Intergenerational Cities: A Framework for Policies and Programs

Abstract

Following a brief review of rights-based approaches to creating child- and elder-friendly cities, this paper draws from practical examples of intergenerational initiatives and programs from around the world to identify benefits and challenges of synergistic efforts to create livable cities for all ages. It suggests points of convergence, describes requirements for success, and proposes priorities for policy. Finally, it outlines a strategic framework to guide future intergenerational work by local governments, not-for-profit-organizations, and other stakeholders.

Keywords:

• intergenerational
• policy
• planning
• child-friendly
• elder-friendly
• shared site

Acknowledgments

Paula Dressel, Joe Hanke, and Janice Blanchard commented on the initial concept paper for this report. Shawn Edmonds provided useful research assistance. Matthew Kaplan offered helpful comments on two earlier versions, and Jessie Sutherland contributed helpful information on an earlier version. I am grateful to Mary Fran De Rose for skillfully extracting material for this paper from a longer version prepared for UN-Habitat's Global Dialogue on Harmonious Cities for All Age Groups at the World Urban Forum IV, Nanjing, November 3–6, 2008.

Notes

1. See: http://intergenerational.cas.psu.edu/Docs/v2no2.pdf. See also Christina Mercken. 2003. Neighbourhood-Reminiscence. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 1(1), 81–94.

2. The other country is Somalia, which does not have an officially recognized government to ratify the convention.

3. Developed by EarthLink in 2002, GenerationLink uses the Internet to forge a connection between teens and seniors and create an intergenerational dialogue. High schools with 10 computers and 10 willing students can participate. EarthLink's GenerationLink has launched in Atlanta, Orlando, Dallas, and Philadelphia and is expanding to more cities nationwide.

4. Cost savings may induce policymakers to make decisions that only superficially create intergenerational situations (e.g., co-location of a school and senior services) because other factors (such as establishing intergenerational programs, training staff, and embracing families) remain absent. In other words, physical change, in itself, will usually be insufficient.

5. For more information about this program and about a related initiative involving a “neighborhood reminiscence” approach, see Christina Mercken's article http://intergenerational.cas.psu.edu/DOCS/V2NO2.PDF and the work of Penninx, K. (1996). The neighborhood of all ages: Intergenerational neighborhood development in the context of local social policy. Utrecht, Netherlands: Dutch Institute for Care and Welfare.

6. See the publication Towards More Confident Communities from the Centre for Intergenerational Practice and the Beth Johnson Foundation for more information about intergenerational approaches to community reassurance see http://www.centreforip.org.uk/res/documents/publication/Twoards%20more%20Confident%20. Communities.pdf)

7. See fact sheet by Generations United at http://www.gu.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=4K0iknnYDpM%3d&tabid=157&mid=606. See also its Legislative Outreach Guide at http://www.gu.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=7969ZGIrx88%3d&tabid=157&mid=606 and “Intergenerational Learning and Care Centers,” A report from Generations United to the Commission on Affordable Housing and Health Facility Needs for Seniors in the 21st Century at http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/seniorscommission/pages/final_report/generationsUnited.html.

8. See www.cyclovia.org.

9. See www.intergenerationday.org/index.html.

10. SMART objectives are objectives that are specific, measurable, attainable, relevant and time-framed.