Can global cities be ‘age-friendly cities’? Urban development and ageing populations

Cities 55 (2016) 94–100

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cities journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cities

Can global cities be ‘age-friendly cities’? Urban development and ageing populations Tine Buffel ⁎, Chris Phillipson Humanities Bridgeford Street-2.13M, School of Social Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PL, United Kingdom

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 18 December 2015 Received in revised form 15 February 2016 Accepted 31 March 2016 Available online xxxx Keywords: Age-friendly Ageing Urban Social policy Inequality Urban regeneration

a b s t r a c t Understanding the relationship between population ageing and urban change has become a major issue for public policy. An emerging theme has concerned the need to develop supportive urban communities for older citizens. This paper provides a critical perspective on what has been termed the development of ‘age-friendly cities and communities’ by exploring such policies in the context of urban change arising from globalisation, urban regeneration and austerity. A key argument is that research and policies on age-friendly cities require stronger integration with analyses of the impact of global forces transforming the physical and social context of cities. This theme is developed by examining: first, the arguments behind the development of the ‘age-friendly’ approach; second, the pressures affecting urban environments, and their relevance for the ‘age-friendly’ debate; and third, challenges for improving the urban environment for older populations. The article concludes by discussing the need to combine a conceptual model of ‘age-friendliness’ with analysis of the economic and social forces transforming urban environments. © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Population ageing is taking place across all countries of the world, albeit at varying levels of intensity. In OECD countries, the population share of those 65 years and over increased from 7.7% in 1950 to 17.8% in 2010, and is expected to reach 25% in 2050. Of equal significance is the global acceleration of urbanisation with nearly half of the world's population now living in cities, this is set to increase to around twothirds by 2030. Understanding the relationship between population ageing and urban change has become a major issue for public policy. The case for such work is especially strong given that cities are where the majority of people (of all ages) now live and where they will spend their old age. A report from the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD 2015:18) makes the point that: ‘Designing policies that address ageing issues requires a deep understanding of local circumstances, including communities’ economic assets, history and culture. The spatially heterogeneous nature of ageing trends makes it important to approach ageing from an urban perspective. Cities need to pay more attention to local circumstances to understand ageing, and its impact. They are especially well-equipped to address the issue, given their long experience of working with local communities and profound understanding of local problems. This argument raises an important challenge for policies relating to ageing and urban environments. An emerging theme has concerned ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (T. Buffel), [email protected] (C. Phillipson).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2016.03.016 0264-2751/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

the need to create what has been termed ‘age-friendly cities and communities’. This approach, initiated by the World Health Organization (WHO) (2007), reflects attempts to develop supportive urban communities for older citizens. Work around this issue has produced various accounts of the characteristics of such cities, as well as descriptions of projects and collaborations between cities within and across countries (Steels, 2015; Fitzgerald & Caro, 2016; Moulaert & Garon, 2016). Yet this model also has to contend with substantial changes in urban environments. The latter have been the subject of research within urban sociology and urban geography, with studies exploring issues relating to the emergence of global cities, the effects of de-industrialisation, problems associated with urban regeneration, and the impact of economic recession (e.g. Bridge & Watson, 2011; Harvey, 2012; Sassen, 2012). However, the implications of such developments for creating agefriendly cities have yet to be examined in any detail. Following this, this paper first sets out some of the arguments behind the development of the ‘age-friendly’ approach, with particular emphasis on the work of the WHO. Second, some of the pressures affecting urban environments are reviewed, together with a summary of their relevance for the agefriendly debate. Third, the paper identifies a series of challenges for improving the urban environment for older populations, drawing on perspectives from urban sociology and related disciplines. 2. The development of age-friendly cities A range of factors have influenced the development of age-friendly cities (AFCs), including: first, the global impact of demographic change, with a range of housing and community needs emerging among those

T. Buffel, C. Phillipson / Cities 55 (2016) 94–100

aged 50 and over; second, the policy goal of supporting people in their own homes for as long as possible — the idea of ‘ageing in place’ (Wiles, Leibing, Guberman, Reeve, & Allen, 2012); and third, awareness of the impact of urban change on the lives of older people, for example in areas experiencing high levels of economic deprivation (Buffel, Phillipson, & Scharf, 2013). The argument for AFCs relates to the way in which older people may experience marginalisation within urban environments. Handler (2015:12) makes the point that: ‘Cities are, for the most part, spaces that are imagined and structured with a younger, working age demographic in mind. Older people are not, typically, incorporated into the mainstream of thinking and planning around urban environments’. Alley et al. (2007:4) define an age-friendly community as a: ‘[…] place where older people are actively involved, valued, and supported with infrastructure and services that effectively accommodate their needs’. The ‘age-friendly’ perspective is especially associated with an initiative from the WHO studying the experiences of older people living in urban communities. This produced a guide identifying the key characteristics of an age-friendly environment in terms of service provision (e.g. health services, transportation), the built environment (e.g. housing, outdoor spaces and buildings), and social aspects (e.g. civic and social participation) (WHO, 2007). Building on this work, in 2010 the WHO launched the ‘Global Network of Age-friendly Cities’ in an attempt to encourage implementation of policy recommendations from the 2007 project. The network has a membership of 287 cities and communities across countries in the Global North and South (2016 figures).1 There are various approaches to creating age-friendly environments, ranging from an emphasis on physical infrastructure to the quality of social relations that promote social participation (Lui, Everingham, Warburton, Cuthill, & Bartlett, 2009; Scharlach, 2012). Partnerships between local authorities, public health professionals, architects, community organisations, and older people are also viewed as a crucial dimension to building AFCs (Glicksman & Ring, 2016; Garon, Paris, Lalibertė, & Veil, 2016). For example, in New York, local authorities, the police and community organisations worked closely with older people to identify improvements that increase the quality of daily life in particular neighbourhoods. This partnership resulted in older residents feeling safer and more engaged with their community (Steels, 2015). One study comparing the age-friendly models developed in Brussels and Manchester, two cities which pioneered the adoption of the WHO approach, also highlighted the importance of building partnerships with multiple stakeholders, including public, private, and third-sector organisations and nongovernmental organisations (Buffel et al., 2014a). The research identified a number of success factors in developing age-friendly strategies, these included: the integration of policies for older people into those focusing on urban (re)development and the management of cities, and the involvement of older people as actors in setting the agenda for age-friendly developments. A significant issue in this respect is the recognition that older adults are not just the beneficiaries of age-friendly communities: they also have a key role to play in defining and shaping their distinctive features (Menec, Means, Keating, Parkhurst, & Eales, 2011; Buffel, 2015b). Despite the opportunities, a number of barriers – both existing and potential – to implementing age-friendly programmes can also be identified. Three in particular will be examined in this paper: first, the impact of economic austerity; second, pressures associated with urban development and; third, the changing relationship between public and private space. Each of these factors will now be explored followed by a summary of the implications for developing the age-friendly policies.

95

leading to a scaling back of the welfare state and associated forms of public investment (Phillipson, 2013). Many of the cities in the WHO programme have experienced reductions in services of direct benefit to older people, notable examples being the closure of libraries, cuts to adult education provision, leisure facilities, senior centres and homebased care. Pressures on these services have affected work at a neighbourhood level as well as city-wide interventions (Buffel et al., 2014a; Hastings, Bailey, Bramley, Gannon, & Watkins, 2015). This last point can be illustrated with examples from some of the leading cities involved in developing age-friendly initiatives. New York City joined the WHO Global Network following its launch in 2010. Notwithstanding the existence of the programme and the importance attached to age-friendly work,2 local funding for senior services suffered cuts of 20% over the period 2009–2012, declining from approximately $181 million in FY 2009 to $145 in FY 2012. The impact of this was reinforced by reductions in funding for New York from federal programmes such as the Older Americans Act (OAA), with the city's share of OAA funding declining by 16% over the period 2005–2012 (Center for an Urban Future, 2013). The age-friendly programme has also found it difficult to influence provision in core areas such as housing, where pressures on global cities such as New York are especially acute. Navarro and Yee (2014) note that: ‘[…] of the 165,000 affordable housing units created under Mayor Bloomberg [under whose administration the age-friendly programme was launched] fewer than 10,000 were set aside for older residents’. And a report from the New York Office of Comptroller (2014:27) commented that: ‘New York City is woefully behind other areas of the country in providing viable subsidized and market-rate housing suitable for and affordable to seniors’. In the UK, Manchester was also in the first wave of cities to join the Global Network and is regarded as an exemplar of the age-friendly approach.3 As in the case of New York, significant achievements have been recorded, not least empowering groups of older residents living in areas characterised by high levels of deprivation, and gaining the support of significant stakeholders including a range of community organisations and actors (McGarry & Morris, 2011). Widening access to arts and cultural institutions has been an important strand in age-friendly work within the city. Manchester has pioneered a ‘Cultural Champions’ programme whereby in return for offers and invitations to specific activities, older people encourage friends within their networks and communities to engage with a variety of cultural events throughout the year. Launched in 2011, the programme had recruited 120 older people serving as cultural champions within their neighbourhoods by 2016. The programme now works with 16 cultural organisations within the city, drawing in a diverse range of older people to arts-related events.4 However, age-friendly work in Manchester has also been affected by reductions in financial support for its core activities. The programme received a 50% reduction in funding in the period 2013/2014 and 2014/ 2015, following steep cuts to local government funding in the wake of the financial crisis of 2007/08. Key programmes linked to the agefriendly work in Manchester have ended or have been reduced in scale. An important group of staff linked to the programme left the local authority to take advantage of voluntary severance schemes, taking with them important skills, commitment and organisational memory.5 Despite a strategic focus on shifting resources from treatment to preventive measures, and commitment at senior levels to the programme, such pressures present significant challenges to achieving the ambitions of the age-friendly model. A number of London boroughs have developed age-friendly initiatives, for example in Camden, Kilburn, and Islington. The Greater

3. Age-friendly cities and economic austerity Despite many achievements resulting from age-friendly initiatives, these have run parallel with the implementation of neo-liberal policies 1 For further information about the Global Network of Age Friendly Cities and Communities, see: www.who.int/ageing/projects/age_friendly_cities_network/en/.

2 For further information on Age-Friendly New York see http://www.agefriendlynyc. org/. 3 Information about Age Friendly Manchester can be found on http://www.manchester. gov.uk/info/500316/age_friendly_manchester/3428/age-friendly_manchester 4 For further information about the Cultural Champions Programme, see Audience Agency (2013) 5 Personal communication, Senior Strategy Manager, Manchester City Council

96

T. Buffel, C. Phillipson / Cities 55 (2016) 94–100

London Authority (GLA) aims to make London: ‘a more accessible and welcoming city for older people’ (cited in Tinker & Ginn, 2015:5). Research undertaken by Tinker and Ginn in 2014 (2015:2) noted ‘considerable improvements’ in the city's environment for older people, since their last report in 2006′. But they also sounded a note of caution about the scope of what has been achieved: ‘Well-intentioned plans have been obstructed by austerity policies since 2008 that include widespread cuts in public spending, job losses in the public sector, reduced grants to local authorities that lead to contraction in community support and health services on which older people rely. These cuts in resources have undermined efforts by LAs [local authorities] to improve the material and social environment of older people’ (Tinker and Ginn, 2015:49). Walsh and Harvey's (2012) review of Ireland's Age-Friendly Cities and Counties programme identifies a number of challenges arising from the introduction of austerity policies. These echo the Manchester experience in terms of the impact of cuts in the number of core staff administering programmes. Walsh (2015:93) summarises the consequences of austerity as follows: ‘[…] limited resources [for implementing age-friendly programmes], staff shortages in public stakeholder partner organisations (due to employment moratoriums) and, consequently, difficulties in securing commitment from stakeholder partners. Such challenges signify the realities of implementing such community-based programmes on a cost-neutral basis in difficult economic conditions. This raises important concerns about the effectiveness and sustainability of Ireland's age-friendly programme. It also raises concerns about how the age-friendly programme, through a combination of its cost-neutral approach and its active ageing focus, may end up unintentionally supporting policies that effectively reduce state involvement in ageing communities’. Kendig et al. (2014:21), reviewing progress on developing agefriendly cities in Canberra, Melbourne and Sydney, highlight the importance of the AFC approach in empowering older people and developing ‘[…] social and physical environments that enhance their participation and well-being’. They note the benefits of the AFC model in bringing to public notice the ‘positive potential of older people’. Yet they also point out that AFC policies have often not moved ‘very far beyond statements of values and aspirations’ with growing fiscal austerity a major factor limiting progress, concluding that: ‘A barrier to successful implementation of AFC strategies at all levels of government is a tight fiscal environment combined with organisational inertia and established community expectations’ (Kendig et al., 2014:18). Other examples of where age-friendly policies appear to be in tension with economic and social realities are found in Spanish cities such as Barcelona and Madrid, both members of the WHO Global Network since 2011 and 2014 respectively. Barcelona City Council (2011:5) aims to encourage ‘active, healthy ageing for older people and improve the well-being of those older people who are vulnerable due to dependency, isolation or very low levels of income’. However, such ambitions are under severe pressure due to the impact of the economic recession. The cuts in public and private funding to the healthcare system, freezing of pensions, housing foreclosures, and the general impoverishment of the population have significantly increased the risk of social exclusion and isolation for particular groups of older people. In this context, Clarke (2014) discusses the example of the Dependency Law, passed in 2006 by the then socialist Government of Spain, which aimed to improve the quality of life of people facing dependency due to disability, illness or advanced age. The law was intended to provide families with financial help to hire home assistance. However, as Clarke (2014), n.p.): ‘[…] the budget for the Dependency Law was cut by 13% in 2011, and even before the economic crisis the service was already insufficient to cover all the necessary expenditures. The cuts have seriously hindered the application of the law, which is under-budgeted considering its ambitious objectives and challenges’.

Following the above examples, the concept of ‘age-friendliness’ must itself be kept under critical scrutiny given the impact of economic constraints on urban areas. Many of the cities in the WHO programme are experiencing substantial reductions in physical infrastructure and services. The handling of these cuts will be a major test for the ideals and initiatives associated with building supportive communities for older people. Whether applying the age-friendly approach makes a significant difference to the quality of people's lives, given the challenges facing cities, will need careful attention over the next phase of the movement's development. But pressure on services is only one aspect of the challenge of creating an ‘age-friendly’ environment. A more general issue concerns the nature of urban change itself and the extent to which this promotes or restricts age-friendly developments. The following sections of the paper examine different aspects of this issue. 4. Age-friendly cities: pressures from urban development The previous section illustrated tensions implementing age-friendly programmes in a context of economic austerity. But the problems associated with AFC policies may also be related to a second factor: pressures associated with urban development and the characteristics of neighbourhood change. The study of urban society and population ageing has tended, as argued in this paper, to be kept separate in research and policy. One consequence of this is the relative ‘invisibility’ of older people in discussions around, for example, the development of global cities, urban lifestyles, and economic influences affecting neighbourhoods and communities (Gottdiener, Hutchison, & Ryan, 2015). The argument put forward in this paper is that integrating the study of population ageing with that of urban studies is crucial to understanding both the limits and the potential of age-friendly communities. As noted earlier, the idea of ‘ageing in place’ has been a central theme in policies targeted at supporting older people (Rowles and Chaudhury, 2005). However, Golant (2014:13) observes that this approach raises critical questions such as: ‘[…] whether communities have acquired the structural capacity – that is the resources and opportunities – to accommodate the needs and goals of their aging populations…’ Resources may be especially limited in economically deprived urban neighbourhoods which may experience a variety of environmental pressures arising from the closure of local services and amenities, crime-related problems, poor housing and social polarisation (Rodwin & Gusmano, 2006; Smith, 2009). Such elements may increase the hazards and risks experienced in later life (Buffel et al., 2013). Lowincome groups of older people may be exposed to rapid shifts in housing markets as a consequence of housing renewal and/or gentrification (Burns, Lavoie, & Rose, 2012). Harvey (1982:89) outlines the context for this as follows: ‘Under capitalism there is […] a perpetual struggle in which capital builds a physical landscape appropriate to its own condition at a particular moment in time, only to have to destroy it, usually in the course of a crisis, at a subsequent point in time’. Elsewhere, Harvey (2008:33) has termed this as one of ‘creative destruction’, which he argues: ‘[…] nearly always has a class dimension since it is the poor, the underprivileged and those marginalized from political power that suffer first and foremost from this process’. The experience described by Harvey can be illustrated in the UK through programmes of housing regeneration such as the Housing Market Renewal (HMR) Pathfinder programme, which operated from 2002 to 2011 in parts of the North and Midlands regions of England, supported by £2.2 billion of public funding. The purpose of the scheme was to rebuild housing markets and communities in areas where demand for housing was weak, and where there were ‘declining populations, poor services, dereliction, and poor social conditions’ (Wilson, 2013:2). Wilson's (2013:5) Parliamentary note on some of the problems associated with the scheme finds echoes in Harvey's argument above: ‘The… [Labour]… Government's housing market renewal pathfinder programme imposed large-scale Whitehall targets for demolition

T. Buffel, C. Phillipson / Cities 55 (2016) 94–100

and clearance across the Midlands and the north of England. The centrally-driven schemes were often resented by local communities and created as many problems as they solved…There was widespread public controversy over an obsession with demolition over refurbishment […] large profits by developers […] and perverse incentives to run-down neighbourhoods […] Local communities in some of the most deprived areas of the country were told they would see a transformation of their areas, which in reality amounted to bulldozing buildings and knocking down neighbourhoods, pitting neighbour against neighbour and leaving families trapped in abandoned streets’. However, the ‘trapped families’ were in many cases older people – either renting social housing or owner-occupiers – and who were on the receiving end of the problems identified by Wilson (2013). Judgements about the Pathfinder programme indicate a complex range of issues and the evaluations suggest a mix of losers and winners for the different communities and groups involved.6 But the striking feature of all of the evaluations is the absence of any consideration concerning the impact on older people, despite the fact that as long-term community residents – typically 30 or 40 more years – they would potentially experience the most disruption. There is evidence about groups such as older residents finding new properties in Pathfinder areas too expensive to buy — notwithstanding compensation (Deen, 2012); and about lack of consultation of residents in the programme (Turcu, 2012; Minton, 2009; Simpson, 2010). Yet accounts about the experiences – benefits or otherwise – for older people are missing in official evaluations, although reports by Minton (2009) and Crookes (2012) suggest that many long-term residents paid a heavy price for the process which Wilson (2013) describes. Pressures on older people in the context of gentrification have been highlighted in a number of studies. In a study of social exclusion in five Spanish cities, Blanco and Subirats (2008:145) reported that: ‘[…] the most deprived elderly individuals are common targets of eviction from their homes’ (experiences which almost certainly increased following the 2007/8 crisis). Galcanova and Sykovova (2015:1212) in a study of older people's experiences of urban change in three Czech cities, found that in gentrifying parts of Prague: ‘[…] strong feelings of insecurity [among older people] were reported, and inhabitants were involuntarily displaced from their flats, sometimes by illegal means’. In a similar vein, research in two neighbourhoods in Montreal, Canada (Burns et al., 2012:1) concluded that: ‘[…] gentrification triggered processes of social exclusion among older adults: loss of social spaces dedicated to older people led to social disconnectedness, invisibility and loss of political influence on neighbourhood planning’ (see, also, Zukin, 2010). San Francisco, a member of the WHO Global Network since 2014, provides a further illustration of the pressures on policies to assist ‘ageing in place’. Here, the presence of affluent residents, primarily employees from high-tech companies based in Silicon Valley, has led to the gentrification of low-income neighbourhoods and an increase in rental prices three times higher than the national average (Erwert, 2014). Despite a policy of rent control and strict rules on eviction, numerous examples have been reported of landlords evicting older tenants who have occupied the same apartment for decades, replacing them with executives in the remunerative high-tech sector. Portacolone and Halpern (2014:13) suggest that as a result: ‘older adults living alone may be forced to relocate into senior developments for their inability to financially compete for the limited spatial resources available. Limited financial resources constrain the choices available to this population. The prohibitive costs of real estate and the limited

6 The national evaluation of the Housing Market Renewal Pathfinders programme: is on: nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120919132719/http:/www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/1362833.pdf See also: https://england.shelter.org.uk/__data/assets/ pdf_file/0006/196773/Housing_Market_Renewal_briefing.pdf

97

services available for older residents who are ‘ageing in place’ in conventional housing often facilitates this move’. For older people who have accrued financial capital based on owner occupation, benefits may arise from gentrification with increases in the value of property. This may strengthen commitments to ‘age in place’; alternatively, possession of housing wealth may ‘loosen’ attachments to neighbourhood as people prefer to cash in on the value of their house. ReseADD: (eds.)ADD: (eds.) arch published in 2014 found that in the UK nearly two in five over-55 homeowners plan to sell their home with the aim of releasing £85,000 in equity (cited in ILC/Centre for Later Life Funding, 2015). In this example, spatial inequalities might be said to reinforce advantages which have operated over the life course and which foster highly divergent experiences among groups in old age. But these may be further reinforced by urban-wide processes which limit control over public space within cities, restricting the scope and potential of age-friendly developments. A review of this issue forms the next section of this paper. 5. Age-friendly cities: the privatisation of public space A third factor influencing the development of age-friendly cities concerns the control and ownership of public space. The policy of developing age-friendly cities makes a number of assumptions about access to, and ownership of, public space: namely, that it can be controlled and influenced on behalf of the changing needs and expectations of people in later life. But space in cities is not itself freely available. Increasingly, ownership and control are vested in particular groups for whom the issues raised by the age-friendly agenda may have limited appeal. This is a crucial problem for the idea of an ‘age-friendly’ city, where interventions in the built environment are seen as a key element in securing changes to the quality of life in old age. However, attempts to initiate change now have to work more often within the context of private/corporately-owned rather than public-owned spaces. Minton (2009:19), for example, notes that: ‘Multinational property corporates are now the most likely owners of large chunks of British cities’. And she goes on to observe that: ‘As the twenty-first century corporate estates take over large parts of the city, the last decade has seen a huge shift in landownership, away from streets, public spaces and buildings in public ownership and towards the creation of new private estates, primarily given over to shopping and office complexes, which, while not actually gated, feel very much like separate enclaves’ (Minton 2009:25). This observation highlights the extent to which proposals for agefriendly interventions to re-shape urban environments, such as those proposed by Ball (2012) in the USA and Handler (2015) in the UK, need to take account of the way corporations and developers now control many aspects of city life. This process has been especially characteristic of many of the global cities attempting to implement the agefriendly model. Harvey (2012:23) noted in relation to New York that under the leadership of its former Mayor – Michael Bloomberg – a champion of the age-friendly city approach: ‘[there was a] reshaping of the city along lines favourable to the developers, to Wall Street and transnational capitalist elements, while continuing to sell the city as an optimal location for high-value businesses and a fantastic destination for tourists, thus turning Manhattan in effect into one vast gated community for the rich’. Zukin (2010) from her research (also in New York) suggests that developments such as the gentrification of neighbourhoods make claims on space which subsequently displace or marginalise long-term residents. Examples such as the above suggest that particular groups of older people may find difficulties ‘creating’ space within cities (Phillipson, 2007; 2011). Global cities, it might be argued, raise tensions between a ‘hyper-mobile’ minority and those ageing in place; de-industrialising cities (with shrinking populations) may create different kinds of problems arising from contraction of an economic base which can support sustainable social networks (Buffel et al., 2014b). The challenge is

98

T. Buffel, C. Phillipson / Cities 55 (2016) 94–100

creating an urban environment that supports the autonomy and equal rights of older people with others to a ‘share’ of urban space (Vanderbeck and Worth, 2015). This issue will be especially important to implement at a local level, with a particular focus on improving the quality of urban design and promoting safety and inclusion as key features of urban living (Gehl, 2010). One way forward could be to make ‘age-friendliness’ a central part of policy making aimed at promoting sustainable development across a broad range of social, environmental and economic domains. However, implementing such policies in practise will require involvement of a range of stakeholders – including public, private, and third-sector organisations; multiple levels of government; and nongovernmental organisations – as well as ongoing efforts to build bridges among these groups. Reconciling the different interests, goals and priorities of these stakeholders will be a key issue for the age-friendly city movement to address. Another will be to create opportunities for older people, including the most marginalised and vulnerable groups, to have a voice in decisionmaking processes relating to urban developments and regeneration. The final section of this paper will explore these issues in the context of an alternative framework to support the WHO approach. 6. Conclusion: developing cities for all ages This paper has argued that the implementation of age-friendly policies is being challenged by three major elements: the impact of financial cuts on social programmes; pressures arising from the characteristics of urban development; and the shift towards the privatisation of urban space. One result of these factors is that although age-friendly cities (AFCs) have many achievements to their name, their material impact on older people has been more limited. AFCs have been influential in moving ageing policies beyond a health and social care framework towards one which incorporates cultural activities, education and the environment. AFCs have also helped to promote a debate about the contribution which ageing populations can make to the economic life of cities, notably with the development of new financial and technological services (Cox, Henderson, & Baker, 2014). However, the AFC approach has yet to develop policies which can prevent or reduce the inequalities associated with urban living, especially as regards their impact on the neighbourhoods in which people may have spent the majority of their lives. A central argument of this paper is that AFC policies are unlikely to be successful unless embedded in the networks of power which control urban life. However, a number of initiatives will need to be taken forward to achieve this goal. The first of these concerns developing a more coherent link between research and policies on urban ageing. Research on environmental aspects of ageing has an impressive literature to its name, yet it remains detached from analysing the impact of powerful global and economic forces transforming the physical and social context of cities. Remedying this will require close integration with insights from a range of disciplines, including urban sociology, urban economics, design and human geography. Understanding optimum environments for ageing must be seen as an inter-disciplinary enterprise requiring understanding of the impact of developments such as the changing dynamics of urban poverty on older people, the consequences of urban renewal and regeneration, and the impact of transnational migration (Buffel, 2015a). A second issue concerns applying ‘age-friendliness’ in a way that recognises the complexity of the urban environment. The techniques for ensuring an age-friendly approach will vary considerably depending on the characteristics of urban change. Whilst the trend towards urban living is world-wide, the pattern of urban growth demonstrates considerable variation: shrinking city populations in the developed world (Europe especially); and accelerating urbanisation in Africa and Asia, with both continents demonstrating a mix of rapidly expanding cities in some cases, declining ones in others (UN-HABITAT, 2012). Securing ‘age-friendliness’ in the context of the rise of ‘mega-cities’ and ‘hyper-cities’ provides another variation. At the same time, processes

for developing age-friendliness will need radical adaptation given the slum cities prevalent in Southern Asia and sub-Saharan Africa (UNHABITAT, 2012). The bulk of population growth in these continents has taken place largely through the rise of slums, many of these located on the periphery of capital cities (Davis, 2006). The problem of reaching older people and migrants who are ‘ageing in place’ albeit housed in temporary accommodation bereft of basic facilities, underlines the need for new models of intervention which can respond to the highly unequal contexts experienced by urban elders across the world. Third, implementing an ‘age-friendly’ approach requires the close engagement of older people and those approaching old age in urban regeneration. Studies in the UK by Riseborough and Sribjilanin (2000) and Simpson (2010) found that older people were often ‘invisible’ in regeneration policies. The problem here was less the absence of older people in consultations around policies, more an underlying ‘ageism’ which viewed them only as ‘victims’ of neighbourhood change. The authors make the point that regeneration practise could benefit from the experience of older people, their attachment to neighbourhoods, and their involvement in community organisations. Targeting urban regeneration strategies at different groups within the older population will be essential, with awareness of contrasting issues faced by different ethnic groups, those with particular physical/mental health needs, and those living in areas with high levels of economic and social deprivation. At the same time, age-friendly efforts should focus not only on changes for current cohorts of older residents, but also work towards longerterm neighbourhood change that can benefit successive cohorts of older residents. There is therefore an urgent need to reconnect urban regeneration policies with strategies that support resident-led planning for ‘lifetime neighbourhoods’ (Bevan & Croucher, 2011) or ‘ageingfriendly communities’ (Scharlach & Lehning, 2013). Such models promote the empowerment of residents of any age to bring about neighbourhood changes which enable people to meet their basic needs, maintain significant relationships, and participate in the community in meaningful ways as they grow older (Scharlach & Lehning, 2013). This involves public and private sector, and voluntary and community organisations working in such a way that residents of any age are enabled to set out their needs and concerns, and identify priorities for action and change within their own neighbourhoods. Fourth, and following from the above, implicit in the notion of agefriendly communities is that older adults are a central part of ensuring that a seniors' lens is applied in planning decisions and policies. As Menec et al. (2011:487) argues ‘older adults must be involved in identifying areas of need, prioritizing key issues, and ensuring appropriate implementation’. Whilst progress has been made in identifying some key policies for age-friendly work, there has been much less success in terms of making older people themselves central to the creation and development of policies and age-friendly initiatives. Here, methods drawn from participatory research can advance efforts to engage older residents as leaders and visionaries in identifying features of their neighbourhood in need of improvement. The case for involving older residents as co-researchers in exploring the age-friendliness of their neighbourhood is that it represents a viable method to engage older residents and mobilise their expertise, skills and knowledge and to stimulate co-production in developing age-friendly initiatives. In addition, it provides benefits to the older co-researchers, community stakeholders and policy-makers involved, because it provides a forum for rich and meaningful social engagement and mutual learning and exchange (Buffel, 2015b). However, there remains a need for experimentation to test and learn from participatory and collaborative approaches involving older people in the co-production of urban space. The success of communities in becoming more age-friendly will, to a large extent, depend on whether older people, including those facing social exclusion, will be involved as key actors in setting the agenda for future research and policies on age-friendly developments. Finally, and following on from the last point, there is a strong case for incorporating issues about ageing in urban environments with debates

T. Buffel, C. Phillipson / Cities 55 (2016) 94–100

concerning spatial justice. Here, we would underline the relevance of Soja's (2010:19) argument that the: ‘…geographies in which we live can have both positive and negative effects on our lives’. He writes: ‘They are not just dead background or a neutral physical stage for the human drama but are filled with material and imagined forces that can hurt us or help us in nearly everything we do, individually and collectively’. He concludes: ‘This is a vitally important part of the new spatial consciousness, making us aware that the geographies in which we live can intensify and sustain our exploitation as workers, support oppressive forms of cultural and political domination based on race, gender, and nationality, and aggravate all forms of discrimination and injustice’. Ensuring spatial justice for different groups of older people is now a crucial part of this debate, with developing an integrated approach to demographic and urban change representing a key task for research and public policy. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the members of the Population and Ageing and Urbanisation (INPAU) network, and all research groups, local authorities, NGOs and charitable foundations involved in promoting active ageing in urban environments through high quality research. We are also grateful for the feedback from the journal editor, the referees, and the participants and co-researchers involved in public Age-Friendly Research events organised by the Manchester Institute for Collaborative Research on Ageing (MICRA). This research has been supported through a Marie Curie Fellowship at the University of Manchester. References Alley, D., Liebig, P., Pynoos, J., Benerjee, T., & Choi, I. H. (2007). Creating elder-friendly communities: Preparation for an aging society. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 49, 1–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J083v49n01_01. Audience Agency (2013). Valuing older people — Cultural champions scheme: Evaluation. London: The Audience Agency. Ball, M. S. (2012). Livable communities for aging populations: Urban design for longevity. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley. Barcelona City Council (2011). Barcelona Age-Friendly City: Together we build a city for all ages. Barcelona: Barcelona City Council. Bevan, M., & Croucher, K. (2011). Lifetime neighbourhoods. London: Department for Communities and Local Government. Blanco, I., & Subirats, J. (2008). Social exclusion, area effects and metropolitan governance: A comparative analysis of five large Spanish cities. Urban Research and Practice, 1, 130–148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17535060802169823. Bridge, G., & Watson, S. (2011). Reflections on Materialities. In G. Bridge, & S. Watson (Eds.), The new Blackwell companion to the city (pp. 3–15). West Sussex: WileyBlackwell. Buffel, T. (2015a). Ageing migrants and the creation of home: Mobility and the maintenance of transnational ties. Population Space and Place, 1994 Article first published online: 27 OCT 2015 | http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/psp. Buffel, T. (2015b). Researching age-friendly communities. Stories from older people as co-investigators. Manchester: The University of Manchester Library. Available online athttp://www.socialsciences.manchester.ac.uk/medialibrary/brochures/AgeFriendly-Booklet.pdf Buffel, T., De Donder, L., Phillipson, C., De Witte, N., Dury, S., & Verte, D. (2014b). Place attachment among older adults living in four communities in Flanders, Belgium. Housing Studies, 29, 800–822. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2014.898741. Buffel, T., McGarry, P., Phillipson, C., De Donder, L., Dury, S., De Witte, N., & Smetcoren, A. S. (2014a). Developing age-friendly cities: Case studies from Brussels and Manchester and implications for policy and practice. Journal of Aging and Social Policy, 26, 52–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08959420.2014.855043. Buffel, T., Phillipson, C., & Scharf, T. (2013). Experiences of neighbourhood exclusion and inclusion among older people living in deprived inner-city areas in Belgium and England. Ageing & Society, 33(Special Issue 01), 89–109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/ S0144686X12000542. Burns, V. F., Lavoie, J. P., & Rose, D. (2012). Revisiting the role of neighbourhood change in social exclusion and inclusion of older people. Journal of Aging Research. http://dx.doi. org/10.1155/2012/148287 Available online at http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jar/ 2012/148287/ [Accessed 6th of March 2014]. Center for an Urban Future (2013). The new face of New York's seniors. New York: Centre for an Urban Future. Clarke, B. (2014). The age of ageing: Barcelona's growing elderly population. Society & Science Available online at http://www.catalannewsagency.com/society-science/ item/the-age-of-ageing-barcelona-s-growing-elderly-population [accessed 30th of November 2015].

99

Cox, E., Henderson, G., & Baker, R. (2014). Silver cities: Realising the potential of our growing older population. Manchester: Institute of Public Policy North. Crookes, L. (2012). The making of space and the losing of space: A critical geography of gentrification by bulldozer in the north-east of England. In B. Tunstall (Ed.), Breaking up communities? The social impact of housing demolition in the late-20th century. York: York University. Davis, M. (2006). Planet of slums. London: Verso. Deen, S. (2012). An evaluation of housing regeneration: The Manchester, Salford housing market renewal pathfinder. master's dissertation. School of Environment, Education and Development: The University of Manchester. Erwert, A. M. (2014). S.F. rents up more than 3 times higher than national average. Available online at http://blog.sfgate.com/ontheblock/2014/01/30/s-f-rents-up-morethan-3-times-higher-than-national-average/#20080 101=0&20081103= 0&20082105=0 Fitzgerald, K. G., & Caro, F. (2016). An overview of age-friendly cities and communities around the world. Journal of Aging and Social Policy, 26, 1–18. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1080/08959420.2014.860786. Galcanova, L., & Sykorova, D. (2015). Socio-spatial aspects of ageing in an urban context: An example from three Czech Republic cities. Ageing & Society, 35, 1200–1220. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X14000154. Garon, S., Paris, M., Lalibertė, A., Veil, A., & Beaulieu, M. (2016). Age-friendly city in Quebec (Canada), or “alone it goes faster, together it goes further. 2016 In G. Caro, & K. Fitzgerald (Eds.), International perspectives on age-friendly cities (pp. 119–136). New York: Routledge. Gehl, J. (2010). Cities for Europe. London: Island Press. Glicksman, A., & Ring, L. (2016). The environment of environmental change: The impact of city realities on the success of age-friendly programs. (2016) In G. Caro, & K. Fitzgerald (Eds.), International perspectives on age-friendly cities (pp. 154–170). New York: Routledge. Golant, S. (2014). Age-friendly communities: Are we expecting too much. Montreal: IRRP Insight. Gottdiener, M., Hutchison, R., & Ryan, M. (2015). The new urban sociology. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Handler, S. (2015). An alternative age-friendly handbook. Manchester: University of Manchester Library. Harvey, D. (1982). The urban process under capitalism: A framework for analysis. In M. Dear, & A. Scott (Eds.), Urbanization and urban planning in capitalist society (pp. 265–295). Harvey, D. (2008). Right to the city. New Left Review, 53(September/October), 23–42. Harvey, D. (2012). Rebel cities: From the right to the city to the urban revolution. London: Verso Books. Hastings, A., Bailey, W., Bramley, G., Gannon, M., & Watkins, D. (2015). The cost of the cuts: The impact on local government and poorer communities. York: Joseph Rowntree Trust. ILC/Centre for Later Life Funding (2015). At a cross-roads: The future likelihood of low incomes in old age. London: ILC-UK. Kendig, H., Elias, A. -M., Majwijiw, P., & Anstey, K. (2014). Developing age-friendly cities and communities in Australia. Journal of Aging and Health, 26(8), 1390–1414. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1177/0898264314532687. Lui, C. W., Everingham, J. A., Warburton, J., Cuthill, M., & Bartlett, H. (2009). What makes a community age-friendly: A review of international literature. Australian Journal on Ageing, 28(3), 116–121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6612.2009.00355.x. McGarry, P., & Morris, J. (2011). A great place to grow older: a case study of how Manchester is developing an age-friendly city. Working with Older People, 15(1), 38–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.5042/wwop.2011.0119. Menec, V. H., Means, R., Keating, N., Parkhurst, G., & Eales, J. (2011). Conceptualizing agefriendly communities. Canadian Journal on Aging, 30, 479–493. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1017/S0714980811000237. Minton, A. (2009). Ground control: Fear and happiness in the twenty-first century city. London: Penguin Books. Moulaert, T., & Garon, S. (2016). Age-friendly cities and communities in international comparison. Political lessons, scientific avenues, and democratic issues. New York: Springer. Navarro, M., & Yee, V. (2014). Up in years and all but priced out of New York. New York Times (April 24). Office of the Comptroller (2014). The growing gap: New York City's housing affordability challenge. New York: Office of the Comptroller. Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (2015). Ageing in cities. Paris: OECD. Phillipson, C. (2007). The ‘elected’ and the ‘excluded’: Sociological perspectives on the experience of place and community in old age. Ageing & Society, 27, 321–342. http://dx. doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X06005629. Phillipson, C. (2011). Developing age-friendly communities: new approaches to growing old in urban environments. In J. L. Angel, & Settersten R. (Eds.), Handbook of the sociology of aging. New York: Springer, Verlag. Phillipson, C. (2013). Ageing. Cambridge: Polity Press. Portacolone, E., & Halpern, J. (2014). “Move or suffer” is age-segregation the new norm for older Americans living alone? Journal of Applied Gerontology. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1177/0733464814538118. Riseborough, M., & Sribjilanin, A. (2000). Overlooked and excluded? Older people and regeneration: A review of policy and practice. London: Age Concern England. Rodwin, G., & Gusmano, M. (Eds.). (2006). Growing older in world cities. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University. Rowles, G., & Chaudhury, H. (Eds.). (2005). Home and identity in later life: International perspectives. New York: Springer Publishing Company. Sassen, S. (2012). Cities in a world economy. London: Sage. Scharlach, A. (2012). Creating age-friendly communities in the United States. Ageing International, 37, 25–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12126-011-9140-1.

100

T. Buffel, C. Phillipson / Cities 55 (2016) 94–100

Scharlach, A. E., & Lehning, A. J. (2013). Ageing-friendly communities and social inclusion in the United States of America. Ageing and Society, 33, 110–136. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1017/S0144686X12000578. Simpson, C. (2010). Older people and engagement in neighbourhood renewal: A qualitative study of stoke-on-trent. Unpublished Ph.D Thesis Keele: Keele University. Smith, A. (2009). Ageing in urban neighbourhoods. Bristol: Policy Press. Soja, E. (2010). Seeking spatial justice. Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press. Steels, S. (2015). Key characteristics of age-friendly cities and communities: A review. Cities, 47, 45–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2015.02.004. Tinker, A., & Ginn, J. (2015). An age-friendly city — How far has London come? London: King's College. Turcu, C. (2012). Local experiences of urban sustainability: Researching housing market renewal interventions in three English neighbourhoods. Progress in Planning, 101–150. UN-HABITAT (2012). State of the world's cities 2012/2013. New York, NY: UN habitat. Divide. London: Earthscan.

World Health Organization (2007). Global age-friendly cities: A guide. Geneva: WHO Press. Vanderbeck, R. M., & Worth, N. (Eds.). (2015). Intergenerational space. London: Routledge. Walsh, K. (2015). Interrogating the “age-friendly” community in austerity: Myths, realities and the influence of place context. In K. Walsh, G. Carney, & A. Lèime (Eds.), Ageing through austerity. Bristol: Policy Press. Wiles, J., Leibing, A., Guberman, N., Reeve, J., & Allen, R. (2012). The meaning of ‘aging in place’ to older people. The Gerontologists, 52(3), 357–366. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ geront/gnr098. Wilson, W. (2013). Housing market renewal pathfinders. London: Library of the House of Commons. Zukin, S. (2010). The Naked city: The Death and life of authentic urban places. New York: Oxford University Press.