I am writing this as a response to Desire’s article suggesting there is a clash between Noosa’s need for aged care accommodation and environmental concerns. I think that issue is a broader question about any development, not just aged care, but it is still worthwhile putting the needs of our ageing population into perspective and questioning some of the conventional wisdom.
We’ve all heard Noosa referred to as ‘God’s Waiting Room’ as if there is an unusual burden of dependent aged people here, but the reality is its demographic profile is not much different to comparable regional seaside communities or some Brisbane suburbs. Compare Noosa’s 23% over 65 with Bribie Island’s 37% or Hervey Bay’s 28% in the same age bracket. Consider that only 9% of Noosa’s population is over 75, equivalent to the Sunshine Coast average, and compared to 12% in Hervey Bay. That’s not to say we don’t have a significant older population, but they are not all decrepit, frail aged in need of nursing home care.
Planners and report writers often ignore the obvious. When Noosa’s Housing Needs Assessment report refers to the needs of ‘specific groups’ it really means groups with special needs or those who cannot easily afford to live in Noosa; but the affluent or moderately well off, younger or healthy retirees, high to middle income families and individuals, and employed younger people with good incomes are also ‘specific groups’ that need somewhere to live and are also necessary for a diverse community. It might be thought they can look after themselves and need no interest from planners in a housing needs assessment, but I doubt that’s true. For planning to truly embrace fairness and diversity means also embracing and looking after the needs of those who don’t have special needs for assistance or affordable housing choices.
Noosa is a special place. Community action and good planning over many years have made it a desirable place to live. Like most desirable things, living Noosa comes with a higher price tag which gains it the reputation as elitist or snobby or lacking in diversity. It has been, and still remains a desirable place to relocate for retirement. Our demography reflects this, as do the high number of jobs in health and community service industries (Noosa’s largest employment sector).
It’s not only a desirable place to live, it’s also a desirable place to visit, and that desirability also comes with its own costs in terms of planning and amenity and in the low income profile that reflects a preponderance of jobs in hospitality and retail.
There’s a recurring mantra about the need for smaller housing to suit Noosa’s ageing population, but if there is a the mismatch between housing and household size it relates not only to older people but to younger couples, single people and single parents of one child living in 3-4 bedroom housing. There is an assumption that older people need and want smaller dwellings. It’s a glib assumption that makes the ageing population an easy target, but is it true?
There’s a world of difference between the needs of younger, healthy retirees and the frail aged needing care, and there are many shades of difference between.
Younger, healthy retirees want space, gardens, a shed to potter in; security; quiet; somewhere to park the cars, boat and/or the caravan, somewhere to store the bike and the surfboard and the kayak; somewhere for hordes of children and grandchildren to stay; a swimming pool; somewhere to entertain; room to get away from each other; room to pursue hobbies and dreams. Sure, not everyone can afford all of this, but to assume that the needs of an ageing population equate with the need for smaller dwellings is to miss the point. This stage of retirement can last 20-30 years or more, perhaps until the end of life, and often demands more, not less, space than pre-retirement. Rather than suggesting all older people ‘should’ move into smaller dwellings it might be more helpful to ask what can be done to support this group (by far the biggest percentage of over 65’s and a mainstay of Noosa’s economy) to maintain an active and fulfilling lifestyle and stay in their ‘large’ homes longer. That might include such things as matching younger people requiring accommodation with older people who need help with such things as gardening, maintaining a pool, or even cooking or personal care, relaxing rules about ancilliary dwellings to allow accommodation for carers or caretakers; innovative solutions for single mums to provide and get support by living with older people; facilitating accommodation sharing within and across age groups and the exchange of services for accommodation rather than money.
Through increasing frailty, ill health, death of a spouse or financial circumstances there will always be a small proportion of older people who want or need to move to smaller dwellings, retirement villages or supported accommodation. The lack and cost of land in Noosa is a disincentive here. It’s much more economically viable for developers to create two storied townhouses than the sort of single story accessible accommodation required by the elderly with health and mobility problems. Desirability, demand and the high land costs also mean the cost of moving to a smaller dwelling or retirement village in Noosa is often higher than the proceeds of the sale of a large house. If we continue to rely on private enterprise looking for a profit margin to supply housing for this group, Noosa is still going to be only for those who can afford it. Developers look for returns on their investments. Desire’s ‘resort-style retirement villages for the wealthy’ are an example that fits the needs of some but not all.
An even smaller percentage (I think it’s something like only 4.5% of over 65’s nationally) require the facilities of an aged care home, and all of the Noosa disincentives for affordability apply here as well. The high cost of land must be recouped with maximum use of the site and design to maximize returns. To do otherwise is likely to increase the cost per resident and this can only be recouped with higher fees or more subsidy. Public funding for our aged care facilities is abysmal and doesn’t encourage innovative solutions, either in the construction stage (like building in sympathy with environmental concerns) or in their operation (which again doesn’t encourage innovative design).
When I worked in aged care in the early 1990’s around 10% of over 65’s required supported aged care. Demand has now more than halved. Older people now live longer and can expect many more years of healthy, active retirement before they MAY require care or changed living arrangements. I expect the percentage will diminish further over time with better in home care and services and the introduction of euthanasia laws.
An excellent essay on Noosa’s housing predicament. Unfortunately the establishment have manipulated local government and plan on limiting residential expansion but the State Government’s SE Regional Plan rightly insists on balanced growth; de-amalgamation has restricted improvements to infrastructure.
I would like to see the introduction of a world wide trend where a mix of innovative housing options – including multi story apartments are linked to green space, health, education, retail and professional hubs. There should be affordable living in the urban area.
Also think there will be more home care before a final transition to Aged Care.
A very thoughtful article, Judy, and one that tries to put some Noosa cliches to rest. This statement is particularly apt:
“Noosa is a special place. Community action and good planning over many years have made it a desirable place to live. Like most desirable things, living Noosa comes with a higher price tag which gains it the reputation as elitist or snobby or lacking in diversity. It has been, and still remains a desirable place to relocate for retirement.”
It’s crazy to diminish the impact of good planning decisions in Noosa and discriminatory to make cheap jokes about older folks here. Ageism is too bad a predjudice and I see these older people as a great asset to the community, being the mainstay of groups that deal with film, arts, environment, theatre, and myriad charitable associations and sports clubs. Go to any public meeting or “have you say” event and there you’ll find the majority are older folks. Without them, the shire would be much diminished.
And when it comes to housing choices, you’re right, these people don’t want to necessarily downsize unless they have a debilitating illness or lose their mobility. People are living much longer and healthily these days. Apart from all the things you are suggesting they might want to do in retirement, they may also want a house with extra rooms for family to visit or even to earn extra money with short-term rentals.
Certainly planners need to be flexible with the building codes and they must address the issue of housing affordability for younger people by considering the release of council land for this purpose. If it’s okay to put an extra smaller dwelling on an existing block, why not allow two small dwellings on a regular house block with strata title? Set aside land zoned this way and you’d have land at $150 K on which a $150 K house could be built and an affordable package of $300 K for a house and land package. Place a covenant on the land to prohibit short-term rentals. All this could be done using current council powers and wouldn’t require state legislation. We need to take more control of our own destination to make Noosa a model community embracing both old and young people. That would put all the cliches about our shire to rest.
Shared community space is the Go – maximising shared maintained common land and facilities while the need for actual living space is actually, practically, environmentally minimal. Large sprawling mansions do not contribute greatly to mental health or environmental management too well, it’s just entitlement gone too far. Shared out with socially engineered communities is the ideal goal, which doesn’t necessarily come without an attitude change and it’s own set of new challenges 🙂
Hi Jimmy. In retirement living the shared community space and facilities certainly exists and is a growing market. It encompasses everything from mobile home parks to the very flash, gated retirement villages with million dollar price tags For individual units.
I’m not sure any model is best for everyone, or better for mental health or the environment. Something like the vast acres of townhouses in Noosa Springs would ft your model of engineered community with shared community spaces , but it’s been disastrous for Weyba Creek and close living in that environment has proved to be difficult for many. At the other end of the scale St Johns Landing as it was might also fit your model.
The main point of my article was to question the common planning wisdom that an ageing population wants or needs smaller dwelling size. As with most things needs are diverse, but in my mind the model of a smaller dwelling with shared community space fits more readily with working individuals or couples – a place where they mailnly sleep and perhaps eat, spending a lots less waking time there than at work or socialising or in recreation. Active and healthy older people tend to spend a lot more time ‘at home’, and for them their own space is often necessary for mental health.