From the big smoke

 

On Friday, we made our way back to London via Suffolk with our architect friends.I literally made my way back with them as I rightly saw that a trip down in the Audi would be a superior option to more knee crunching in the back of the people mover looking at the back of Glenn's head. 

First, we visited an extra care facility for people living with dementia in a village in Suffolk that had been designed by the architects. Then we had a look at a "scheme" (the word "project" has been abandoned some time over the last 30 years) the architects had designed and was nearly built in leafy Highgate in London. We finished off the day , spending time with a different firm of architects (PTE) in their wonderful converted factory looking out over the canal in the Angel Islington.

Rather than describe the actual visits, I think it would be better to expand on what was discussed at the two sessions. We spent most of the time at the extra care facility "grilling" the assistant manager and the designing architects over how "independent" the extra care facility really was. We were told that the facility should be read as an apartment block where there were communal areas and where services were provided to the flats. However, to all of us, the facility read as an institution almost identical to one of our own hostel facilities.

To be fair, the apartments were much more than our hostel rooms plus ensuite and, even though it was a dementia facility, the front door was not locked. It had been designed with security in mind, but the residents were free to "escape".

The debate developed by exploring the ultimate duty of care. In our system, we are unequivocally accountable for what happens to a resident. In the extra care system, the providers are theoretically not accountable in the same way. However, when we pressed the issue and asked how the local paper would view one of the residents being run over after wandering from the facility, it was clear that this would be an embarrassment for the home. The fact that social services departments take responsibility for vulnerable people in the UK further clouds the issue.

Our conclusion was that extra care homes are not designed, do not present themselves and are not in practice run as just apartment blocks with facilities and services, but we nonetheless believe that the model is a good one and needs to be explored to see whether it provides some options for what to do with our increasingly unpopular and unviable low care facilities.

Our discussions with PTE architects were interesting and wide-ranging. We found ourselves discussing whether shared housing wasn't the only way to solve the issue of providing age appropriate housing for poorer people. They pointed us to some European models, some of which we will see shortly in Holland.

We also discussed how greater flexibility could be built into housing design so that floor plans and functionality could be adapted to changing needs. The architects were very enthusiastic about a concrete framed tower block I think we're going to see where the floor plan is completely adaptable and each floor is laid out differently to every other.

All in all, a very interesting day. The architects enjoyed and valued the grilling we gave them (so they said!) and it was a day of lively discussion.

recurring themes:

how do you design to avoid institutionalisation of independent living units where care and facilities are also provided?

how does design serve both de-institutionalisation and community building when they can exert contradictory forces?

is shared housing an answer for people with limited means?; how could it be designed and delivered?; would it appeal?

how can we get the build cost down for housing for older people?

An interesting and exhausting week. Looking forward to a recovery day in London.

Ray