“People like us”
Reflections on intergenerational and age-restricted living in later life
One of the most important - and personal - decisions for those in later life is where, and with whom, to live. For some, the idea of an age-restricted community offers comfort, familiarity, and support. For others, a more intergenerational environment provides the vibrancy and diversity that keeps them feeling connected and alive. In our recent research, spanning two distinct waves of qualitative interviews, we heard both sides of the story.
The comfort of shared experience
A recurring theme was the value of being surrounded by “people like me” – those of similar age, background, and pace of life. This wasn’t about excluding younger people, but rather about the ease and shared understanding that comes from lived experience.
Douglas, who lives in a retirement complex with his wife, summed it up succinctly:
“Everyone is of a similar age group and of a similar background. So there's no need for anyone to be alone or feel isolated at any point in time.”
“We've made a lot of new friends here in our retirement community... we're very settled and very happy. That was our top priority.”
Similarly, Clive reflected on the idea of a later living community not just as a necessity, but potentially a source of companionship:
“I think basically about, a community of people of reasonably like age who have lived, in a a world that I am used to living in, not a new woke world. People that one can talk to, communicate with, and enjoy those final moments together in a pleasant, and reasonable living environment”
Concerns about feeling "cut off"
However, several participants across both groups voiced concerns about the social narrowing that can occur in age-restricted environments. Richard offered a thoughtful critique:
“Drawbacks, could be close community, separated from, the rest other generations… a community which would be, limited, I guess, in terms of its diversity.”
Jane, in a moment of honest reflection, went further, articulating a fear of institutionalisation and isolation:
“The thing that I really fear is a group of old people sitting round with nothing to do, waiting to die, because that has been the experience I've seen with family members. And I think when people are all of an age, it kind of exacerbates that. It doesn't have to be like that, but it often is. And that's the scary bit.”
Another respondent also acknowledged this risk, stating:
“The downside is... one must adapt to living in an elderly environment without children or younger people in the main.”
The concern, then, isn’t just about the logistics of community living, but the symbolism of what it means to be in an environment solely defined by age.
Age doesn't equal compatibility
Another key concern was the flawed assumption that people of the same age will naturally connect or get along. Participants reminded us that age alone is a poor predictor of compatibility. Jayne articulated this clearly in her closing remarks:
“Any age group is made up of a tremendous diversity of of people, experiences, intellect, aspirations. You can put two seventy three year olds in the same room and they just wouldn't get on in the same way that you could put two eighteen year olds in the same room and they wouldn't get on. And I think that, you know, our working lives, our education, our intellect, all have a bearing on our comfort, if we are pressed into a closer community. And I think there needs to be consideration of that. And remember, we are now the baby boomers, so, you know, our lives have been very, very interesting. People tend to see a seventy three year old now, They don't see the eighteen year old who was breaking the mould.”
This challenges the tendency to think of later living residents as a homogenous group and suggests that personality, lifestyle and life history may matter more than the year on your birth certificate.
Leaning into intergenerational living – with caveats
Some participants found the idea of intergenerational living not just acceptable, but actively appealing. Jayne was particularly candid:
“We prefer the company of younger people who tend to be more vibrant, rather than people of our own age or older.”
Others expressed a preference for more mixed-age settings to avoid a sense of "slowing down" prematurely. One interviewee stated:
“You'd be surrounded by similar people, tend not to get the wide scope of society around you. You’d tend to be isolated a little bit.”
And John, reflecting on his mother-in-law’s experience of a retirement community, noted the benefits of interaction:
“There was a shop there. There was a bar there and a little restaurant. So, yes, it's a community, and you're part of a community.”
What emerges here is a nuanced preference for independence, variety, and meaningful engagement - values that may or may not be delivered by age-restricted settings.
From independence to inevitability
For many, the decision wasn’t a binary one. It depended on timing, health, partnership and other shifting circumstances. Jane spoke to the importance of timing:
“To move into a community when you are, your mobility is very, very poor... it doesn't seem to have the same, appeal.”
Another respondent observed:
“We're quite secure... we've got our pensions, we've got our substantial savings... we don't need hotel-standard meals to be offered. We feel no need for extra services.”
Others, like Sue, viewed age-restricted communities as a kind of fallback safety net, should their current situation change:
“If anything ever happened to John, I would be looked after because I'd be in a community.”
Douglas, already embedded in a later living complex, felt that on balance, he had made the right choice:
“You're living with people of a similar age, background, and, attitude to life. So these are the positives.”
Final thoughts
Jayne’s insight serves as a final reminder that communities built solely on age similarity risk overlooking what truly connects or separates people: personality, experience, and values. As she put it, “you can put two seventy three year olds in the same room and they just wouldn't get on in the same way that you could put two eighteen year olds in the same room and they wouldn't get on.” Age is not a proxy for compatibility, and assumptions around sameness can lead to unintentional friction or disconnection.
There’s no one-size-fits-all when it comes to later life living. For some, the appeal of age-restricted communities lies in familiarity, support and shared pace. For others, those very qualities can feel restrictive or isolating. What matters, above all, is choice - and having a model that can flex as people’s lives, health, and priorities evolve. Whether age-restricted or intergenerational.
The best communities will be those that meet people where they are, not where we assume they should be.
source: Boomer + beyond_Living well later_qualitative research study_2024