A Physical Response to the
Problem of Intergenerational Space
A thesis submitted to the Graduate School
of the University of Cincinnati
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Master of Architecture
in the Department of Architecture of the College of Design, Architecture, Art, and Planning
by
Josiah Ebert
B.S. University of Cincinnati
May 2017
Committee Chair: Michael McInturf
Committee Member: Elizabeth Riorden
Abstract
People of all ages inhabit architectural designs; sometimes these designs are geared toward their specific needs, but more often spaces are built for some predetermined average person. Although this has its benefits, it tends to encourage the already natural problem of age segregation within spaces because each space is designated and designed for a specific age group, such as children in a preschool or elderly in a nursing home. While such spatial segregation is easily navigated by most adults who freely move between these spaces, it can have more perverse effects on the young and old who are less able to move between spaces and who have more distinct spatial requirements and barriers to entry than the average adult. These effects include isolation which can lead to decline in health as well as slower development of social skills for children. At the same time, the groups that are affected the most are also the ones that are currently growing the most, with the elderly and youth populations expanding at a high rate.
For the effects of spatial segregation to be addressed, spaces of overlap should be explored both on a programmatic and spatial level. By analyzing the research in how spaces are designed for specific groups and then refolding this information back into the fabric of overlapping spatial design, a more true form of intergenerational space can begin to arise. Alongside this exploration, programs that support overlap can be developed and explored, such as combined care facilities for the elderly and preschool age children, a type that has arisen in recent years due to much social research, but which still lacks architectural research. This model provides a useful testing ground for intergenerational concepts due to the specificity of interaction, and the design explored here will seek to map these interactive concepts. By redeveloping spaces of overlap through the lens of differing generational user groups, barriers to intergenerational exchange can be mitigated and such exchange can begin to be supported rather than impeded by the spaces they occur within.
To my Grandma Ebert, who always found my work interesting.
And for my father, who always had ideas for me and loved to talk about architecture and design.
Special thanks to my mother,, who never lost patience with my complaints. TABLE OF CONTENTS
.1 People in Space 11
.2 Seniors in Space 27
.3 Children in Space 41
.4 Together in Space 53
.5 Design Application 67
.6 Conclusion 83
.7 Bibliography 85 11
.1 People in Space
People exist simultaneously within the confines of time and within the confines of space;
these relationships are at once evident and continuously intertwined. Take, for instance, a small
suburban home. The toddler crawls along the floor – the eight foot ceilings are high, out of
reach- the texture of the carpet is felt, tactile- it takes a full 5 minutes to cross the living room. As
a teenager, it takes no more than 4 steps to cross the room. The ceiling is low and within reach.
Not only this, but the experience of life and culture has changed her view of the world. What she
actually perceives is different because of what she has learned is important to notice – and at the
same time she thinks very little of the room because it is familiar. Forty years later, the familiar
room is further from reach once again. The steps at the entry take careful concentration rather
than flippant bounding. The room feels larger as it takes longer to cross and vision is faded. The
experience is different. As Hall perceptively notes, “superficially, these groups may all look alike
and sound somewhat alike… beneath the surface there lie manifold unstated, unformulated
differences in the structuring of time, space, materials, and relationships.”1
Hall was, of course, referring to culture when he made his observations of perceptual
differences in the interplay between time and space, but there is evidence that differing age
groups, also, interact with, experience, and perceive space in unique ways. This is especially true
with recent demographic trends that point to a large increase in the 65+ population over the next
30 years combined with an average life expectancy for seniors that is 90+.2 This lengthening of
the age gap means that in addition to changes in spatial perception due to age, there actually are Figure #1
1. Edward T. Hall, The Hidden Dimension (Garden City, N.Y: Doubleday, 1969), X.
2. John K. McIlwain, Housing in America: the Baby Boomers Turn 65 (Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute, 2012), 6.
13
differing cultural perceptions of space, just as Hall describes, even within the same country,
simply due to the drastic changes in the arc of history that can occur over a 50-70 year period.
And yet, although people’s perceptions are changing as they move through time and space, the
space itself often remains static, suited to a single view – that of the average, vaguely human,
occupant – the architectural subject as it were.
CURRENT SOLUTIONS Even when these differences are acknowledged, they are dissected and exploited individually – as with the proclivity to neatly categorize and solve social problems, the method
adapted is divide and conquer. Preschools are designed for the specific needs of children,
assisted living facilities acknowledge the needs of seniors, and businesses are made for the
average adult.3 The result is the splintering seen between age groups at a macro, but perhaps
more importantly, a micro level in many communities across the United States.4 What is more
important is that whenever a person enters a space designed for the specific needs of another
group (if he ever goes at all), he is immediately alienated by the space itself. By trying to address
the problem, the gap between competing users is highlighted, only further exemplifying the Figure #2 - McCarthy Place, 2020, All Seniors Care, Figure #3 - The École Maternelle Pajol, 2017, 12 Of the 2020. Most Beautiful Kindergartens around the World, 2020. problem that it was in some way meant to solve.
Expedient Solutions Isolated Solutions How, then, can generational perceptions of space be both acknowledged and at the same time recombined into a space so that it is both inviting and conducive to multigenerational use?
Overlap Is Not Spatially Supported Traditional responses include only the idea of bringing accessibility into normative spaces – this is the goal of projects such as the World Health Organization’s Global Age Friendly Cities
3. Robert M. Vanderbeck, Intergenerational Space (London: Routledge, 2015), 4.
4. Richelle Winkler, “Research Note: Segregated by Age: Are We Becoming More Divided?,” Population Research and Policy Review 32, no. 5 (November 2013): pp. 717-727, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-013-9291-8), 723-25.
15
initiative.5 However, accessibility is only one factor in making space available to members of
widely differing age groups – a ramp alone does not necessarily alter spatial perceptions or
promote social engagement. If, then, both separating space for unique interventions, as well as
making space physically available to everyone, are not sufficient solutions, a reasonable
reconsideration of spatial constructs in terms of intergenerationality becomes necessary. That is,
WHAT IS INTER-GENERATIONAL rather than simply impose the needs of one group on all the others or separate groups completely in order to cater to their needs, overlapping dynamics should be exploited to begin to generate
new spatial rhythms that facilitate the coexistence of differing age groups within shared spaces. “A site that has been designed for the purpose of facilitating and promoting interaction between members of different generational groups.” - Vanderbeck In general, intergenerational space has come to refer to “a site that has been designed for
“Interpersonal relations are always located in a place.” - Mannion the purpose of facilitating and promoting interaction between members of different generational
groups.”6 First, there must be a “site” or “contact zone;”7 as Greg Mannion points out,
“interpersonal relations are always located in a place.”8 The requirements of the site are that it
must facilitate and promote “interaction;” most often this occurs through programming efforts:
teenagers teach seniors to use technology, seniors act as teaching aids, community gardens are
worked on by multiple groups, etc. Finally, the interaction must include people of multiple (2 or
more) generational groups. All of these currently exist in some form; however, in the current
state of intergenerational space, it quickly becomes evident that “intergenerational
5. Global Age-Friendly Cities: a Guide (Geneva: World Health Organization, 2007).
Figure #4 6. Vanderbeck, 1.
7. Vanderbeck, 28.
8. Greg Mannion, “Intergenerational Education: The Significance of Reciprocity and Place,” Journal of Intergenerational Relationships 10, no. 4 (2012): pp. 386-399, https://doi.org/10.1080/15350770.2012.726601), 391.
17
professionals…….facilitate intergenerational communication and cooperation, while ignoring
the environmental context in which behavior occurs.”9 In order, then, to expand the exploration
of the “environmental context” of intergenerational exchange, the users must be understood, their
interaction must be explored, and finally, the place of interaction must be constructed.10
In order to develop an understanding of what is most needed to allow age groups to
DEMOGRAPHIC SHIFT coalesce in space, the current generational landscape must be explored, the current problems delineated, and the most affected groups identified so that any intervention can be both
appropriate and meaningful. A quick glance at population statistics shows that the population
growth of seniors is accelerating, with the population of those over 80 expanding by “20 to 40
percent” by 2020 and those over 65 increasing at an equally quick pace.11 At the same time,
Generation Z, those born after 2000, is overtaking Millennials in size, making it the largest
generation since the Baby Boomers (who consequently are the ones becoming seniors).12 While
Millennials have a leg up on Gen X, both are smaller than their younger and older counterparts.13
Figure #5 - Population Distribution in the United States Figure #6 - Population 65 Years and Older by Size and in 2018 by Generation, 2020, Statista, 2020. Percent of Total Population, 2010, U.S. Census Bureau.
9. Vanderbeck, 42. Hourglass Shape of Increasing Percentage of Generational Sizes 65+ Population 10. Valerie S. Kuehne and Matthew S. Kaplan, “Evaluation and Research on Intergenerational Shared Site Facilities and Programs: What We Know and What We Need to Learn,” Project: Share.(Washington D.C.: Generations United, 2001), 12.
Increase at the Margins 11. McIlwain, 8.
12. Lee J. Miller and Wei Lu, “Gen Z Is Set to Outnumber Millennials Within a Year,” Bloomberg, August 20, 2018. Accessed November 19, 2019. https://www.bloomberg.com /news/articles/2018-08-20/gen-z-to-outnumber-millennials-within-a-year-demographic-trends
13. “Projected Population by Generation,” Pew Research Center's Social & Demographic Trends Project, February 13, 2019. Accessed November 19, 2019. https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/essay/millennial-life-how-young-adulthood-today-compares- with-prior-generations/psdt_02-14-19_generations-00-09/)
19
Thus, the form of America’s population by age, at the moment, takes an interesting hourglass
shape anchored at either end by the size of its youngest and oldest generations.
Already, it is evident that the generations most divided by age are also the largest number
of space users – this in itself, does not necessarily constitute a social problem; it could be
plausible that these users are perfectly suited to their disparate spaces or the large number of
POPULATION DISTRIBUTION spaces built for the average. Further review, however, indicates that this is not entirely the case. It is evident that seniors and the very young are both more isolated socially than their young
adult and middle-aged counterparts. In fact, the separation is very similar: according to Lawton,
“across all settings, the aggregate exposure time for the aged approximated that of the preschool City Center Midrim Pockets Suburbs child.”14 Exposure time, he describes as the time allotted to interaction outside the home with
people other than family. While this can be adequate for a young child who is just beginning to
experience socialization, it is not so for seniors who become isolated in a way not experienced
for most of their adult lives.
Part of the cause of this increased separation is the decreased ability of either group to
Figure #7 - Geography of the Generational Divide, 2015, navigate through different spaces on their own. Even healthy seniors begin to reduce driving and savingcities, 2020. number of outings after age 75, and many begin to require “regular assistance.”15 Additionally, Millennial Gen X Baby Boomer there are less than half the number of day care facilities for the elderly than are estimated to be
necessary, so there is no place to go for most seniors even if they would elect to.16 Children have Typical American City
14. M. Powell Lawton, Environment and Aging (Albany, NY: Center for the Study of Aging, 1986), 32.
15. Andreas Huber, New Approaches to Housing for the Second Half of Life (Basel: Birkhäuser, 2008), 55.
16. Sheri Steinig, Intergenerational Shared Sites: Making the Case: Occasional Paper #1: To Encourage and Expand Intergenerational Shared Site Development (Washington D.C.: Generations United, 2006), 6. 21
no capacity to move between spaces on their own, being dependent wholly on their parents for
guidance and permission. About 60% are enrolled in daily care,17 but the separation between the
home and care environments has been shown to have a psychologically displacing effect on
preschoolers.18 The lack of ability to control their movement between spaces, due in part to the
separation of spaces allowed by the development of the car, make the effects of American
PROBLEM society’s natural age segregation felt to a greater degree by these two groups. One final examination of generational groups reveals that, with some exceptions, there
are greater and more specific spatial requirements among the very young and very old than other
age groups. For example, while seniors operate on a similar scale to other adults when it comes
to their need for a space that is both mentally stimulating and supportive of specific functions,
the window for error is much smaller than with younger adults. As Lawton outlines, “the less
-Age-Based Spatial Segregation competent the individual, the greater the impact of environmental factors on that individual.”19 -Spaces designed for the “average” can still deter entry The reason for this is that there is less ability to adjust to the surrounding environment – a -Documentable Health Concerns for Elderly -Loss of Knowledge Transfer younger person can make the calculation to adjust for a larger step and execute without issue, -Social Educational Needs -Hourglass Size of Generations while an older person may be able to mentally make the calculation, but still struggle to execute -Greater Affect on Young and Old physically. In a similar way, Kotnik asserts that the environments of children can have a large
impact on their ability to learn.20 In conjunction with teaching style, the effects of the
17. Steinig, 6.
Figure #8 18. Fred Linn. Osmon, Patterns for Designing Childrens Centers (New York: Educational facilities laboratories, 1975), 13.
19. Lawton, 14-16.
20. Jure Kotnik, Designing Spaces for Early Childhood Development (Mulgrave, Victoria: Images Publishing, 2017), 8.
23
environment are acutely felt because everything is new, the brain is constantly making
discoveries, and, like the above, there is less ability to adjust. Inexperience and physical size can
change what are considered normal interactions in a sometimes drastic way. And so, not only do
the young and old comprise the largest generations in America, they are also less able to cope
with spatial segregation and are the most likely to feel its effects.
While young children and seniors stand to benefit the most from an exploration of the
spatial nature of intergenerational space, can their potential spatial overlaps be explored in
conjunction, or would they be better served as separate integrations into the built environment?
The answer is likely a mixture of the two, but there is already much research to suggest that a
direct integration is desirable. The physical and mental health benefits for seniors in
intergenerational programs are outlined by Generations United’s report on Shared Sites as well
as many other places.21 Reduced ageism and increased social development scores for children
involved in such programs are equally compelling. In an almost surprising twist, the staff of such
programs seem to benefit to an even greater degree, with drastically reduced turnover rates and
increased employee satisfaction than in programs for only seniors or only children. 22 This
suggests that a direct combination between the two may actually have benefits for the
intervening generations as well. This direct combination, then, creates a generally beneficial
social situation that has already been able to arise with little design intervention, and, thus, stands
to benefit greatly from spatial exploration.
In order to begin developing this spatial combination, understanding the users’ separate Figure #9 identities, spatial perceptions, and physical necessities becomes of paramount importance. Once
21. Steinig, 9.
22. Steinig, 10. 25
each group is understood separately, the interaction between the two within space, perceptually,
physically, and socially can be explored. These interactions and overlaps between how young
children and seniors exist within space can then be combined in a multiplicity of ways to develop
new spatial parameters that will seek to support both groups together. These parameters can be
applied to create spaces that begin to become intergenerational in nature. Jonathan Hill speaks of
the distance between the architect and the user in Occupying Architecture – here, however, there
is a second question: what is the distance between users within architecture?23 If “architecture is
the gap between building and using,” and there many different users, understanding the gap
becomes integral in any exploration of personal relationships between users within space and to
space itself.24 In order to build this space, it must be widened until the gap is pulled open, and in
ripping open the chasm, a bridge might be found.
Figure #10
23. Jonathan Hill, Occupying Architecture: between the Architect and the User (London: Routledge, 1999), 140-41.
24. Hill, 141. 27
.2 Seniors in Space
There is often a perception of age that “everyone wants to grow old, but no one wants to
be old,” but part of this perception is the looming image of a “large, bleak old people’s home.”25
This standard as a method of care was largely an economic response to the breakdown of
traditional care by relatives in their own homes, and while there has been some design research
into senior care, the growing diversity and longevity of seniors in recent times has gone largely
unexplored. Rather than being solely a series of endings and reductions of freedom, this third
phase to life is now lasting longer than the first, especially for women.26 Seniors are now
equipped to handle more autonomy than in the past, but at the same time still require a helping
hand.27 The physical and mental changes that occur with age, as well as the generalized loss of
daily purpose that was previously gained from work or family result in new challenges and
opportunities for design. By understanding how the aging process contributes to different needs
and understandings of space and interaction, design distinctions can be drawn out and studied on
a narrow and individual basis.
Because of the growing diversity of seniors in the United States, narrowing this study to
those who have the most potential for benefit is essential. While it varies on an individual basis,
generally (in western countries), there is not much physical need for support until around age
75.28 Retirees are still mobile, able and (perhaps more importantly) willing to drive. Rather than
Figure #11 25. Huber, 15-16.
26. Huber, 9.
27. Huber, 61.
28. Huber, 18. 29
becoming disconnected from society, many are able to engage in volunteerism and focus on
goals that were put to the wayside earlier in life. From 75-85, however, some physical and social
changes begin to become more apparent: ability and willingness to travel are largely reduced
resulting in increased isolation.29 Seniors at this stage are still independent, but start to encounter
limitations such as difficulty cleaning due to arthritis. Huber refers to this group as the “slow-
gos” – those in need of some level of care, but who still can and wish to take care of
themselves.30 After 85, health concerns continue to rise and the need for the consistent daily care
of a skilled nursing home becomes more prominent. Given these simple divisions, it is fairly
easy to identify the “slow-gos” as the appropriate point of contact – not only can
intergenerational activity help slow and even prevent the need for nursing home care by reducing
fall risk and prolonging memory, it can help to mitigate the issues facing seniors as they begin to
withdraw from other social activities due to the risks involved with travel, while still retaining a
strong desire (and ability) to contribute and connect with society.31
During this mixed period of a senior’s life, there are several natural physical changes that
occur which begin to mold a different understanding of space. It is important to note that even
the same space is perceived differently because of these changes, thus what is important in
creating an inviting space for the average adult may not be the same as that which is inviting to a
senior during this period.32 For example, the presence of cataracts and reduced visual perception
Figure #12 29. Lawton, 39-41.
30. Huber, 18.
31. Steinig, 9.
32. Hall, 60-62. 31
is “the rule” at age seventy rather than the exception meaning that seniors, even the most healthy
seniors, at this stage may be “able to detect only shades of lightness and darkness,” and nearly all
are unable to perceive color of short-wavelengths such as blue.33 There is also a natural decline
in hearing ability; a whisper previously heard at 10 meters, now can only be perceived at 3 or 4
meters.34 Physical changes in the structure of the ear mean that discrimination between sounds
becomes more difficult, which can even result in “personality changes.”35 Temperature, also,
becomes more important to the senior as reduced regeneration of heat receptors means that the
more numerous cold receptors gain in power. A space that would normally be perceived as
warm, then, is often perceived as cold, not because it is, but because the senior can only detect
the cold physically.36 This means that touch becomes even more primary in understanding space
for the senior; feel makes up for the deficit is hearing and vision, becoming integral in keeping
“the person related to the world in which he lives.”37 All of these factors contribute to a general
decrease in the size of the interpersonal distances outlined by Hall – the length of normal social
distance is perceived as public distance and the “normal” personal distance to the senior is
perceived as an appropriate social distance.38
33. Francis B. Colavita, Sensory Changes in the Elderly (Springfield, Ill: Charles C. Thomas, 1978), 17-18.
34. Colavita, 35.
Figure #13 35. Colavita, 42.
36. Colavita, 77.
37. Hall, 60.
38. Lawton, 70. 33
Along with the direct physical changes to how the environment is perceived, there are
also indirect changes that are revealed through an analysis of the anthropometry of aging people.
While there is not currently enough data on American seniors to provide exact dimensional
solutions, principals can be gleaned by studies done in other countries that can be used in
understanding the micro-interactions that affect seniors as they navigate space. In a study of
South Korean seniors, it was found that household cleaning, walking up slopes and stairs, and
going to the washroom were the cause of most daily discomfort.39 The researchers concluded
that lowering tables, toilets, and other appliances by an average of 16 millimeters greatly reduced
the number of daily reports related to discomfort. Similarly, Kamal Kothiyal found that
Australian seniors had the most ease when accessing shelves between 2’ and 4’-6” off the floor
due to reduced range of motion.40 Accounting for the 2 inch height difference in Australian
versus American populations, appropriate zones of activity for seniors can be examined and
utilized when considering the design of spaces. The importance of micro-interactions such as
these has direct consequences on design and at the same time provides known zones of action
where design intervention can make its largest impact.
While there are certainly physical changes as a person ages, psychological studies show a
similar shift in what is perceived as important in spatial constructions. Aesthetic qualities such as
“friendliness, quiet, neatness, esthetic quality, and texture were very important” to seniors as
Figure #14 39. Jung-Yong Kim and Ji-Soo Park, APPLICATION OF ANTHROPOMETRIC DATA OF ELDERLY POPULATION FOR DESIGNING EVERYDAY PRODUCTS (Bangkok, Thailand: Conference on Occupational Ergonomics, 2007), 3.2.
40. Kamal Kothiyal and Samuel Tettey, “Anthropometry for Design for the Elderly,” International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics 7, no. 1 (2001): pp. 15- 34, https://doi.org/10.1080/10803548.2001.11076474), 27.
35
opposed to the formal qualities of “space, shape, potency” that were more typically deemed as
important by younger people.41 It can be inferred that as with the physical qualities this shift is
because seniors tend to feel space rather than see space. Similarly, it has been found that 10%-
20% of nursing home residents do not actually require that level of care – in fact, the only reason
they do require that level of care is that they have become used to the lack of freedom.42 The
presence of this substantial group who should fall under the “slow-go” category selected for this
study reveals the importance of balancing a “challenging environment” with the fact that “the
less competent the greater the impact of environmental factors on that individual.”43 In order to
best serve seniors at this stage, then, it is readily apparent that a balance of catering space toward
their needs with a diversity that provides daily challenges must be achieved in the spaces that
they inhabit.
Additional insight into the desires and vision of living that seniors themselves have for
the last third of their lives can be seen through projects like Wohnfabrik Solinsieme in St. Gallen,
Switzerland, a communal housing project developed by a group of aging women in Switzerland
who wanted the protection of a senior housing situation while maintaining control of their own
situation.44 The selection of an abandoned embroidery factory as the site singles both a desire to
remain integrated with the communal fabric of the city and points to a necessity of being close to
daily requirements such as groceries due to the limited mobility of the occupants. The flats open
41. Lawton, 61. Figure #15 42. Lawton, 122.
43. Lawton, 13-14.
44. Eckhard Feddersen and Lüdtke Insa, Living for the Elderly (Basel: Birkhäuser, 2009), 146.
37
onto a communal outdoor terrace that provides further engagement with the community
surrounding as well as protection from the street. The interiors, also, are well lit, not only a
necessity for seniors, but a desire to connect with the outside as they could more freely do in the
past. Finally, the interior floors are always contrasted with the walls – which are often
emphasized in red. This is significant in that it creates a harsh line where floor becomes wall – a
contrast that is integral in reinforcing the bounds of space through color and texture rather than
form. The fact that not all the flats are barrier-free, but that around 90% of residents report high
satisfaction with the spaces shows that the success of a space dedicated to seniors relies on more
than just their ability to access it.45
How, then, do these disparate elements change how seniors experience space and how
does what they desire in a space affect the architecture of senior oriented spaces? First, seniors in
this period of life need freedom of choice, but because the level of interference in typical
activities and spaces is harder to tune out, decision points need to be expanded into calm spaces
where seniors can pause before moving into a given activity. In order to achieve this balance of
challenge and safety, light and sound should be directed to areas of need, rather than simply
increased to exorbitant level as in the typical institutional setting. Likewise, because scale on
multiple levels is perceived as greater than what the average adult experiences, spaces should be
tailored to a smaller and more closely oriented level of textural detail. This appropriation of scale
contributes in another way – that of decreasing the intimidation caused by most large spaces in
which seniors feel less able to navigate through by themselves; thus, it makes space barrier-free Figure #16 in a more true sense than the addition of a ramp. Finally, the play between interaction, reaching
out to the community and retreat to the safety of their own space as seen in Wohnfabrik
45. Feddersen, 147. 39
Solinsieme is integral in keeping seniors engaged with their surroundings. All these factors combine to create an environment that fosters engagement by seniors utilizing their own spatial understanding as a mechanism for designing the world around them. 41
.3 Children in Space
Children, like their aging companions, experience a quickly evolving array of physical
and social changes, and great emphasis has often been placed on creating nurturing spaces due to
the lifelong impact these early years can have. Neurological evidence suggests that “early
environments matter…and nurturing relationships are essential” factors in the brain’s
development which is occurring most rapidly at this stage of life.46 Modern theories of education
have attempted to delineate how children construct new knowledge rather than simply absorb it –
the same could be said of how children are constructing their spatial awareness at this stage of
life.47 Ideas of appropriate interpersonal distances, how to reference space, and what is important
to notice or ignore are learned skills, not simply inherent to the human condition. Understanding
how these constructions are formed and the differences in how children view and understand
space is, then, essential in developing environments suitable for their education and uncovering
existing age-based spatial gaps.
Much research has been done on the early stages of childhood development, and, while
theories of education differ, there remain important takeaways for how children learn and
interact with their environments. In order to narrow the inquiry, this study will focus on the 3-5-
year-old range or those in the pre-operational phase of development as outlined by Piaget.
Piaget’s theories, while debated, have direct links to architectural study because of his
Figure #17
46. Maria Robinson, Understanding Behaviour and Development in Early Childhood: a Guide to Theory and Practice (New York: Routledge, 2011), 102.
47. Carol Garhart Mooney, Theories of Childhood: an Introduction to Dewey, Montessori, Erikson, Piaget, and Vygotsky (St. Paul, MN: Redleaf Press, 2013), 89.
43
observations of how “children’s interactions with their environment….create learning.”48 In
essence, children “gather information from what they experience rather than from what they are
told,” making the crafting of social and physical experience of the world integral in formulating
education at this pre-operational stage.49 The 3-5-year-old range is especially influenced in this
way due to developments in “the hippocampus” which “has an important role in how we
understand our spatial relationships within our environment.”50 The combination of children in
this age with a theory of education that has direct spatial implications can allow further
exploration to build an understanding of childhood spatial perception that is transferable into
physical space itself.
Two factors immediately present themselves in regard to early childhood spatial
perceptions: the first is scale, and the second is spatial frames of reference. The importance of
scale is evident from any cursory look at a child exploring space – or from a more technical look
into anthropometric data. Four year olds average only 40” tall and have a seat height of just over
a foot easily making them almost half the physical size of an average adult.51 Not only are they
physically smaller, but perhaps more importantly, they are also “egocentric,” that is, they “think
of everything only as it relates to them.”52 This means that unlike adults who tend to separate
48. Mooney, 79.
49. Mooney, 85.
Figure #18 50. Robinson, 13.
51. Susan B. Mirrer, “USING ANTHROPOMETRIC DATA IN THE DESIGN OF CHILDREN'S HEALTH CARE ENVIRONMENTS,” Children's Environments Quarterly 4, no. 3 (1987): pp. 6-11, https://www.jstor.org/stable/41514639), 7.
52. Mooney, 85. 45
their sense of scale (in some ways) from their physical reality, children literally measure scale
based on their physical existence. If this understanding of scale is expanded, a typical nine-foot
ceiling is three times taller than the child – a rather large distance, that is actually perceived as
large – though an adult would not perceive it as such. Moreover, children at this stage hold one
quality in their minds at a time, so an object that is large (in their mind) is large, even if it is
smaller than some other object – relative size is irrelevant. Scale is a relative concept and when
applied to exploring space from the child’s perspective it is essential to understand that scale is
held in relation only to the child herself.
Others have certainly noted the value of scale in developing spaces for children, but the
discussion of scale has ramifications to spatial perception on a larger scale through the way
children navigate relationships within spaces or rather, how they develop spatial frames of
reference. At small scales, that is, single perspective spaces, children continue to use the
egocentric frame of reference outlined in the discussion of scale.53 However, this frame of
reference proves to be very limited in terms of replication and navigation – that is, if a space is
understood only from an egocentric perspective, a person’s ability to remember the space and
navigate to and in it in the same way in the future is very limited. To compensate for this, adults
use local absolute and relative frames of reference such as identifying relationships between
objects and landmarks in a space. Interestingly, in larger spaces, children have a much higher
likelihood to use these elevated forms of spatial navigation and to develop a relational view of
Figure #19
53. Scott Bell, “Spatial Cognition And Scale: A Childs Perspective,” Journal of
Environmental Psychology 22, no. 1-2 (2002): pp. 9-27, https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2002.0250),
11. 47
space than in small, one dimensional spaces.54 While they themselves may not recognize this
shift in thinking, boosted memory and ability to navigate autonomously through space suggest
that the use of multi-perspective space is conducive to mental stimulation. The transition
between egocentric thought and relational or relative thought is essential for cognitive
development and spatial studies suggest the environment plays a role in fostering relative
connections and expanding children’s spatial proclivities.
The workings of scale, memory and navigation in constructing the child’s world are
matched in importance by other spatial factors in the creation of a positively charged “early
childhood learning environment.”55 Both color and light influence how spaces are perceived and
used by children and thus influence the ability of both teachers to teach and students to learn.
One example of this is the use of warm versus cool colors: studies have shown that warm colors
engender excitement while cool colors exact calmer responses from children.56 In the same way,
well-lit spaces are attractive to children while darker spaces can be intimidating when combined
with unfamiliar tasks. Bright bathrooms create a more comfortable transition for children, while
darker spaces find their appropriate place for nap time. Ceiling height has the same ability to
influence interaction: high ceilings encourage group interaction, but also result in louder
exchanges. Low ceilings invite children to “voluntarily become quiet and play in smaller groups
or by themselves.”57 In crafting spaces for education, light, sound, color, and ceiling height do
Figure #20 - Pujiang China Welfare Institute 54. Bell, 23. Kindergarten, Kotnik, 138. 55. Kotnik, 9.
56. Kotnik, 21.
57. Kotnik, 22. 49
not necessarily have a right or wrong, but they are invaluable in directing the desired learning
experience of the children through their ability to naturally influence interaction types and act to
reinforce teaching through subtle behavioral cues.
The TY Nursery provides an experiential insight into how many of the previously
described aspects of how children interact with space function in an architectural environment.
The building’s designer makes special emphasis that the building is a backdrop for learning, not
the direct cause of learning – as such, the building is not itself a playground and relies on simple
forms to create its spaces.58 And yet, it is quickly evident that the spaces are integral to the
function of the kindergarten program. Calm textures and light materials create a focused
environment for learning. The main playroom is bright with a high ceiling and connects to all the
classrooms directly allowing free flow of children between their “own” space and the shared
space. While spaces are certainly adaptable, down to the chalkboard wall in the main hallway,
the mix of cool low nooks with bright large classrooms clearly delineate and encourage differing
types of interaction and learning to take place. This ingrained flexibility of interaction combines
with the central hallway to act as a modicum of choice leaving two important aspects of
cognitive development, self-expression and the ability to ascribe meaning, to the child. While no
early childhood learning objectives are accomplished through architectural means alone, the way
in which spaces naturally promote or discourage types of action can be used to aid the creation of
certain learning experiences and remove environmental barriers to learning.
If, then, children construct their learning and understanding of spaces through a Figure #21 combination of factors, some of which are outlined in this section, how then should space be
58. Kotnik, 56. 51
constructed around them? Put in simple terms, learning requires “spaces that create choices.”59
The creation of choice allows for multiple learning types, levels of comfort, and enhances the
child’s ability to navigate spatial situations autonomously. This has two direct implications:
spaces must be varied and properties matched to their function in a precise manner and the space
between the spatial types must be considered as a valuable element in and of itself. Space is a
backdrop to learning; that is, it nullifies undesired outcomes by directing loud and quiet spaces,
but is not itself loud or quiet. Now, it might be said that these are simply general design
principles; however, it is important to remember that the properties as seen by children do not
function quite the same as adults. Scale, especially large objects and heights, is felt to a greater
degree, relationships are primarily held in comparison to the individual child’s existence – not
the relative characteristics perceived by adults- and color, light, and sound override the spoken
commands and social conventions prized by adults because children have not developed these
sensibilities on a large scale as of yet. In these ways, known principles need to be carefully
evaluated and applied through the child’s lens if they are to have the same impact and benefit on
spatial interactions and experiences as they have for the adult.
Figure #22
59. Kotnik, 16. 53
.4 Together in Space
How can this basic understanding of the role of age in space help negotiate the threshold
between generational groups, both by eliminating barriers to engagement and by positioning
space positively for interaction to occur? Space inhabited by multiple age groups is not simply
the sum of its parts – that is, the designer cannot simply combine established architectural rules
for the groups separately and expect both groups to be welcome in the space. Rather, new,
interactive rules must be constructed in order to guide the ability of groups to interact within a
space. While these rules are not the sum of their parts, they could be considered the integrals (to
borrow from calculus) of their spliced counterparts. Put another way, the interaction of people in
space is a function of the people in space. Each person is a variable, but interaction itself is a
function. For the variables to relate, they must have a framework set up around them, and these
additional spatial conditions are what must be studied carefully if interaction is to be supported.
In determining these spatial ‘integrations’ which are more aptly termed ‘considerations,’
it becomes apparent that there are two scales of influence – the macro scale of the building, and
the micro scale of the individual space which can be as small as a furniture piece. While all the
spatial considerations certainly play a role at each scale, some govern the macro construction of
space while others take precedence at the micro scale These spatial constructs do not guarantee
interaction, which requires social in addition to spatial constructions if it is to occur, but they
have the potential to assist in programs that promote intergenerational interactions. Through an
analysis of the age groups outlined previously, six integrations rise to the surface, three macro Figure #23 integrations and three micro integrations which work together to build the framework of a
combined spatial typology belonging to both generational groups. 55
The first macro spatial integration is concerned with interaction types and their
relationships to each other. Both the NAEYC and NCOA in their requirements for accreditation
require the opportunity for small and large group interactions. This is not surprising when
compared with the preceding study of aging and youthful perceptions and needs: children require
both interactions to build their social abilities and seniors to maintain their level of social
engagement and prevent it from diminishing due to physical constraints. Because interaction
should never be forced, varied levels of interaction are indispensable to the success of such
endeavors and thus must be addressed spatially As Leng Leng Thang notes, the “intensity of Macro Micro contacts differs. Contact generally consists of parallel co-existence between different age groups
and ethnic groups, while there is seemingly potential to develop more interactive, intermingling
contact within the same group.”60 Thang’s observations of an intergenerational site bring to light
the necessity of a third interactive type – the spectator. The ability to co-exist in a parallel and
indirect way is just as important as the direct small and large group scenarios because
observation is a form of interaction and one which can lead to deeper and more direct interaction
later on. This phenomenon has been documented anecdotally through stories such as that of a
Engagement Gradient Jenks Elementary student who disliked the idea of interacting with residents at Grace Living
Center until she was allowed to observe the intergenerational activities for several weeks. One
day her teacher says, “she just flipped the switch” and intergenerational activity became her
favorite part of school.61
Figure #24
60. Vanderbeck, 28.
61. Amy Goyer, The Best of Both Worlds: A Closer Look At Creating Spaces That Connect Young and Old (Washington D.C.: Generations United and the Eisner Foundation, 2019), 1.
57
Perhaps just as important, if not even more so, is the point of transition from separation to
interaction. This transition point or decision point is defined by the physiological concept of
“positive press” and becomes the second macro spatial consideration. In children, this point has
been described as part of the “weaning process” and serves to buffer the difficulty of change in
environment – from outside to inside, from individual to group, and from safe to perceptually
unsafe.62 Likewise, for seniors the ability to make individual decisions is integral to continued
independence as it promotes neural stimulation and continued learning which are linked to
quality of life. However, it is exactly these decision-making situations that are most impaired by Macro Micro the increased sensitivity to ambient sound and loss of memory due to natural turnover in brain
cells. Expanding the point of decision from a simple doorway threshold to a place in itself –
specifically a place of repose that is muted and unhurried, but still connected to the potential
choices – is necessary not only from a health and development standpoint, but also from the
standpoint of fostering a natural progression of interaction. Decision points act as an in-between
which facilitates the full overlap of space.
The final macro spatial integration examined here is that of spatial navigation – Positive Press - Decision Making specifically the use of relative frames of reference.63 For seniors, “it has… been shown that both environmental satisfaction and generalized life satisfaction are highly dependent on feeling
secure.”64 In terms of space, security relies heavily on the ability or perceived ability to navigate
space; that is, the users’ ability to know where they are in space and where things are in space
Figure #25
62. Osmon, 33.
63. Bell, 23.
64. Lawton, 48. 59
relative to each other. While seniors struggle in this area because of reduced vision and mobility,
they retain the mental capacity to use relative references as outlined by Bell. In the meantime, as
previously outlined, children are in the habit of using egocentric frames of reference, but are
learning to use relative ones. Thus, for seniors and children to thrive in space, and to reduce
barriers to engagement, a focus on creating strong focal points and elements that can easily be
linked together and referenced is paramount. The importance of developing clear relative
elements supports the confident navigation of space necessary for regular interactive
development to occur in an unforced fashion. Macro Micro Although space can be organized around these points of interaction and decision, as well
as connected through a specific form of spatial navigation, the quality of overlapping spaces
must still be determined; the first of the spatial integrations governing space at this smaller scale
is the quality of light. At its simplest level, it is clear that light levels need to be elevated and free
of glare in any overlapped space. For seniors, this is because of a natural decline in the amount of
light taken in by the eye, which is almost a rule by age 70.65 At the same time, light levels are
important for children because research shows “that the brain evidently functions better when in
Spatial Navigation a relaxed state” and children tend to be less stressed in spaces that feel inviting and familiar.66
However, it is not enough that light be at a high level, in fact, as seen too often in hospitals and
traditional institutions, high light levels, while increasing safety, are actually a detriment to the
familiar and inviting nature of the space. What is important to recognize is that light levels need
to be higher in a directed fashion, not as an overall condition. For example, light at the crease Figure #26 between a wall and a floor is essential for preventing falls, which in turn creates a condition
65. Colavita, 16.
66. Kotnik, 8. 61
where seniors are likely to engage more readily, but there is no need for the entire floor to be lit
to a greater measure.67 Similarly, bright spaces must be differentiated by a change in the lighting
condition – a bright space is not a safe space of repose if it is no brighter than the spaces of
retreat. Directing light level and quality is essential in the overlapped environment because of its
contributions to offsetting natural deficiencies in either group and bolstering their mental
aptitude to engage in a space.
In addition to directed use of illumination, the directed use of sound is an area of overlap
which is important in eliminating barriers to interaction. For both, it is not necessarily how loud Macro Micro or soft the sound is, but the number of reverberations that can be detrimental to interaction. In a
child’s environment reverberation of sound results in mental distraction. Put more clearly,
children have a lower sensory tolerance than adults in that they are less able to screen out
unwanted stimulation such as reverberation.68 This lower tolerance for sensory input is also
shown to be true for seniors, who are on average less able to discriminate between different
sounds, something which reverberation impairs further.69 Because communication is integral to
interaction, controlling sound is imperative for promoting it. In order to effectively direct sound,
Light Quality though, it is not enough to simply eliminate reverberation. It is equally important to utilize how
sound bounces to facilitate communication. For example, say a senior is sitting across from a
child. For the sound to best reach the senior, reverberation must be eliminated at the origin of the
Figure #27 67. Huber, 181.
68. Cortney A. Evans, Larry J. Nelson, and Christin L. Porter, “Making Sense of Their World: Sensory Reactivity and Novelty Awareness as Aspects of Temperament and Correlates of Social Behaviours in Early Childhood,” Infant and Child Development 21, no. 5 (February 2012): pp. 503-520, https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.1754), 506.
69. Colavita, 42. 63
sound, and allowed at the location of the senior. This is because directly around the senior the
sound is focused and so louder, making up for any hearing loss. At the same time, eliminating
reverberation around the child directs the sound from the child to the senior and removes
ancillary noise. Sound is an important mechanism that either impairs or promotes interaction
especially at the point where interaction might occur.
Finally, the unique relationships of interpersonal space between the two groups provide
direction for designing spaces of overlap. By overlaying the anthropometric data from Mirrer and
Kothiyal, there emerge a set of contact zones based on height. The lowest two feet are exclusive Macro Micro to the children due to range of motion, while above about 4 feet is exclusive to seniors; the
intervening space is the space of contact. At the same time, interpersonal distance governs
contact across the horizontal plane as well. As discussed previously, seniors’ perceived
interpersonal zones are as much as one level smaller than Hall’s outlined descriptions due to
reduced sensory inputs while at the same time children are learning interpersonal distances
which are socially generated.70 Because of this, children are disposed to react to seniors’
perceived distances which eliminates a typical perception among seniors that people have
Directed Sound become disengaged, when in reality it is they who have changed. These changes to and potential
uses for interpersonal distance should be reflected in the scale and length between objects within
the space. By changing along with the change of perceived distance, the space can in effect feel
as it was felt throughout life, and at the same time has the advantage of feeling appropriately
sized for children to engage within as well. Social manifestations of this phenomenon include the Figure #28 observation that interaction across the corner of a table are three times as likely to occur among
70. Lawton, 70. 65
seniors as across the full length of the table.71 On the architectural side, Osmund notes that “this
can be done in two ways: by development of hierarchies and by spacing. Ethologists seem to
agree that spacing is the more primitive method, not only because it is the simplest but because it
is less flexible.”72 These social and physical features must be reflected at the scale of the person
in order to soften unseen barriers to intergenerational contact with a space.
And so, through looking at the overlap of physical and developmental considerations of
seniors and preschool children, spatial characteristics which hold the power to eliminate barriers
to interaction can be extracted and analyzed for implementation. By viewing each factor in light Macro Micro of its macro and micro scale implications, they can be combined and utilized at a variety of
scales and projects. The factors outlined here are meant to be universal, but the exact way in
which they combine for a given program and site is not. Together, however, they start to develop
the kind of “place” sought after by Greg Mannion, defining the physical characteristics of a
problem where the focus has largely been on creating an appropriate social context.73 In the next
section, the development of one such potential “place” will be explored.
Interpersonal Distance
Figure #29
71. Hall, 109.
72. Osmon, 14.
73. Mannion, 391. 67
.5 Design Application
In the ideal situation, age integrated technologies and design would be a part of the
underlying fabric of the modern city and would affect everything from the urban streetscape to
the tile in a public restroom. However, because of the early stages of intergenerational study in
design, the current focus is on developing “intergenerational shared sites,” or sites “in which
multiple generations receive ongoing services and/or programming at the same site, and
generally interact through planned and/or informal intergenerational activities.”74 In keeping
with this trend, the design exploration undertaken here will evaluate an integrated program
consisting of a preschool and senior housing with associated services for both. This combination
is the most common of current shared sites, but, as previously mentioned, current examples are,
almost without exception, designed for a single group or without any consideration for the
occupants and program. The focus of the exploration will be on the spaces of formal and
informal overlap between the programs and not on the programs themselves. By limiting the
scope of design to a narrow mixed-use program, with perhaps overly direct overlapping
conditions, the spatial characteristics of intergenerational space can be highlighted and revealed
in a more powerful way and then disseminated into less obvious interventions.
For any intergenerational program such as this to be successful, the appropriate location
must be chosen based on localized need for interaction engendered from population and natural
movement or lack of movement among communities. While almost all cities in America are
aging, not all are maintaining their youth populations. One exception to this is Chicago, whose Figure #30 population mirrors the generalized national demographics of high elderly and youth populations,
74. Kuehne, 4. 69
both of which are projected to increase in size.75 By looking deeper, it is easy to identify that the
elderly population is expanding out from the coast while young families congregate to the west,
passing through heavily senior populated areas to get to their downtown jobs. One such overlap
occurs between the Near North Side and West Town neighborhoods (see Fig. 31).76 Not only
does a population overlap occur at this point, but further research reveals that there is a lack of
childcare facilities in the area as well as limited resources and housing for the expanding senior
population.77 Given all this information, it seems to be a prime place for an intergenerational
development. By selecting a location on the corner of Clybourn and Larrabee streets, the
potential building is placed along a transportation corridor between the neighborhoods linking
together the residential components, local elementary school and commercial strip between West
Town and the Near North Side. This precise location allows the forthcoming design to act as
both a community link and generational link for residents.
With program and site in mind, the spatial factors of intergenerational space can start to
give the design shape. The angle of the site allows for diagrammatic points of intersection to
form – these points of intersection are primary because they can become both points of decision
and spatial references that can be relatively linked together as described in the previous section.
Linking together these relative points creates a mutual circulation avenue. These pieces – the
75. “Region's Senior Population to Grow Significantly by 2050,” CMAP, accessed February 20, 2020, https://www.cmap.illinois.gov/onto2050/futures/communities/senior- population. Figure #31 76. “Community Data Snapshots,” CMAP, accessed February 20, 2020, https://www.cmap.illinois.gov/data/community-snapshots.
77. Malik, Rasheed et al., “America's Child Care Deserts in 2018,” Center for American Progress, accessed February 20, 2020, https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/early- childhood/reports/2018/12/06/461643/americas-child-care-deserts-2018/.
71
circulation and the points of reference - form the core of the design and the place where formal
and informal interactions can occur. The private functions of individual classrooms and housing
can be plugged into these avenues creating additional intersections where interactive moments
can occur. It is, in fact, these intersections, these moments, that then generate the building’s
completed form and design.
Within these moments which are indicative of the entire design philosophy, multiple
systems coexist and act upon one another to generate the design. The interlinking of different
users and of the five senses interact with each other in different ways to generate a variety of
moments that play on the same intergenerational themes. The system of light, for instance,
determines the center point of interaction because of its important influence on drawing people to
a space. Thus, interactions congregate around the building’s courtyard or the roof opens up to
allow light to flow down a wall into moments of more intimate interaction. In the same way,
sound can inhibit or encourage interaction depending on how it is directed – the circular forms at
the navigation points contain the sound, and the detailing directs it within these spaces so
interactions are controlled. Finally, the intimacy and importance of touch, with its relation to
navigation and memory, influences the choice of material and use of texture and curve that invite
interaction with the hand. The overlap of these sensual systems with the programmatic and
spatial considerations of the users enforces an understanding that the moments of interaction are
multifaceted and should vary as the specific requirements of the site change.
In developing these intersecting moments which arise from the design principles of Figure #32 spatial navigation, decision points, and engagement types, the specific perspectives of the
individual users can be used to flesh out the design and consider aspects of light, sound, and
interpersonal distance. Highlighting the one dimensional, sensorial intensive view of the child or 73
the broader, relative, but less precise view of the senior helps develop the spaces into ones which
provide meaningful interaction for each that can be both different and the same simultaneously.
For example, the placement of a blue base along a classroom as seen in Figure 34 allows the
child access to a navigation stimuli at his or her level, while the senior, who has limited ability to
notice the color, perceives the contrast between the wall and floor more heavily through the
change in shade and texture, clarifying the relative relationships in the space, assisting him or her
in orientation, and as such helping to prevent falls. The red of the brick fireplace, on the other
hand, becomes a prominent draw to both as it is perhaps the only color that both groups perceive
strongly. This creates a relative focal point within the space that can be referenced and gathered
around. Finally, the placement of ceiling baffles above the hall absorb and redirect the ambient
sound of movement away from the point of activity within the gathering space. All of these
elements come together to begin forming a “moment” of interaction as described to be the goal Figure #33 of interactive intergenerational design.
One such repetitive moment occurs at entries or thresholds within the building as these
are not only places of decision, but also places where overlapped activity is likely to occur in
informal ways. The entry or threshold is lengthened at these conditions in order for it to become
a place of repose rather than a hurried space between. The visual connection remains between the
Figure #34 potential spaces; however, sound is dampened and scale is brought close. This is to allow the
space to act both to the advantage of the spectator and the small-scale interaction, whereas the
spaces it leads to are the area of large group interaction. Light is allowed into the space, often
from above, but it could also occur from the side as long as this does not provoke glare. This can
be accomplished with increased bounces of the light through thick walls and off light shelves.
The thickening of walls and lightening of the ceiling allows for crevices and window seats to 75
form adding to the repose and potential of passive interaction to occur. In these ways, which vary
from place to place, the occupants are assured of their standing within the space by similar
reminders of where they are, while not being forced to move past the threshold at a rapid rate.
Once users have entered a shared space, another kind of moment occurs – a moment of
directed gathering. These gathering moments have many similarities to the entry, but are also
unique in function and outcomes. They must be large and multi-perspective with obvious relative
points for navigation, but at the same time feel small and within reach. Ideally, they are large, but
broken down into levels of engagement that can be entered into and retreated from so that all are
involved, but not to the same degree. These interactive levels are linked by the inherent
organizing points within the space, which could be anything from columns and fireplaces to a
green wall. Light follows and reinforces these zones, washed down a wall to warm it, for
example, or filtered through the coolness of vegetation. In this way, the light can create contrast,
but not glare. Sound, likewise, is reflected in conversational zones and absorbed in large group
zones, again creating contrast, but not direct division. The gathering moment, then, is both large
and small, held together by a band of principles, but spilled out to invite new users.
While the gathering point is the most formal element, the pathway acts as the most
informal moment of intergenerational interaction. In this instance, it is a circular market, leading
everywhere and nowhere in particular. The “moment” occurs where the path swells to accept
different users and guide them toward each other or give pause on the journey. Here, there are
opportunities for smaller interactions and views into other spaces. The zones of sight and touch Figure #35 are important in such a moment, due to the placement of handrails one foot apart – the child’s
site line between the two, and the senior’s just above. Each moment on the path must be its own
navigation point because the path itself is the means of navigation. The options to go forward, 77
stop for a while, and return encourage benches and integrated seating, especially around
elevators and stairways. Finally, the paths are adaptable or claimable as their repeatable nature
promotes the exercise of continual interference by participants. The space is the users’ space and
they change it by moving through it, adopting favorite spots and areas to rest or see what
activities are happening. The path, in this way, becomes more than just a means to get from one
point to another, but rather a guiding point for informal overlap to occur.
Thus, the path, the gathering space, and the threshold work together as moments of
intergenerational interaction, at once representing and generating the design of this example of
intergenerational space. While which moments generate any given intergenerational design, the
focus on instances of interaction to inform the whole remains consistent. This is because the
people involved experience each other and spaces progressively and not all at once. The
relationships within space are also the relationships of people to that space. Because there are
many of these relationships or systems operating in the same space, each moment changes to
meet its specific condition, whether the entrance to a classroom or the balcony in a library. The
spaces mean different things to different groups, but at the same time, they draw the experience
of space by different groups into alignment, whether that is through shared interpretations of
navigating space or light paths drawing common interaction to a given space. In the end, no
space is precisely childlike or adult, but each space is something else, something
intergenerational, a term that is both meaningful and empty as architecture is only part of the
battle to forge lasting connections between people of differing stations. Figure #36
79
Figure #37 Figure #38 81
Figure #39 83
.6 Conclusion
“Nothing happens because Piaget says it does. Piaget says it does because it happens.”78
In the same way, none of the characteristics of intergenerational space explored here are real
because they exist here, they are outlined here because they are real. Age impacts the way in
which people view and navigate through space. Because of this, traditional approaches to design
have largely failed to simultaneously cater to separate groups. The combination of architecture
with social structure has resulted in a fracturing between age groups, and while this fracturing
has received much social attention, the factor of space remains an important point of discussion.
The spatial factors outlined here provide an approach to design that helps to mitigate spatial
disparities by recombining the health and developmental needs of different groups into the same
space. Space may not be able to positively invoke interaction, but it can act as a barrier to it, so
by forging a combination of characteristics that eliminate barriers, the architecture begins to
support the overlap of generational groups within space. Finally, intergenerational space is not
limited to direct overlaps as the one outlined here and more consideration must be taken into how
these and other spatial factors should influence space at a larger scale. The space of
intergenerational overlap should not be ignored and just as people come together, so should the
spatial characteristics that are found to benefit them.
Figure #40
78. Mooney, 78. 85
Bibliography
Bell, Scott. “Spatial Cognition And Scale: A Childs Perspective.” Journal of Environmental
Psychology 22, no. 1-2 (2002): 9–27. https://doi.org/10.1006/jevp.2002.0250.
Colavita, Francis B. Sensory Changes in the Elderly. Springfield, Ill: Charles C. Thomas, 1978.
“Community Data Snapshots.” CMAP. Accessed February 20, 2020.
https://www.cmap.illinois.gov/data/community-snapshots.
Evans, Cortney A., Larry J. Nelson, and Christin L. Porter. “Making Sense of Their World:
Sensory Reactivity and Novelty Awareness as Aspects of Temperament and Correlates of
Social Behaviours in Early Childhood.” Infant and Child Development 21, no. 5
(February 2012): 503–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.1754.
Feddersen, Eckhard, and Lüdtke Insa. Living for the Elderly. Basel: Birkhäuser, 2009.
Global Age-Friendly Cities: a Guide. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2007.
Goyer, Amy. The Best of Both Worlds: A Closer Look At Creating Spaces That Connect Young
and Old. Washington D.C.: Generations United and the Eisner Foundation, 2019.
Hall, Edward T. The Hidden Dimension. Garden City, N.Y: Doubleday, 1969.
Hill, Jonathan. Occupying Architecture: between the Architect and the User. London: Routledge,
1999.
Huber, Andreas. New Approaches to Housing for the Second Half of Life. Basel: Birkhäuser,
2008.
Kim, Jung-Yong, and Ji-Soo Park. APPLICATION OF ANTHROPOMETRIC DATA OF
ELDERLY POPULATION FOR DESIGNING EVERYDAY PRODUCTS. Bangkok,
Thailand: Conference on Occupational Ergonomics, 2007. 87
Kothiyal, Kamal, and Samuel Tettey. “Anthropometry for Design for the Elderly.” International Mirrer, Susan B. “USING ANTHROPOMETRIC DATA IN THE DESIGN OF CHILDREN'S
Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics 7, no. 1 (2001): 15–34. HEALTH CARE ENVIRONMENTS.” Children's Environments Quarterly 4, no. 3
https://doi.org/10.1080/10803548.2001.11076474. (1987): 6–11. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41514639.
Kotnik, Jure. Designing Spaces for Early Childhood Development. Mulgrave, Victoria: Images Mooney, Carol Garhart. Theories of Childhood: an Introduction to Dewey, Montessori, Erikson,
Publishing, 2017. Piaget, and Vygotsky. St. Paul, MN: Redleaf Press, 2013.
Kuehne, Valerie S., and Matthew S. Kaplan. “Evaluation and Research on Intergenerational Osmon, Fred Linn. Patterns for Designing Childrens Centers. (New York: Educational facilities
Shared Site Facilities and Programs: What We Know and What We Need to laboratories, 1975.
Learn.” Project: Share. Washington D.C.: Generations United, 2001. “Projected Population by Generation.” Pew Research Center's Social & Demographic Trends
Lawton, M. Powell. Environment and Aging. Albany, NY: Center for the Study of Aging, 1986. Project, February 13, 2019. Accessed November 19, 2019
Malik, Rasheed, Katie Hamm, Leila Schochet, Cristina Novoa, Simon Workman, and Steven https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/essay/millennial-life-how-young-adulthood-today-
Jessen-Howard. “America's Child Care Deserts in 2018.” Center for American Progress. compares-with-prior-generations/psdt_02-14-19_generations-00-09/.
Accessed February 20, 2020. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/early- “Region's Senior Population to Grow Significantly by 2050.” CMAP. Accessed February 20,
childhood/reports/2018/12/06/461643/americas-child-care-deserts-2018/. 2020. https://www.cmap.illinois.gov/onto2050/futures/communities/senior-population.
Mannion, Greg. “Intergenerational Education: The Significance of Reciprocity and Robinson, Maria. Understanding Behaviour and Development in Early Childhood: a Guide to
Place.” Journal of Intergenerational Relationships 10, no. 4 (2012): 386–99. Theory and Practice. New York: Routledge, 2011.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15350770.2012.726601. Steinig, Sheri. Intergenerational Shared Sites: Making the Case: Occasional Paper #1: To
McIlwain, John K. Housing in America: the Baby Boomers Turn 65. Washington, DC: Urban Encourage and Expand Intergenerational Shared Site Development. Washington D.C.:
Land Institute, 2012. Generations United, 2006.
Miller, Lee J., and Wei Lu. “Gen Z Is Set to Outnumber Millennials Within a Year.” Bloomberg, Vanderbeck, Robert M. Intergenerational Space. London: Routledge, 2015.
August 20, 2018. Accessed November 19, 2019.https://www.bloomberg.com/news/ Winkler, Richelle. “Research Note: Segregated by Age: Are We Becoming More
articles/2018-08-20/gen-z-to-outnumber-millennials-within-a-year-demographic-trends Divided?” Population Research and Policy Review 32, no. 5 (November 2013): 717–27.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-013-9291-8.