Housing, Theory and Society

ISSN: 1403-6096 (Print) 1651-2278 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/shou20

Can Ageing Improve Neighbourhoods? Revisiting

Neighbourhood Life-Cycle Theory

Ilan Wiesel

To cite this article: Ilan Wiesel (2012) Can Ageing Improve Neighbourhoods? Revisiting
Neighbourhood Life-Cycle Theory, Housing, Theory and Society, 29:2, 145-156, DOI:
10.1080/14036096.2011.641258

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14036096.2011.641258

Published online: 30 Jan 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 599

Citing articles: 7 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=shou20
Housing, Theory and Society,
Vol. 29, No. 2, 145–156, 2012

Can Ageing Improve Neighbourhoods?

Revisiting Neighbourhood Life-Cycle
Theory

ILAN WIESEL
City Futures Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

ABSTRACT Neighbourhood life-cycle theory has provided some important insights into the
question of how population ageing may influence local neighbourhoods. But this theory has
been rightly criticized by urban scholars for its deterministic and highly pessimistic
approach. More recent theoretical ideas about “positive ageing” challenge the underlying
pessimistic view of ageing in neighbourhood life-cycle theory, and provide opportunities to
consider new and more optimistic conceptualizations of neighbourhood ageing. This paper
provides a brief review of some of the key literature underpinning neighbourhood life-cycle
theory and, drawing on some of its principal concepts, proposes two hypothetical neighbour-
hood life-cycle scenarios, one “pessimistic” and the other “optimistic”, which represent two
ends of a full spectrum of neighbourhood life cycles.

KEY WORDS: Neighbourhood life cycle, Neighbourhood change, Ageing, Ageing in place

The quality of a neighbourhood is a key determinant of its residents’ health and

well-being, their social networks, their access to employment opportunities, services
and amenities, their costs of living and the value of their homes (Galster 2008,
Picket & Pearl 2001, Sirgy & Cornwell 2002). Yet neighbourhoods constantly
change, can improve or deteriorate over time, and the complex dynamics which
influence such changes have long intrigued and puzzled urban researchers. Narra-
tives of neighbourhood change in urban studies literature can be powerful illustra-
tions of the forces at play in emerging conflicts, of fundamental social changes and
their tangible local scale outcomes. Smith (1996) has described gentrification as the
“urban frontier” of the second half of the 20th century, a dynamic of neighbourhood
change which reflected a wide-scale transition from industrial to post-industrial
economies and its impact on previously working class neighbourhoods. Now,
population ageing can be seen as a new urban frontier of the 21st century. The
proportion of over 65 year olds in the population of the USA stood at 4.1% in
1900, 12.6% in 2000, and is projected to increase to 20% by the year 2030

Correspondence Address: Ilan Wiesel, City Futures Research Centre, University of New South Wales,
Sydney, 2052, NSW, Australia. Tel: +61-2-9385-6037; Email: i.vizel@unsw.edu.au
1403-6096 Print/1651-2278 Online/12/020145–12 Ó 2012 IBF, The Institute for Housing and Urban Research
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14036096.2011.641258
146 I. Wiesel

(Gavrilov & Heuveline 2003:1). In Australia, the proportion of over 65 year olds in
the population is expected to double to 25% in the next forty years (ABS 2009).
Chronological age tells little about the process of ageing, and “over 65 years old”
is an extremely crude category that joins together quite distinctive age groups
(Baltes & Smith 1999). Nonetheless, these figures demonstrate the vast scale of
population ageing as a demographic process. Population ageing is uneven geograph-
ically and will materialize in different ways in different cities and neighbourhoods.
To better understand the varying impact of population ageing on neighbourhoods,
this paper revisits some of the key concepts in neighbourhood life-cycle theory.
Neighbourhood life-cycle theory has been an ambitious attempt by urban schol-
ars, mostly from the USA between the 1950s and the 1980s, to develop models
describing a sequence of predictable stages of change in neighbourhoods over time
resulting, predominantly, from demographic change and the development, ageing
and redevelopment of housing stock. One of the many issues such models tried to
explain was the complex relationship between changes in the age composition of a
neighbourhood’s population and local trends of social and physical decline and
renewal.
Neighbourhood life-cycle theory has been fiercely criticized in more recent
urban studies, giving way to less deterministic and more critical theories of neigh-
bourhood change. Yet, in the context of population ageing, some of the questions
raised in neighbourhood life-cycle studies concerning the ageing of neighbourhoods
appear more relevant than ever before. It is now time to revisit neighbourhood life-
cycle theory, resort to its insightful perspective on the dynamic nature of neighbour-
hoods, but also reconsider some of its more problematic aspects and its relevance to
neighbourhoods and cities of the 21st century and to new ways of thinking about
ageing (“positive ageing”).
The paper is structured as following. The first part of the paper provides a brief
review of some of the key literature underpinning neighbourhood life-cycle theory,
as well as its critique. The second part of the paper draws out some of the key con-
cepts in neighbourhood life-cycle theory and uses them as triggers for discussion of
population ageing and its impact on urban neighbourhoods. This part is divided into
two subsections. The first subsection presents a “pessimistic” scenario of ageing
neighbourhoods, based on classic neighbourhood life-cycle theory. The second sub-
section offers an alternative “optimistic” scenario of ageing neighbourhoods, chal-
lenging some of the key assumptions made in neighbourhood life-cycle theory
about the relationship between ageing and neighbourhood change. The pessimistic
and the optimistic scenarios are both hypothetical and represent two ends of a full
spectrum of potential life cycles of neighbourhoods. Following the idea that neigh-
bourhoods evolve in cyclical patterns, the third part of the paper considers what
stages might follow the stage of population ageing. The paper is then concluded
with a discussion of the potential applications and implications of these scenarios.
Most of the literature discussed in the paper is from the USA and Australia, allow-
ing some comparisons between the two contexts.

Neighbourhood Life-Cycle Theory

In using the concept of “neighbourhood life-cycle theory” I refer here to a particular
stream of studies within the greater body of literature on neighbourhood change. As
 Can Ageing Improve Neighbourhoods? 147

noted by Galster (2000:63), neighbourhood life-cycle theory has been one of many
models of neighbourhood change developed by urban researchers. Neighbourhood
life-cycle studies have been different in some important ways but generally share
two features: first, these studies seek to identify common and distinctive “stages” in
the course of neighbourhoods’ development. While different studies classify differ-
ent stages, transitions between these stages are typically characterized by demo-
graphic change, changes to the housing stock’s density and quality and changes to
the neighbourhood’s overall “status”; second, in each of the stages, various changes
can accumulate into an overall trend of “growth”, “decline” or “renewal”. In this
section I review some of the key literature on neighbourhood life cycle, focusing in
particular on ways by which they have addressed population ageing, the ageing of
housing stock and their impact on neighbourhoods. Nearly all of the literature
reviewed in this section is from the USA, where neighbourhood life-cycle theories
have been most prominent.
Neighbourhood life-cycle theory finds its roots in the urban ecology theory
developed by sociologists of the Chicago School. In urban ecology, neighbourhoods
are viewed as “natural areas” which are shaped, predominantly, by three demo-
graphic processes: mortality, fertility and migration. These demographic changes
translate into competition over land-use. Migration shapes natural areas through pro-
cesses of invasion and succession. Invasion occurs when a group of outsiders
migrates into the natural area, and succession occurs when they gain the upper hand
in the competition over land use. But it is the concepts of mortality and fertility that
help understand how the ageing of neighbourhoods is viewed by urban ecologists.
Schwirian (1983), in his overview of neighbourhood change models, summarized
the urban ecological perspective on ageing neighbourhoods as follows:

In an area inhabited by a comparatively older population natural attrition will

take its toll. Unless new members are added by fertility or migration the
neighborhood’s population will decline, the social system will contract, the
ways of life will be altered, and the physical environment will deteriorate
(Schwirian 1983:84–85).

These ideas have had significant influence on the development of neighbourhood

life-cycle theory. This inherently pessimistic view of ageing filtered into neighbour-
hood life-cycle models, as well as “the fundamental assumption that neighborhood
change is inevitable . . . Neighborhoods, in these explanatory models, are predeter-
mined to change as time takes its inevitable toll on people and things” (Temkin &
Rohe 1996:160).
Following the urban ecologists of the Chicago School, Hoover & Vernon’s
(1959) five-stage model is considered as the most influential study of neighbour-
hood life cycles. Their study was based on analysis of demographic and housing
data on New York City neighbourhoods. The first stage in a neighbourhood’s life
cycle in Hoover & Vernon’s model is the development of new single-family hous-
ing. At this early stage, the key demographic of neighbourhoods are young families
with children. The second stage continues to be characterized by new residential
development, but at higher density with new apartment buildings replacing older
detached dwellings. As neighbourhoods reach stage three, the housing stock
developed in stages one and two has already aged and is now being adapted to
148 I. Wiesel

accommodate more people than it was originally designed for, resulting in over-
crowding and an overall “downgrading” of the neighbourhood. This stage is also
characterized by ethnic or racial change in the neighbourhood. In stage four, a
“thinning out” occurs in the local population, reflecting decline in household size as
the population of the neighbourhood ages and older couples become the predomi-
nant demographic. This stage is also characterized by continuing physical deteriora-
tion of older housing stock. At stage five, renewal can occur which involves
replacement of older deteriorated houses with new apartments, and replacement of
older residents with younger households.
A variation on Hoover & Vernon’s neighbourhood life-cycle model was offered
by Birch (1971) who proposed a different list of stages, based on research in New
Haven, Connecticut in the USA. Birch’s conclusions from analysis of demographic
changes in New Haven were that over time, neighbourhood decline is inevitable.
But Birch also maintained that this conclusion is not necessarily glum:

To some the stage theory may seem pessimistic, foretelling the inevitable
decay of urban regions. For someone who is rooted to a particular neighbor-
hood, it is indeed pessimistic. Neighborhoods do seem to evolve, and eventu-
ally decay. To those on the move, however, evolution is hardly a drawback. It
is the process which brings higher quality neighborhoods within their reach.
What may appear as decay to an older Italian couple earning $5,000 a year,
or to a city planner, may be viewed as opportunity by a black whose income
is just beginning to rise (Birch 1971:86).

Birch’s study explored the nature of neighbourhood life-cycle theory as a “stage

theory”. In a “proper stage theory” (p. 79), according to Birch, stages should be
distinct, empirically testable and the processes of transition from one stage to
another clearly defined. Each stage is characterized by some level of stability over a
relatively long period of time, and transitions between stages are relatively quick;
otherwise, what emerges is a process of constant change rather than stages. Birch
considers the sequence of stages in neighbourhood change as linear (“there should
be no neighbourhood that moves backward”; Birch 1971:81), but accepts that the
pace of change will vary across neighbourhoods.
The idea that neighbourhood change is inevitably unidirectional has later been
rejected by some proponents of neighbourhood life-cycle theory. Downs (1981) sug-
gested an analogy between the ageing of neighbourhoods and the ageing of
humans, both experiencing early stages of growth, followed in later years by old-
age deterioration. As humans eventually die, so do neighbourhoods face the pros-
pect of abandonment. But Downs pointed out that unlike humans, even abandoned
neighbourhoods most often “resurrect”, rejuvenate and are redeveloped. Some
neighbourhoods in ancient cities of the world “have died and been reborn dozens of
times” (Downs 1981:69).
According to neighbourhood life-cycle theory, two dynamics are at play in the
transition between different stages. First, as the housing stock in a neighbourhood
ages it inevitably deteriorates, because the costs of maintaining a housing unit
increase over time (Sweeney 1974). Wealthier residents who can afford to do so
move out to newer neighbourhoods, and are replaced by less affluent residents for
whom, as noted by Birch (1971:86) above, this is in fact an improvement compared
 Can Ageing Improve Neighbourhoods? 149

to their previous neighbourhood. Overall, the mean income in the neighbourhood

declines. This process is termed as “filtering” (Temkin & Rohe 1996:160). Second,
changes to the racial or ethnic mix of originally white neighbourhood beyond a cer-
tain “tipping point” are believed to result in “white flight” (increasing out-migration
of white residents) which accelerates this process (Goering 1978).
Neighbourhood life-cycle theory has been criticized for its underlying
deterministic approach and the prediction that decline in urban neighbourhoods is
inescapable and a natural process. The deterministic and essentially pessimistic
approach of neighbourhood life-cycle theory has been criticized by Metzger (2000)
as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Metzger’s claim – which had attracted some contro-
versy (Galster 2000) – was that neighbourhood life-cycle theory encouraged prac-
tices of racial segregation by real estate agents and financial institutions
(“redlining”). As noted by Temkin & Rohe (1996:161), “[to] the extent that these
models support intervention at all, it would be to attenuate neighbourhood change
brought about by racial prejudice described in border and tipping models, so that
the natural and “efficient” amount of neighbourhood change resulting from natural
economic forces can be realized”.
It should be noted that even Hoover & Vernon (1959:206) recognized that not
every neighbourhood will go through the five stages they described, hence neigh-
bourhood life-cycle theory has never been as deterministic as it was later portrayed
by critics. Yet, the key point which emerges from the critique of neighbourhood
life-cycle theory is that in describing neighbourhood change – both decline and
renewal – as a natural (even if not inevitable) process, and by associating social
diversity and ageing with decline, it has reflected a politically benign view. Much
of the literature on neighbourhood change since the 1970s has offered alternative,
more critical approaches which problematize and politicize processes of both
decline and renewal, demonstrating how the two are often direct outcomes of urban
policy and can serve specific interests. Following such criticism, neighbourhood
life-cycle theory, as an overarching conceptual framework, has been largely
discarded in academic research. Yet, the concept of a “neighbourhood life cycle”
continues to play an important role in popular discourse and in the discourse of
real-estate agencies as an appraisal tool.

The Spectrum of Ageing Neighbourhoods’ Life Cycles

In this section I present a theoretical justification for two hypothetical scenarios of
neighbourhood ageing, which represent, in my view, two ends of a full spectrum of
potential neighbourhood life cycles. At first, I present a pessimistic scenario, which
reflects dynamics of change which have been identified in existing neighbourhood
life-cycle theory. This analysis lists a range of economic and social drivers of
decline in ageing neighbourhood. I then move on to present an alternative optimis-
tic scenario of ageing as a driver of “neighbourhood renaissance”, drawing on more
recent ideas of “positive ageing”.

The Pessimistic Scenario of an Ageing Neighbourhood Decline

One of the key themes in neighbourhood life-cycle theory is that the ageing of a
neighbourhood’s population and the ageing of the local housing stock inevitably
150 I. Wiesel

lead to its decline, and eventually abandonment (Schwirian 1983). Three main
assumptions underpin this view. First, as residents retire and their incomes decline,
the neighbourhood as a whole faces poverty. Second, over time a neighbourhood’s
housing stock ages and deteriorates, whereas older residents are increasingly limited
in their capacity to reinvest in maintaining or renewing this stock. Third, beyond a
certain “tipping point”, ageing neighbourhoods will experience complete take-over
by an elderly population and so both income decline and physical deterioration will
have a devastating impact on neighbourhoods.
Over time, ageing dwellings are increasingly subject to problems associated with
disrepair compromising some of their main functions, such as providing shelter and
protection from the elements: “The roof may sag, dry rot may undermine the foun-
dations, the building may settle . . . flaking paint, broken windows, cracked or
warped siding, leaky roofs, clogged plumbing or drains, worn-out screens, scuffed
floors or linoleum” (Lowry 1960:365). There is convincing empirical evidence of
the strong correlation between the age of a dwelling and its physical or functional
deterioration. In a national survey by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, for
example, conducted in 1999, need for external repairs was reported for 11% of
Australian dwellings under 5 years old and 63% of dwellings aged 60 years and
over. Likewise, need for internal repairs was reported for 16% of dwellings under 5
years and 59% of dwellings aged 60 years and over. Fewer than 10% of dwellings
aged less than 10 years had major structural problems, whereas more than a third
(35%) of dwellings aged 60 years and over had major structural problems (ABS
2000).
The deterioration of older housing stock is not merely a process of natural decay
over time. Rather, it is driven by a complex set of economic and social factors
which discourage reinvestment in older housing stock. The close relationship
between physical deterioration and financial depreciation of ageing housing stock is
described by economists as a vicious cycle of decline. Economists estimate that the
financial value of dwellings (excluding land values) depreciates over time. Financial
depreciation is inevitable, although its pace varies with location and tenure. Depre-
ciation occurs because of increasing physical decay and disrepair over time, as well
as cultural and lifestyles changes which relegate older dwelling obsolete. Some
level of depreciation will occur even in houses in which significant financial rein-
vestment has been made, because stylistic and functional obsolescence cannot be
fully offset by renovations (Smith 2004:174).
Economists typically explain residential decisions as rational choices made by
households taking into account considerations of potential financial gain or risk.
From such a perspective, the decision to reinvest in a house will consider the over-
all value of the asset. An older house that has lost significant value due to deprecia-
tion may not be considered worthy of reinvestment, as demonstrated in the example
below:

Consider a homeowner deciding whether to replace a seriously leaking roof

on a house in a lacklustre neighborhood of a declining city with a market
value of only $50,000. If the costs of replacing the roof were very low
(e.g., $200), it probably would be worth making the investment to do so. But,
if the cost was significantly higher, at (say) $15,000, the owner would have to
think very hard before undertaking the investment . . . it is well known that a
 Can Ageing Improve Neighbourhoods? 151

for-profit entrepreneur will never invest in a project that costs more than the
market value of the asset itself (Gyourko & Saiz 2004:240).

Thus, from an economic perspective that considers owner-occupiers as “for-profit

entrepreneurs”, reinvestment in ageing housing stock may be discouraged due to
real or perceived financial depreciation.
Further, reinvestment in older dwellings can be limited by the financial capacity
of owners. Older houses require more maintenance work and expenditure, at the
same time as the people living in them are often those who have the least capacity
to afford such expenses. In particular, researchers from the USA (Reschovsky &
Newman 1991, Rubin 1993) identify two demographic groups that are more likely
than others to occupy old houses: older households and low-income households
(with significant overlapping between both groups).
In the USA there is evidence that elderly people live in homes that on average
are older than those occupied by younger households (Reschovsky & Newman
1991:S289). In Australia, existing data suggests that nearly a third of dwellings over
40 years old are occupied by retired residents – more than twice their overall pro-
portion within the population (ABS 2000). Processes of decline driven by the age-
ing of housing stock coupled with the ageing of population have been identified in
some Australian suburbs, as noted by Randolph (2002:173): “. . . the middle sub-
urbs of Sydney are maturing and changing . . . The remaining initial occupants of
the area are now ageing and represent a significant proportion of the population . . .
At the same time, the physical fabric of much of the earlier housing in the middle
suburbs is wearing out”.
Elderly people face difficulties in maintaining their homes due to health limita-
tions as well as low income (Reschovsky & Newman 1991, Golant & LaGreca
1994:812). Disinvestment by individual owners can translate into a wider local
trend of reinvestment and decline. The very image of an “ageing neighbourhood”
may deter homeowners from reinvestment, in effect reinforcing this image. Lucy &
Philips (2000), in the USA, note that such dynamics of decline are particularly
acute in middle-ring postwar suburbs. Unlike inner-city older neighbourhoods, these
older suburbs have less to offer in terms of access to services, public transport and
entertainment. Larger and more modern housing is perhaps what has attracted resi-
dents to the suburbs in the first place, and the ageing of those houses reduces the
attractiveness of these neighbourhoods, and thus escalates their decline (Lucy &
Philips 2000:8). Further, compared to inner-city neighbourhoods, many suburbs
were developed in a relatively short period of time and under differentiated residen-
tial land-use zoning, and so accommodate a more homogenous housing stock of
similar age (Kling, Olin & Poster 1991:6). One consequence of this homogeneity is
that housing in suburban neighbourhoods often age in unison in a more visible
fashion, which reinforces the negative image of an “ageing neighbourhood”.

The Optimistic Scenario of Ageing Neighbourhood Renaissance

In contrast to the pessimistic scenario of ageing neighbourhoods condemned to
decline, in this subsection I present the case for an alternative scenario of positively
ageing neighbourhoods. Much has been written about the role that neighbourhoods
play in ensuring the well being of elderly people who age in place (Productivity
152 I. Wiesel

Commission 2011). Yet, the positive outcomes of ageing in place for the neighbour-
hoods themselves must be considered as well. The “environmental proactivity
hypothesis”, proposed by theorists in environmental gerontology, emphasizes the
reciprocal interaction that exists between people and the environments they live in,
and turns attention to the agency of older people who actively, and creatively, alter
their environments (Lawton 1990, Smith 2009:13). Despite income limitations after
retirement, an older population may contribute significant financial and social capi-
tal to a neighbourhood, leading its “renaissance” rather than demise.
Although household incomes decline after retirement, higher levels of homeow-
nership compared to younger households (ABS 2006) suggests most older people
today in countries such as Australia and the USA are relatively “asset-rich”
(Bradbury 2010). They are also more likely than younger owner-occupiers to have
paid off their mortgages in full (ABS 2000). These factors, coupled with new finan-
cial instruments such as reverse mortgages (Bridge et al. 2010), may offset the con-
straints of lower income and increase the financial capacity of older households to
reinvest in their homes, and in doing so improving the overall physical fabric of
their neighbourhoods.
Older people, in general, spend more time at home (Judd, Olsberg, Quinn,
Groenhart & Demirbilek 2010) and intend to spend more years at their existing
home compared to younger households, because of their desire to age in place. This
suggests that older households have an additional incentive to reinvest in their
homes and neighbourhoods in order to maintain their desired standard of living,
compared to younger households who often do not see their dwelling as a perma-
nent residence, nor do they see their local neighbourhood as their permanent com-
munity.
Much current research in various countries indicates that older households view
their housing wealth as a source of “precautionary savings” (Painter & Lee 2010:1).
Hence some older households will consider reinvestment in their own homes vital
in order to protect the value of their assets. Although some level of stylistic and
functional obsolescence is inevitable and will result in financial depreciation of their
assets (Smith 2004), such depreciation is minor compared to the overall apprecia-
tion of land value in many ageing suburbs, which have significant accessibility
advantages compared to newer (and younger) suburbs on the fringe. In other words,
despite relatively low incomes, older people may have the means of reinvesting in
their dwellings, and more importantly the motivation to do so.
Further, even in neighbourhoods where physical deterioration of older housing
stock does occur, it does not necessarily reflect a dynamic of overall neighbourhood
decline. In Sydney, for example, since old houses can be demolished and replaced
with completely new ones through the increasingly popular practice of
“knockdown-rebuild”, neighbourhoods with an older housing stock and an older
population are not shunned by younger buyers, rather are considered by many as
ideal housing opportunities (Wiesel, Freestone, Pinnegar & Randolph 2011).
Most importantly, the “reinvestment” older people contribute to neighbourhoods
must not be measured in financial terms only, and other forms of contribution need
to be accounted for when considering how neighbourhoods age. Older people make
significant contributions to their neighbourhoods through both formal and informal
volunteering and high levels of participation in community life. In the State of
Victoria, Australia, there is evidence that older people contribute, “in proportion,
almost twice their share of the total population in voluntary work” (Parliament of
 Can Ageing Improve Neighbourhoods? 153

Victoria 1997:130). As more older people choose to age in place, they develop
long-term social networks which help develop and strengthen a sense of community
in their neighbourhoods. Through participation in activities and local community
organizations, such as churches or community gardens, older residents also contrib-
ute to the spiritual and cultural life of neighbourhoods. In this sense, the ageing of
neighbourhoods can trigger a local cultural and spiritual renaissance rather than
decline.
An ageing resident population can proactively contribute to the development of
more walkable neighbourhoods with reduced traffic that encourage more active and
healthier lifestyles. This will benefit the ageing residents themselves and the local
community as a whole. Michael, Green & Farquhar’s (2006) study of neighbour-
hood design and active ageing in Portland found that older residents highly valued
walkability as an important feature of their neighbourhood. Furthermore, partici-
pants in their study actively contributed to the creation and preservation of walkable
paths in their neighbourhoods through participation in organized or individual
clean-up activities (litter patrols and graffiti cleaning) to improve neighbourhood
attractiveness in general, and walkability in particular. In Sydney, an advocacy
organization called the Healthy Older People Program (HOPP) was established in
1990 to promote health, well-being and independence of older people. Through
engagement of local older residents in the inner Sydney suburbs of Surry Hills and
Darlinghurst, HOPP’s advocacy efforts triggered action by the council that agreed
“to allocate funds for footpath upgrading and . . . development of a pedestrian net-
work plan, which will, of course, benefit the whole community” (Hill and Basser
1998:16). In addition to footpaths, the advocacy group promoted planning policies
to encourage fresh food shops and affordable housing in these neighbourhoods.
An ageing resident population can play a vital role in forming “neighbourhoods
of memory”. Boyer (1996) and Sandercock (2003) emphasized the importance of
collective memory as a fundamental aspect of the built environment, allowing indi-
viduals and communities to connect to a “larger urban narrative” (Sandercock
2003:403). For Sandercock, the “city of memory” is a key element in a utopian
vision of urbanity that can be achieved through the preservation of historic pre-
cincts, streetscapes and buildings. Following this, by living in their old homes and
actively maintaining them, the older long-term residents of a neighbourhood
actively construct the neighbourhood of memory. But these older dwellings are not
simply preserved in their physical form as exhibits of a long-gone past; rather, they
are homes where memories of the past and present lives are intricately entangled.
More importantly, beyond the preservation of physical dwellings, it is these older
residents themselves who embody the neighbourhood of memory, through their inti-
mate individual and collective memories of the neighbourhood’s past and their
“autobiographical insideness” (Rowles 1983:299).

From Ageing to Regeneration

At the very heart of neighbourhood life-cycle theory lays the notion that neighbour-
hoods evolve in a cyclical pattern. In Hoover & Vernon’s (1959) model, the ageing
of a neighbourhood in its “thinning out” stage is a phase of deterioration and
decline, in some cases to the extent of abandonment (Downs 1981). Nevertheless,
this can be followed by a new phase of renewal whereby older residents and an
154 I. Wiesel

ageing housing stock are eventually replaced by younger families and, often, new
dwellings. With this in mind, both the pessimistic and optimistic scenarios presented
in the previous section can be followed by a new phase of neighbourhood change
with the influx of a new generation of younger residents and the gradual replace-
ment of the neighbourhood’s long-term ageing population.
An example for such a process is described in a study of housing and neigh-
bourhood change in Sydney’s suburbs as “gen-X-trification” (Wiesel, Freestone,
Pinnegar & Randolph 2011). The study examined the practices of young families
(predominantly from the Generation-X cohort) who purchase old dwellings in age-
ing neighbourhoods and replace these dwellings with new, bigger and more modern
homes that respond to their lifestyle expectations. This practice involves the
replacement of older residents who either voluntarily sold their homes in order to
downsize or have passed away. The demographic change in the neighbourhood was
described by one participant in the study, a woman in her early forties, as
following:

When we came here we were the youngest ones in the street. Everybody else
were mature or older, quite a lot older couples . . . [we bought the house from
an older couple.] But times change and things move on, they’re not here any-
more.

Many of the houses in this participant’s neighbourhood have been replaced in a

similar fashion. This process of generation change in a neighbourhood is similar
in many ways to gentrification, as it involves a relatively affluent group taking
over dwellings that were previously inhabited by lower-income residents.
However, the older owner-occupiers who sold their homes to younger buyers in
the Sydney study did so voluntarily. The process of gen-X-trification stimulated
demand for their properties, allowing older residents to move out and downsize,
but only when they chose to. In contrast, in neighbourhoods with a high propor-
tion of renters rather than owner-occupiers, there is a grave risk of involuntary
displacement of older residents when their neighbourhood is gentrified by younger
households.
A very different scenario can occur in neighbourhoods where a relatively high
proportion of aged residents is maintained for a long period of time through ongo-
ing in-migration of older residents from outside. Such a phenomenon has been
described in literature about “Naturally Occurring Retirement Communities” (NOR-
Cs), a term originally coined by Hunt & Gunter-Hunt (1986). NORCs can occur
when a neighbourhood attracts older people from outside because of the good ame-
nity it offers. A more problematic situation can occur when the in-migration of
older residents into a poorly serviced neighbourhood is driven by housing afford-
ability constraints.
These examples demonstrate why the concept of a neighbourhood life cycle
continues to be relevant and useful in urban and housing research in the 21st cen-
tury. A life-cycle approach that avoids deterministic assumptions can be useful for
those who seek to explore the links between the past, present and future of neigh-
bourhoods. It also brings attention to the opportunities for, as well as vulnerability
of, the neighbourhood’s residents – older residents and others – at each stage, and
just as importantly, in the transition between stages.
 Can Ageing Improve Neighbourhoods? 155

Conclusions
Much has been written about the impact of population ageing on national economies
as overall participation levels in the workforce decline and demand for health and
other age-related services increases (Productivity Commission 2011; Gavrilov &
Heuveline 2003). Yet, there is little understanding of the potential impact of popula-
tion ageing at the neighbourhood level. More than any other theory of neighbourhood
change, and despite its considerable flaws and limitations, neighbourhood life-cycle
theory provides some useful concepts that may help address this question.
A wide spectrum of potential life cycles for ageing neighbourhoods has been
presented in this paper. At one end of the spectrum, the pessimistic scenario of age-
ing neighbourhood reflects some of the dynamics which have been identified in
classic neighbourhood life-cycle theory. At the other end of the spectrum, the opti-
mistic scenario of neighbourhood life cycle suggests that other dynamics are also
possible, deriving from the concept of “positive ageing” and the conviction that an
older population has much to contribute to urban neighbourhoods’ physical, cultural
and spiritual revival.
Neither the optimistic scenario nor the pessimistic one will naturally and
inevitably materialize in each and every neighbourhood. Much active agency by older
people and their advocates is required in order to achieve positive neighbourhood age-
ing. Just as importantly, there is a need for a supportive policy and planning environ-
ment that embraces rather than fears population ageing. Urban and housing
researchers can contribute to the development of such an environment by expanding
the optimistic scenario of ageing neighbourhoods, through creative theoretical ideas
and empirical explorations of the ways ageing can improve neighbourhoods.

References
ABS (2000) 1999 Australian Housing Survey (Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics).
ABS (2006) Census of Population and Housing (Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics).
ABS (2009) Future Population Growth and Ageing, Australian Social Trends, March 2009 (Canberra:
Australian Bureau of Statistics).
Baltes, P. B. & Smith, J. (1999) Multilevel and systemic analyses of old age: Theoretical and empirical
evidence for a Fourth Age, in: V. L. Bentson & K. W. Schaie (Eds) Handbook of Theories of
Aging, pp. 153–173 (New York: Springer).
Birch, D. (1971) Towards a stage theory of growth, Journal of the American Planning Association, 37
(3), pp. 78–87.
Boyer, M. C. (1996) The City of Collective Memory: Its Historical Imagery and Architectural Enter-
tainments (Boston: MIT Press).
Bradbury, B. (2010) Asset rich, but income poor: Australian housing wealth and retirement in an inter-
national context, Social Policy Research Paper No. 4. Canberra: FaHCASIA.
Bridge, C., Adams, T., Phibbs, P., Mathews, M. & Kendig, H. (2010) Reverse mortgages and older
people: growth factors and implications for retirement decisions, AHURI Final Report (Melbourne:
AHURI).
Downs, A. (1981) Neighborhoods and Urban Development (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute).
Galster, G. C. (2000) Comment on John T. Metzger’s ‘Planned abandonment: The neighbourhood life-
cycle theory and national urban policy’, Housing Policy Debate, 11(1), pp. 61–66.
Galster, G. C. (2008) Quantifying the effect of neighbourhood on individuals: Challenges, alternative
approaches, and promising directions, Scmollers Jahrbuch, 128(1), pp. 7–48.
Gavrilov, L. A. & Heuveline, P. (2003) Aging of Population: The Encyclopedia of Population (New
York: MacMillan).
Goering, J. M. (1978) Neighborhood tipping and racial transition: A review of social science evidence,
Journal of the American Planning Association, 44(1), pp. 68–78.
156 I. Wiesel

Golant, S. M. & LaGreca, A. J. (1994) Housing quality of US elderly households: Does aging in place
matter? The Gerontologist, 34(6), pp. 803–814.
Gyourko, J. & Saiz, A. (2004) Reinvestment in the housing stock: the role of construction costs and
the supply side, Journal of Urban Economics, 55, pp. 238–265.
Hill, B. J. & Basser, M. L. (1998) Ageing in the inner city: Advocacy for the voiceless, Australasian
Journal on Ageing, 17(1), pp. 16–17.
Hoover, E. M. & Vernon, R. (1959) Anatomy of a Metropolis (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press).
Hunt, M. E. & Gunter-Hunt, G. (1986) Naturally occurring retirement communities, Journal of Housing
for the Elderly, 3(3&4), pp. 3–22.
Judd, B., Olsberg, D., Quinn, J., Groenhart, L. & Demirbilek, O. (2010) Dwelling, Land and Neigh-
bourhood Use by Older Home Owners (Melbourne: AHURI).
Kling, R., Olin, S. & Poster, M. (1991) Postsuburban California: The transformation of Orange
County since World War II (Berkley: University of California).
Lawton, M. P. (1990) Residential environment and self-directedness among older people, American
Psychologist, 45(5), pp. 638–640.
Lowry, I. S. (1960) Filtering and housing standards: A conceptual analysis, Land Economics, 36(4), pp.
362–370.
Lucy, W. H. & Phillips, D. L. (2000) Confronting Suburban Decline: Strategic Planning for Metropoli-
tan Renewal (Washington: Island Press).
Michael, Y. L., Green, M. K. & Farquhar, S. A. (2006) Neighbourhood design and active aging, Health
& Place, 12, pp. 734–740.
Metzger, J. T. (2000) Planned abandonment: The neighborhood life-cycle theory and national urban
policy, Housing Policy Debate, 11(1), pp. 7–40.
Painter, G. & Lee, K. (2010) Housing Choices in Aging Households: The Influence of Life Cycle,
Demographics, and Family (Los Angeles: Lusk Center, USC).
Parliament of Victoria (1997) Inquiry into Planning for Positive Ageing (Melbourne: Parliament of
Victoria).
Picket, K. E. & Pearl, M. (2001) Multilevel analysis of neighbourhood socioeconomic context and
health outcomes: a critical review, Journal of Epidemiological Community Health, 55, pp.
111–122.
Productivity Commission (2011) Caring for Older Australians: Draft report (Canberra: Productivity
Commission).
Reschovsky, J. & Newman, S. J. (1991) Home upkeep and housing quality of older homeowners, Jour-
nal of Gernotology, 46(5), pp. S288–S297.
Rowles, G. D. (1983) Place and personal identity in old age: Observations from Appalachia, Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 3, pp. 299–313.
Rubin, G. (1993) Is housing age a commodity? Hedonic price estimates of unit age, Journal of Housing
Research, 4(1), pp. 165–184.
Sandercock, L. (2003) Towards Cosmopolis: Utopia as construction site, in: S. Fainstein & S. Campbell
(Eds) Readings in Planning Theory, pp. 401–407 (Melbourne: Blackwell).
Schwirian, K. P. (1983) Models of neighbourhood change, Annual Review of Sociology, 9, pp. 83–102.
Sirgy, J. M. & Cornwell, T. (2002) How neighbourhood features affect quality of life, Social Indicators
Research, 59, pp. 79–114.
Smith, A. (2009) Ageing in Urban Neighbourhoods: Place Attachment and Social Exclusion (Bristol:
The Policy Press).
Smith, B. (2004) Economic depreciation of residential real estate Microlevel space and time analysis,
Real Estate Economics, 22(1), pp. 161–190.
Smith, N. (1996) The New Urban Frontier: Gentrification and the Revanchist City (London:
Routledge).
Sweeney, J. (1974) A commodity hierarchy model, Journal of Urban Economics (1), pp. 288–323.
Temkin, K. & Rohe, W. (1996) Neighbourhood change and urban policy, Journal of Planning Educa-
tion and Research, 15, pp. 159–170.
Wiesel, I., Freestone, R., Pinnegar, S. & Randolph, B. (2011) Gen-X-Trification? Generation shifts and
the renewal of low-density housing in Sydney’s suburbs, in: State of Australian Cities Conference,
26–29 November 2011, Melbourne.