As Seniors who would be criticized as “over-housed” this was a very good summary. Living in a community with few downsizing options, we would emphasize the problem of obtaining a family doctor if we left that community. Wider availability of options might help. I did enjoy the humorous depiction of planners who have no idea what aging Boomers are considering for their future. As you point out, nobody asks. It’s not a secret. We are not irrational yet, I hope.
Senior living in the Lower Mainland of BC weighing in: thanks for setting out many of the issues that my husband and I have been wrestling with as as we try to downsize from a 3-bedroom townhome with many stairs. Unless we want to move into an apartment-style condo, there aren’t many options for us, especially in the community we’ve lived in for the past 25 years. So, a new community + many $$ out the window in fees, *if* we can find something that would work for us. Also, we’re happy to see house prices coming down if it means more young families can afford to buy. Lower prices mean reduced fees (land transfer tax, real estate commission), and we would be selling and buying in the same market.
Something that seems under-addressed here is that boomers have resisted downsizing so far, but that has been while they were still on the younger end of old. Midpoint boomers are now entering their 70s, not their 60s, and there is a big difference between "60 old" and "70 old". From what I have seen with family members and their friends in that cohort, many more of them are suddenly reaching a point where they simply no longer have a choice - they go into care, whether they want to or not, or they die and leave the home that way.
"Aging in place" also runs up against the reality that it often requires either younger family members pouring in huge amounts of time, effort, and effectively money they may not be able to spare, or paying someone to do all the things you can no longer do yourself. It is not just an independent choice. It often depends on a great deal of labour, accommodation, and subsidy from other people. So I am not at all supportive of treating it like some absolute right - at least not unless someone can actually afford to make it work without offloading so much of the burden onto others.
That is part of why I think the idea that these homes will stay tied up for a long while underestimates the difference between getting old and being really old. You may want what you want, but are your family members going to do what you want, and is it even fair to expect it of them? And though boomers may loom large, they are not immortal. More of them are simply going to start dying.
Once boomers do start freeing these homes up, one way or another, there may legitimately be more homes than we need. I suspect that is part of why there has been hesitancy about building too much too fast, and also why people get frustrated when homes are not being freed up sooner. Either way, I think this starts happening sooner than you seem to think.
As Seniors who would be criticized as “over-housed” this was a very good summary. Living in a community with few downsizing options, we would emphasize the problem of obtaining a family doctor if we left that community. Wider availability of options might help. I did enjoy the humorous depiction of planners who have no idea what aging Boomers are considering for their future. As you point out, nobody asks. It’s not a secret. We are not irrational yet, I hope.
Senior living in the Lower Mainland of BC weighing in: thanks for setting out many of the issues that my husband and I have been wrestling with as as we try to downsize from a 3-bedroom townhome with many stairs. Unless we want to move into an apartment-style condo, there aren’t many options for us, especially in the community we’ve lived in for the past 25 years. So, a new community + many $$ out the window in fees, *if* we can find something that would work for us. Also, we’re happy to see house prices coming down if it means more young families can afford to buy. Lower prices mean reduced fees (land transfer tax, real estate commission), and we would be selling and buying in the same market.
Oh hey, you opened up the comments 👍
Something that seems under-addressed here is that boomers have resisted downsizing so far, but that has been while they were still on the younger end of old. Midpoint boomers are now entering their 70s, not their 60s, and there is a big difference between "60 old" and "70 old". From what I have seen with family members and their friends in that cohort, many more of them are suddenly reaching a point where they simply no longer have a choice - they go into care, whether they want to or not, or they die and leave the home that way.
"Aging in place" also runs up against the reality that it often requires either younger family members pouring in huge amounts of time, effort, and effectively money they may not be able to spare, or paying someone to do all the things you can no longer do yourself. It is not just an independent choice. It often depends on a great deal of labour, accommodation, and subsidy from other people. So I am not at all supportive of treating it like some absolute right - at least not unless someone can actually afford to make it work without offloading so much of the burden onto others.
That is part of why I think the idea that these homes will stay tied up for a long while underestimates the difference between getting old and being really old. You may want what you want, but are your family members going to do what you want, and is it even fair to expect it of them? And though boomers may loom large, they are not immortal. More of them are simply going to start dying.
Once boomers do start freeing these homes up, one way or another, there may legitimately be more homes than we need. I suspect that is part of why there has been hesitancy about building too much too fast, and also why people get frustrated when homes are not being freed up sooner. Either way, I think this starts happening sooner than you seem to think.