact with family and friends outside the facility did not significantly impact life satisfaction, but positive internal social relationships were associated with significantly higher life satisfaction” (Street, Burge, Quadagno, and Barrett 2007).
In addition to recognizing the importance of social spaces in CCRCs, designers must also be sensitive to the location of the social spaces within the retirement community. A 2001 study of a NORC provided evidence indicating that social spaces located in close proximity to individual residences were important. This study also suggested that proximity to services and shopping facilities, as well as to friends and family, were important factors in attracting older adults to this housing type (Hunt 2001). This idea can also be applied to CCRCs, and supports the conclusion that proximity to communal social spaces is an important factor in residents' satisfaction.
The Role of Place in Social Relationships
This essay presents the results of a study that focused on face-to-face communications and “in-person” social relationships. An essential concept to understand in this context is “sense of place.” Rosenbaum argues that “places” can play one of three roles in the users' lives and categorizes these as: place-as-practical, place-as-gathering, and place-as-home (Rosenbaum 2006).
“Place-as-practical” is defined as a place that does not serve a social role, but instead meets a practical consumer need only. For example, this might be a fast food restaurant where the customer makes a quick stop to buy a soda before a long drive. While these are places that serve a predominantly consumption-oriented role, interaction between the consumer and the employee(s) still occurs. Since there is a small amount of social interaction, it is suggested that such places extend beyond simple consumerism to provide social tie interaction (albeit weak) for patrons. Weak social ties are described as “low levels of intimacy and relatively infrequent contact” (Krause 2006).
While weak social ties, such as those suggested in Rosenbaum's “place as practical” category, do not offer much in terms of supporting deep emotional connections, they can positively impact the elderly's health and well-being. According to Krause:
The functions performed by weak social ties have important implications for the way older people cope with stress because the anonymity, low accountability, and diversity of views they provide typically cannot be found elsewhere.
(Krause 2006)
Rosenbaum's second and third categories of “place-as-gathering” and “place-as-home” relate more strongly to social interaction and promote the idea of more emotionally invested interactions such as friendships and close attachments.
In related work, Oldenburg studied place-as-home establishments and coined the term “third places” (Oldenburg [1989] 1999). Oldenburg's work set the stage for Rosenbaum's examination of emotional attachment to place, where he argues that there is a clear delineation between third places (place-as-home) and place-as-gathering, based on the level of emotional support a patron receives in a venue.
In contrast to Rosenbaum's hypothesis that there are three categories of “place,” it can be argued that “place” actually exists as a spectrum, rather than as distinct categories. For example, a “place-as-practical” (coffee shop) may provide almost no social interaction on a first visit, but when the patron becomes a repeat customer this interaction may well evolve from the category of “place-as-practical” into “place-as-gathering” space.
Making these delineations between place-types is useful in our overall understanding of “place” theory. However, there continue to be limited examples in the literature about how these theories about “place” can be applied specifically to the design of CCRCs – where richer levels of interaction would promote satisfaction.
Types of Engagement that Occur in Retirement Community Social Spaces
Social interaction within a retirement community can be classified into two varieties: formal and informal. Since these communities typically offer many organizationally planned social events and activities, formal social interaction usually occurs among residents around these activities and events. In contrast, informal social interaction does not revolve around organizationally planned activities. For example, informal social interaction can occur as a casual, impromptu conversation with a fellow resident or staff member.
Because most retirement communities have an array of planned activities and events, designated spaces and/or buildings are usually designed to serve these purposes. Oftentimes, however, these spaces are not suitable for informal social interaction. In a study of motivation and self-esteem in age-segregated venues, Percival remarks on the ill fit between planned social spaces and informal interaction:
Communal lounges are popular locations for tenants' formal social activities, but appear to be of less interest as informal meeting places, because of their size, instrumental use, and tendency to emphasize loneliness and old age in this age-segregated setting. This suggests a need to critically examine whether the creation of smaller, partitioned areas within large lounges might enable both formal and informal social behaviors to be more self-contained, or whether greater emphasis should be put on establishing more informal meeting places away from the lounge.
As Percival explains, social spaces in age-segregated settings tend to support formal, programmed uses as opposed to informal, resident-initiated activities. Consequently, there tends to be a lack of flexible space available for informal social interaction.
Defining Social Space Success
Even though there are retirement community examples where social spaces work well and the organization is thriving, several questions still remain. For example, how do we measure the success of social spaces? Is a space successful when residents prefer it? Is it successful when residents visit often? Is the length of time spent during visits relevant?
Generally there are two mechanisms that are used as a measure of the success of social spaces: (1) preference and (2) use. Preference deals with how much spaces are liked, and examines how well the space is used by the residents. In previous studies regarding preference, Scott (1993) and Kaplan and Kaplan (1989) presented guidelines for creating preferable environments. Later, Marsden investigated how the usability characteristics influenced preference (Marsden 2005).
While these studies help increase our understanding of preferences for certain types of spaces, they do not address the issue of why some social spaces for the elderly are underutilized. The conclusion that can be drawn is that the success of a social space cannot be solely based on whether or not a space is well liked. In other words, these studies do not address why certain preferred social spaces are not used to full capacity in senior communities.
In order to better understand how to create successful social spaces in CCRCs the following questions continue to be at issue: (1) Do people use the spaces they “like” and “like” the spaces they “use”? and (2) Do the same factors drive “like” and “use”?
The Social Lives of Retirement Community Residents
It is important to note that even when a CCRC includes social interaction spaces, the other components that make up the social lives of residents can either confound or further support interaction. If, for instance, the management prioritizes employee efficiency over employees interacting socially with residents, it is likely that will put a strain on the development of social ties among the residents.
A framework, called the Successful Social Space Attribute Model, is offered here to assist in our understanding of the most important components in the social lives of residents in retirement communities. The components of the model are: (1) factors unique to the individual; (2) communal environmental design factors; (3) place culture; and (4) programmatic factors (see Figure 13.1).
A fifth – and overarching – factor is time, which serves to influence all the other factors. For example, the time of day or time of year can impact space use dramatically.
The factors unique to the individual (FUI) consist of built elements and other characteristics specific to each individual. These include components such as the convenience of a social space's location in relation to an individual's residence, whether the resident likes to be involved in informal activities in the space, and/or whether physical challenges (such as hearing or vision loss) impact the resident's use of a space. These aspects of the built environment are closely related to, though different from, the communal environmental design factors, which are defined as those characteristics of a social space that are shared by all the retirement community residents (e.g., nature views seen through the windows).
Place culture in this model is defined as the normative behaviors of retirement community staff and residents and programmatic factors cover such things as formally planned activities, rules, and volunteer opportunities. Each of these factors must be examined in light of the overarching factor of time.
How Well Spaces are “Liked” and “Used”
Even though the hierarchical nature of human needs has been well established (Maslow [1954] 1987), practitioners of the built environment rarely integrate this into their design thinking. More commonly, designers put their priority on physiological needs (e.g., accessibility, function, etc.) or informational needs (e.g., wayfinding, etc.)
Logic tells us that a person must first be able to safely enter and maneuver in a space before social interaction can take place. This being the case, it follows that designers first set as their priorities those things that meet basic human needs, rather than higher-level needs such as socialization. However, according to Marsden the importance of creating areas that feel more private and sheltered within a social space should not be overlooked (Marsden 2005).
Research studies suggest that people tend to approach scenes that have been judged favorably, therefore it follows that increasing our understanding of the preferences of older adults is an initial step toward creating more successful social spaces in retirement communities (Veitch and Arkkelin 1995). In addition, a clearer understanding of whether or not the factors driving preference for certain spaces have the same or similar impact on the utilization of those spaces is critical.
Carr, Francis, Rivlin, and Stone describe two types of activity that support space use in public spaces: (1) active engagement and (2) passive engagement (Carr et al. 1992). While passive engagement involves the satisfaction people take in a scene without being directly involved (e.g., people watching), active engagement is the user's direct involvement in an encounter. Active engagement involves interacting with others, as well as participating in physical activities. In the Carr study, these engagement types were examined in outdoor public spaces. In an interior scene, active engagement could, for example, be participating in a lively conversation or a card game.
Beyond the FUI, other components also serve as predictors of how well spaces are “liked” and “used.” To understand how places can serve consumption needs, social interaction needs, and emotional support, Oldenburg's description of third places is particularly relevant (Oldenburg [1989] 1999). According to Oldenburg, third places are unpretentious and relaxed spaces where conversation is the main activity and which offer a playful, friendly, and welcoming atmosphere. Creating such a third place environment with these criteria is supported by Scott's preference research on interior space which identified the attributes of “relaxing,” “warm,” and “comfortable seating” as qualities of preferred social spaces (Scott 1993).
This research offers insights into how social spaces in retirement communities might be designed to better serve the residents and to help retirement community management meet their goals to build social spaces that are preferred by residents in CCRCs. Unfortunately, however, there is very little research in the literature that tells us whether or not social spaces in retirement communities have third place characteristics or if these characteristics are related to how well social spaces are liked and used.
Case Study: Oakwood Village Retirement Community
In this case study, the Successful Social Space Attribute Model (SSSAM) and the third place concept introduced in this essay were tested in a CCRC in Wisconsin. The study sought to advance understanding of FUIs, third places in CCRCs, and the relationship between “like” and “use.” The following research questions were the focus of the study:
- 1 What factors unique to the individual and their experience of the spaces predict how well spaces will be “liked” and “used”?
- 2a Do social spaces in retirement communities have the atmosphere (lively, playful, and welcoming) and décor characteristics (casual, well-worn, and home-like) of third places as defined by Oldenburg ([1989] 1999)?
- 2b If third place characteristics exist in retirement community social spaces, how are these characteristics related to how well used and how well liked the social spaces are?
The predictor variables for each question were tested to see which factors could predict the two outcome variables of (1) informal social space usage and (2) how well spaces were “liked.” Initially, informal social space usage was measured as two variables (number of resident-initiated visits and length of visits); however, it was decided that a better approach would be to combine them into one usage variable.
At the time of the data collection, the facility's 30 acre campus was located a few miles from the center of a mid-sized university town. The residents were chiefly Caucasian and upper-middle-class. Though the facility was a CCRC, which housed Alzheimer's care, nursing care, assisted living, and independent living, only the independent living residents were surveyed. Reflecting a 73% survey return rate, 303 of the 416 independent living residents that were sent surveys completed them. The respondents consisted of 213 women and 90 men who fell between the ages of 60 and 99. The majority of those (62%) were between 80 and 89 years old. In addition to the survey data, archival data were used to determine apartment sizes, which ranged from 488 to 2,285 square feet.
Given that this study focused on supporting informal social interaction, it is important to note how much residents liked to socially interact. To gauge this, a survey question was included that asked how much residents enjoyed social interaction. From the survey data, 267 respondents (88%) reported liking to interact socially moderately well to very much. Compared to the 29 residents (10%) who rated how much they like to socialize as “less than moderately well” to “not at all,” it is apparent the majority of residents in this sample enjoyed interacting socially.
Methodology
To determine the spaces in the facility that would be the best to examine, a resident and staff focus group was conducted in which the group agreed by consensus on which social spaces were the three most and three least successful. These six spaces varied in size and amenities and were located on various floors throughout the independent living buildings. (See Table 13.1 for descriptions of the six spaces studied.)
Table 13.1 Description of the six social spaces in the study
| Successful social spaces | Underutilized social spaces |
|
|
As mentioned previously, several examples exist in the literature of research studies of social spaces that use observation techniques rather than a survey approach. However, the most widely recognized studies focus on outdoor spaces and/or public plazas (Whyte 1980). It is suggested that such spaces have characteristics that make more observation more appropriate than survey. For instance, these spaces are open to everyone and no single person or group has more claim to a particular space than any other. Accordingly, a user does not expect to have privacy in those spaces. In addition, the sheer number of users in public spaces enables a researcher to blend into the crowd when collecting data so as not to impact the normal behaviors of users.
In contrast CCRC social spaces are more private than public plazas. While only the residents' apartments are totally private, the results of the focus groups indicated that residents exhibited a strong, nearly semi-private territorial claim to the CCRC communal social spaces. Consequently, while it may have been acceptable to videotape people for Whyte's studies, such an approach was not deemed appropriate for CCRC social spaces. Direct observation was also seen as an undesirable tactic given the strong feelings of privacy and territoriality expressed by the focus groups in regard to the social spaces. Lastly, it was determined that the presence of the researcher in the social spaces would disrupt the natural behavior patterns of the residents and skew the results of the study.
Thus, resident surveys were designed to uncover which variables from the SSSAM model had the most impact on how well the retirement community's social spaces were “liked” and “used.” Variables drawn from the related research literature, as well as variables hypothesized to impact social space success, were operationalized in the resident survey. The questions regarding factors unique to the individual residents, as well as the third place characteristic questions, were combined into one survey instrument. After collection, the data from each of these sets of questions were analyzed separately.
The survey questions were formatted in one of two ways: multiple choice or Likert Scale rating format. To avoid unfairly impacting the results, six versions of the survey (with each version listing the space names in a different order) were randomly distributed to all independent living residents.
Prior to its use, the instrument's construct validity was addressed. Initially, the survey was created based on existing social space literature. After the instrument was reviewed by two experts in environment and behavior studies, the survey was adjusted to reflect the experts' consensus that the instrument measured what it was intended to measure. To further support construct validity, the clarity of the survey questions was examined in a pilot test.
Data Analysis
In the first phase of the analysis, the predictor variables were grouped into three hierarchical need-based categories. Factors impacting basic needs were grouped as foundational factors, with second and third tiers ascending to a top tier of factors that focused on higher level needs (e.g., social needs). (See Table 13.2 for predictor variables that were tested.)
Table 13.2 Predictor variables
| Top tier needs variables |
|
| Second tier needs variables |
|
| Foundational tier needs variables |
|
In the second phase of the analysis, the third place atmosphere and décor characteristics were tested. (See Table 13.3 for third place characteristics that were tested.)
Table 13.3 Third place characteristics
| Atmosphere variables |
|
| Décor variables |
|
In each analysis phase, the variables were examined within their subgroups as well as individually. In both phases, the same dependent variables were used. The dependent variables were Preference/Like and Informal Social Space Usage (visit length and how many resident-driven visits). Since there were two separate dependent variables a multiple regression analysis was done twice – once for each dependent variable.
Findings Summary
Since this study was confirmatory in nature, some definitive conclusions may be drawn about design factors that contribute to the success of social spaces in CCRCs. In the first phase of the analysis, one variable was found significant in each subgroup of variables. These were:
- Active engagement opportunities (from the top tier of needs variables)
- How private a space felt (from second tier of needs variables)
- Home range (from the foundational tier of needs variables)
Interestingly, when the variables were tested while controlling for all the other variables, the privacy variable was no longer significant. This indicates that, while this variable matters, much of the variability explained by the privacy variable overlapped with the other two significant variables.
In the second phase of the analysis (i.e., third place characteristics), an assessment was made first of the extent to which the atmosphere and décor qualities were present in the six social spaces studied. As expected, the results showed that the presence of third place characteristics was related to how well spaces were “liked” and “used.”
The atmosphere variables (lively, playful, welcoming) and the décor variables (casual and home-like) were positively correlated with the outcome variables. While both showed moderate correlations between “like” and “use,” this relationship was stronger with the atmosphere variables than the décor variables.
A second layer of third place results came from a multiple regression analysis of the resident-reported data while controlling for age, gender, home range, and how much residents liked to interact socially. Even while controlling for other variables, the subdued vs. lively variable was a dependable predictor of “like” and “use.”
Categorically, the atmosphere variables were better predictors of space “use” and “like” than the décor variables. Among the individual variables, the subdued vs. lively variable was the best predictor overall. The data showed this variable was a significant predictor of usage for five of the six spaces studied. Similarly the subdued vs. lively variable was a significant predictor of how “liked” a space was for four of the six social spaces.
Since this study separately measured both “like” and “use,” the relationship between these two dependent variables was examined as well. In three of the spaces studied, there was a moderate positive correlation and a significant relationship between “like” and “use.” In the remaining three spaces there was a low positive correlation between “like” and “use” and significant relationship. This means that while there was a relationship between “like” and “use,” it was not a strong one. In other words, these two measures of success were different from one another.
Discussion and Lessons Learned
Factors Unique to the Individual
Using the Successful Social Space Attribute Model as the organizing framework, this study uncovered factors unique to the individual residents that predicted how well spaces were “liked” and “used.” Earlier approaches to studying social spaces aimed at understanding features that supported either space use or preference (how well spaces are “liked”). Prior to this study, the connection between “use” and “like” had not been explored. In the six spaces studied, findings indicate there is only a low to moderate correlation between “like” and “use.” While a relationship was found, the relationship between “like” and “use” was not robust enough to consider “use” synonymous with “like.”
Based on the results of this study, it is suggested that a first step toward enticing residents into a social space is to locate the space within residents' home range; that is to say, within their daily path of travel. When residents pass by the space regularly, this provides the opportunity for the space to pique the curiosity of passersby, who may then stop in for a visit. The changes associated with aging, such as decreased mobility and balance, also support this suggestion because adjacencies are likely to be a priority.
The results of this study are in keeping with the research of Carr et al. (1992), who found two activity types (active and passive engagement) in outdoor social spaces. In this study the availability of active engagement opportunities in social spaces strongly predicted both “like” and “use” of the retirement community social spaces, Whether the action in a space is enjoying a cup of coffee or a conversation, this suggests that providing opportunities to get involved in the action of a space is crucial in social space design.
It is suggested that one way to support active engagement opportunities in the design of retirement community facilities is by centralizing social spaces and commercial services in an area with a lot of foot traffic. This reinforces Whyte's recommendation to cluster retailing and food establishments in interior public plazas (Whyte 1980), and reinforces Cooper Marcus and Francis' work (Cooper Marcus and Francis 1990) which argues for outdoor urban social spaces located near activity.
By creating activity hubs it is much easier for any individual passing by to find something or someone with whom to engage. If these activity hubs are located in the majority of residents' home range (e.g., in a main intersection in the building), residents pass naturally through these activity nodes on their way to other places in the retirement community. As they pass through these nodes, residents are more likely to make unexpected stops to interact socially.
The results of this study revealed that some social spaces felt more private and were better “liked” and “used” by the residents. This finding confirms Marsden's research that indicates that a sense of protective enclosure is key in fulfilling the human need to feel sheltered (Marsden 2005). The ideas of shelter and territoriality are linked closely with privacy. By addressing these needs in the built environment, emotional security issues are considered.
Privacy needs vary by individual and change depending on the situation (e.g., privacy needs increase when people are under stress) (Lang 1987). Supporting social interaction through the design of the space means offering options with various levels of privacy. In this way the resident can choose the level of privacy or social interaction desired. This supports Newman's earlier finding, which suggested the need for four levels of privacy in spaces (private, semi-private, semi-public, and public) to provide users the option to move between these to fulfill their individual need for interaction/privacy (Newman 1979).
It is suggested that one way to create different levels of privacy in social spaces is to provide seating in alcoves and other smaller, more sheltered areas. This should be done in addition to providing ample seating for areas where larger groups wish to gather. Research tells us that people most commonly gather in groups of two, therefore these smaller, cozier areas need to be readily available throughout the facility while maintaining at least partial views into nearby areas for security purposes (Whyte 1980).
Third Place in Independent Living
This study found those social spaces that had third place atmosphere characteristics (lively, playful, and welcoming) were better “liked” and “used” than spaces not having those attributes. This further supports Oldenburg's findings regarding the atmosphere of third places (Oldenburg [1989] 1999). Additionally, social spaces that were characterized by residents as having third place décor (casual and home-like) were more highly used than spaces less characterized as such.
Although this study's results support Oldenburg's findings regarding the décor of third places, his idea that such spaces should be “comfortably worn” was not confirmed. Rather, the results of this study were that décor which was characterized as new had the most positive response to how well “liked” it was. (No association was found between new décor and how well a space was actually used, however.) This finding could be attributed to the high socio-economic status of this resident group in this study. Despite the preference for new décor, it is important to remember that a significant relationship was not found between new décor and space usage. In other words, new décor may attract residents, but has not been shown to impact how much residents use the space.
Of the third place characteristics related to “like” and “use,” the atmosphere variables were better predictors than the décor variables. This implies that behavior research-based findings may help inform design solutions so as to better support social interaction among residents. In addition, the research implies it is important to create a design aesthetic that serves as a second layer of support to attain a successful social space design.
Lastly, the results of this study provide further incentive for retirement community organizations to take third place characteristics into consideration when incorporating social spaces into their facilities. Since third place characteristics were found to be related to how well “used” and “liked” spaces were, incorporating these features is an important strategy. Previous research on NORCs found that a lively social scene increases the retirement community's desirability as a housing option (Hunt and Ross 1990). Also, a lively social scene can help support resident satisfaction with the retirement community.
Unexpected Findings – the Relationship between “Like” and “Use”
Of the three unsuccessful spaces studied, one space was perceived quite differently from the other two spaces by the residents. While many residents used the Oaks Community room, other residents believed the space was unsuccessful. What caused this discrepancy?
The answer to this question proved to be quite straightforward. When the space was examined closely, residents living in the building that also housed their community room liked it more than residents who lived in other independent living buildings on campus. In addition, the residents used the community room much more than other building residents. While overall the residents liked the community room very much, residents who lived near it used it substantially more than residents who lived further away. Without such notably high usage by residents of the facility, this space would not have ranked nearly as high. The key implication of this finding is that locating social spaces in close proximity to residents' home range may be the most important factor in determining space usage.
This finding is crucial to note because it tells us that while the factors that drive “like” and “use” may be similar, there are distinct differences. These differences usually play out in how often a space is used. In other words, even though a space may be “liked” by the residents, it may not be “used” because it is too far away. Home range influenced how much a space was “used” much more than how much it was “liked.” While “like” and “use” are often correlated, it cannot be presumed that a factor driving how much a space is used will equally push how much a space is “liked.”
Practice Implications from This Study
While the findings from the study described in this essay can be translated into design recommendations, these findings are from a single case study thereby limiting the generalizability of the results. It can be said, however, that the results of this study can be used to inform design considerations for CCRCs that are similar to the one in this study. For such situations the following design recommendations for social spaces may apply.
Design Recommendations
- Residents are more likely to “use” and “like” spaces where ample and socially comfortable informal activities take place (e.g., playing cards or conversing over a cup of coffee). This could be accomplished by clustering recreation, retail, or food service areas or other potential social spaces together so individuals are offered various options in which to engage.
- Locating social spaces in convenient and highly trafficked location(s) is critical for social spaces to be well liked and used. This could be by placing the commercial cluster (social hub) at a main circulation intersection within the facility that is in close proximity to residents' home or travel pathway.
- Spaces with areas that felt more private were liked more and used more than spaces not offering opportunities to choose more privacy. Within a social space, the incorporation of some smaller, more sheltered seating areas could serve residents better. The design of half walls or other means could be used to subdivide a large space and provide a sense of enclosure without sacrificing security.
- Spaces with third place atmosphere characteristics (lively, playful, and welcoming) were more well-used and liked than spaces not providing those characteristics. A lively, playful, and welcoming atmosphere could be created in a social hub with multiple ways to engage residents through such things as card games, puzzles, and interactive art. Locating these spaces close to areas that are conducive to conversation would enhance the opportunities for social exchange.
- Spaces with third place décor qualities (casual and home-like) were more well-used and liked than spaces not providing those attributes. Décor that appeared new was better liked than more worn décor. Third place décor should take into account what the resident group considers casual (e.g., stone fireplace) and home-like (e.g., varying furniture types, patterns, textures, lighting, and color to avoid an institutional appearance) and be designed with this aesthetic in mind.
Conclusion
This study's findings indicate the “factors unique to the individual” portion of the Successful Social Space Attribute Model was a suitable framework for examining retirement community social spaces. Also this study's findings suggest that it is crucial to take both physical and emotional needs into account when designing social spaces. Addressing people's needs in the built environment more holistically positions social space designs for greater success.
In order to inform and support the consistency of successful retirement community social space design, this study found factors that drive how well spaces are liked and used. These findings can be used as design tools to support social space success and provide a better understanding of the relationship between “like” and “use.” The results of this study offer applicable insights for the design of vibrant and lively social spaces to address residents' higher-level need for social interaction.
References
- Aquino, J., Russell, D., Cutrona, C., and Altmaier, E. 1996, October. “Employment status, social support, and life satisfaction among the elderly,” Journal of Counseling Psychology 43(4): 480–489.
- Cannuscio, C., Block, J., and Kawachi, I. 2003. “Social capital and successful aging: the role of senior housing,” Annals of Internal Medicine 139: 395–400.
- Carr, S., Francis, M., Rivlin, L., and Stone, A. 1992. Public Space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Cooper Marcus, C. and Francis, C. 1990. People Places: Design Guidelines for Urban Open Space. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
- Day, J. 2011. Population Profile of the United States. Washington DC: US Census Bureau Briefs.
- Fiori, K., Antonucci, T., and Cortina, K. 2006, January. “Social network typologies and mental health among older adults,” The Journals of Gerontology 61B(1): P25–P32.
- Flagg, F. 1987. Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Cafe. London: Random House.
- Howden, L. and Meyer, J. May 2011. Age and Sex Composition: 2010. Washington DC: US Census Bureau Briefs.
- Hunt, M. 2001. “Settings conducive to the provision of long-term care,” Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 18(3): 223–233.
- Hunt, M. and Ross, L. 1990. “Naturally occurring retirement communities: a multi-attribute examination of desirability factors,” The Gerontologist 30: 667–674.
- Jang, Y., Mortimer, J., Haley, W., and Graves, A. 2004. “The role of social engagement in life satisfaction: its significance among older individuals with disease and disability,” Journal of Applied Gerontology 23(3): 266–273.
- Kaplan, R. and Kaplan, S. 1989. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Kim, S., Lee J., and Bell, R. 2008. Informing the Debate: New Urbanism in Michigan. Institute for Public Policy and Social Research, Michigan State University.
- Krause, N. 2006. “Social relationships in late life,” Handbook of Aging and the Social Sciences (6th ed.). San Diego: Academic Press.
- Lang, J. 1987. Creating Architectural Theory: The Role of the Behavioral Sciences in Environmental Design. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
- Lawton, M. P. 1974. “Social ecology and the health of older people,” American Journal of Public Health 64(3): 257–260.
- Lee, H., Jang, S., Lee, S., Cho, S., and Park, E. 2008. “The relationship between social participation and self-rated health by sex and age: a cross-sectional survey,” International Journal of Nursing Studies 45(7): 1042–1054.
- MacNeil, R. and Teague, M. 1987. Aging and Leisure: Vitality in Later Life. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
- Marsden, J. 2005. Humanistic Design of Assisted Living. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
- Maslow, A. [1954] 1987. Motivation and Personality. (3rd ed.). New York: Addison-Wesley.
- Newman, O. 1979. Community of Interest. New York: Anchor.
- Oldenburg, R. [1989] 1999. The Great Good Place. New York: Marlowe.
- Percival, J. 2001, November. “Self-esteem and social motivation in age-segregated settings,” Housing Studies 16(6): 827–840.
- Rosenbaum, M. 2006, August. “Exploring the social supportive role of third places in consumers' lives,” Journal of Service Research 9(1): 59–72.
- Scott, S. 1993. “Visual attributes related to preference in interior environments,” Journal of Interior Design 18(1–2): 7–16.
- Street, D., Burge, S., Quadagno, J., and Barrett, A. 2007, March. “The salience of social relationships for resident well-being in assisted living,” The Journals of Gerontology: Series B Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences 62B(2): S129–134.
- Veitch, R. and Arkkelin, D. 1995. Environmental Psychology: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. New York: Prentice Hall.
- Whyte, W. 1980. The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. Washington DC: Conservation Foundation.
- WHO (World Health Organization). 2002. Active Aging: A Policy Framework. Geneva: WHO.
- Ziegler. 2009. Ziegler National CCRC Listing and Profile. Ziegler Capital Markets Report.