Public Policy & Aging Report, 2015, 25, 4–8
doi:10.1093/ppar/pru052
Developing Age-Friendly Urban Communities:
Critical Issues for Public Policy
Chris Phillipson, PhD*
School of Social Sciences, The University of Manchester, UK
*Address correspondence to Chris Phillipson, PhD, School of Social Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester,
UK. E-mail: christopher.phillipson@manchester.ac.uk
Manuscript received October 3, 2014; accepted October 21, 2014.
Decision Editor: Robert B. Hudson, PhD
Key words: Age-friendly, Urban change, Aging in place
Developing what has been termed “age-friendly” cities and
communities is now a significant theme in public policy
(Fitzgerald & Caro, 2014; New York Academy of Medicine,
2008; Scharlach, 2012). This reflects, first, the complexity
of demographic change, with the emergence of a wide spec-
trum of housing and community needs among those in the
50 plus age group; second, awareness of the importance of
the physical and social environment as a factor influential
in maintaining the quality of life of older people; third, the
policy debate about what represents “good” or “optimal”
places to age, as reflected in the work of the World Health
Organization (WHO, 2007a, 2007b, p. 6) around “age-
friendly” environments defined as encouraging: “…active
ageing by optimizing opportunities for health, participa-
tion and security in order to enhance the quality of life as
people age.”
Despite the importance attached to building age-friendly
cities, the approach itself requires better understanding
and elaboration at conceptual and operational levels. This
article examines the origins of the age-friendly approach,
reasons behind its apparent popularity, obstacles around
implementation, and areas for development. These issues
will be examined in the context of the relationship between
population aging on the one side and urban change on the
other. By 2030, two thirds of the world’s population will be
residing in cities; by that time, the major urban areas of the
developed world will have 25% or more of their population
people aged 60 and over. Cities are regarded as central to
economic development, attracting waves of migrants and
supporting new knowledge-based industries (Burdett &
© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Gerontological Society of America. All rights reserved.
For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
Advance Access publication December 27, 2014
Regular Article
Downloaded from http://ppar.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Texas at San Antonio on June 15, 2015
Sudjic, 2008). However, the extent to which what has been
termed the “new urban age” will produce “age-friendly”
communities remains uncertain (Phillipson, 2010). Cities
produce advantages for older people in respect of access
to specialized medical services, provision of cultural and
leisure facilities, and necessities for daily living. However,
they are also seen as threatening environments, often cre-
ating insecurity and feelings of vulnerability arising from
changes to neighborhoods and communities. What is the
scope for developing age-friendly cities in response to these
issues?
WHO and the Age-Friendly Model
The idea of developing age-friendly communities arose
from a number of policy initiatives launched by the WHO
during the 1990s and early 2000s. An influential theme
was the notion of “active aging” first outlined during the
United Nations’ Year of Older People in 1999 and elab-
orated upon by the European Union and the WHO. The
idea of “active” aging emphasizes older people’s “continu-
ing participation in social, economic, cultural, spiritual and
civic affairs, not just the ability to be physically active or
to participate in the labor market” (WHO, 2002, p. 12).
Achieving this was seen as requiring interventions at a
number of levels, including maintaining effective supports
within the physical and built environment. Here, the WHO
(2007a, p. 27) acknowledged that “Physical environments
that are age-friendly can make the difference between
independence and dependence for all individuals but are
4
Public Policy & Aging Report, 2015, Vol. 25, No. 1
of particular importance for those growing older. For
example, older people who live in an unsafe environment
or areas with multiple physical barriers are less likely to
get out and therefore more prone to isolation, depression,
reduced fitness and increased mobility problems.”
The idea of an age-friendly environment was subse-
quently applied to urban contexts, with work beginning
in 2005 around the theme of “Global Age-friendly Cities.”
Research by the WHO (2007b), based on focus groups with
older people, caregivers, and service providers, produced a
guide and checklist of action points focused on producing
an “ideal” city relevant to all age groups. This work con-
cluded that “It should be normal in an age-friendly city for
the natural and built environment to anticipate users with
different capacities instead of designing for the mythical
‘average’ (i.e., young) person. An age-friendly city empha-
sizes enablement rather than disablement; it is friendly for
all ages and not just ‘elder friendly’” (WHO, 2007a, p. 72).
In 2010, the WHO launched the “Global Network of Age-
friendly Cities” in an attempt to encourage implementa-
tion of policy recommendations from the 2006 project. By
2014, there were 210 participating cities and communities
across 26 countries worldwide.
Promoting Age-Friendliness
The take-up of the age-friendly model can be attributed
to a number of factors. First, the idea of improving the
environments in which people lived found support in poli-
cies associated with “lifetime homes,” “lifetime neighbor-
hoods,” and “naturally occurring retirement communities”
(Scharlach & Lehning, 2013). These share a common
theme in highlighting the need to improve help for people
who either by choice or by the absence of alternatives were
likely to “age in place” (Harrell, Lynott, & Guzman, 2014).
Second, the problems facing older people in locations such
as inner cities, the subject of a number of studies in the
early 2000s, reinforced the case for interventions taking an
age-friendly approach (Buffel, Phillipson, & Scharf, 2013;
Klinenberg, 2002; Newman, 2003). Third, the emphasis in
social policy on community rather than hospital or resi-
dential care focused attention on the quality of home and
neighborhood environments in maintaining support for
vulnerable groups. Finally, it might also be suggested that
“demand” and “supply” side factors were also operating
to support the age-friendly model: the former reflected in
support among older people for expanding the range of
housing options in retirement (cohousing being one exam-
ple) and the latter in terms of financial products (e.g.,
reverse mortgages) that allowed the equity in housing to
be converted into cash to support home improvements and
related needs. Thus, the argument might be that if aging
5
populations (and aging cities in some cases) were the driv-
ing factor behind the adoption of the age-friendly model,
this was reinforced by a research and policy environment
supporting this approach.
What Are the Limitations of the
Age-Friendly Model?
At one level, the age-friendly model makes a valid case for
raising the quality of life in neighborhoods through inte-
grating work around issues such as housing, transporta-
tion, and the built environment. It has itself reinforced
the popularity of “aging in place,” providing a framework
for interventions that supports this approach. Yet, as with
Downloaded from http://ppar.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Texas at San Antonio on June 15, 2015
“aging in place,” the idea of “age-friendliness” has a num-
ber of shortcomings (Golant, 2009, 2014). At the pre-
sent time, discussions around age-friendliness have been
largely disconnected from the pressures on urban envi-
ronments, where private developers are a dominant influ-
ence on urban planning and design. The result, according
to Harvey (2008, p. 31), is that the “quality of urban life
has become a commodity, as has the city itself, in a world
where consumerism, tourism, cultural and knowledge-
based industries have become major aspects of the urban
political economy.” The tension here is between the social
needs of older people, as an increasingly important con-
stituent of urban populations, and the pressures on public
space arising from private ownership. Logan and Molotch
(cited in Zukin, 2010, p. 227) make the point that “…city
dwellers want to enjoy the use-values of their communities
and homes, but developers are interested in maximizing
exchange values – in making money.” The resulting dis-
connect has become a particular problem in the context of
meeting the needs of groups for whom the neighborhood
plays a central role in shaping the quality of daily life.
The organization of the modern city also raises issues
for the age-friendly approach. Davis (2002) highlights the
development of a “post-urban metropolis,” where tradi-
tional central-place functions (culture and sports, govern-
ment, shopping, and administration) are radically dispersed
among different locations. Along with this, he points to the
emergence of “dead cities” stripped of the functions and
activities that contribute to the maintenance of lively and
diverse public spaces or what Jacobs (1961) referred to as
the “daily ballet” of city sidewalks safe from “barbarism
and fear.” As described by Davis (2002), however, pedes-
trian expeditions become an ordeal for young and old alike
in cities dominated by cars. Geographical disparities within
urban areas may also lead to age- and class-segregated
neighborhoods, with significant tensions between the needs
of groups at different stages of the life course (Rogers &
Power, 2000).
6 Phillipson
Harnessing the Benefits of City Living
For all their limitations, adapting aging populations to the
realities of urban living will be a key issue for public policy.
And urban environments do have numerous benefits for
older people: as centers for creativity and innovation, pro-
viding facilities that raise the quality of daily living, and
delivering specialist resources for minority groups. The key
challenge, thus, becomes ensuring that older people are rec-
ognized as having a central role to play in the cultural, eco-
nomic, and social life of cities. Implementing this agenda
will, however, require changes to the age-friendly model,
with three major areas identified below:
•• First, recognizing the diversity of cities and the implica-
tions for the “age-friendly” approach.
•• Second, developing new forms of “urban citizenship,”
which recognize and support changing needs across the
life course.
•• Third, creating opportunities to involve aging popula-
tions more effectively in the planning and regeneration
of neighborhoods.
The first issue concerns applying “age-friendliness” in a
way that recognizes the complexity of the urban environ-
ment. The techniques for ensuring an age-friendly approach
will vary considerably depending on the characteristics of
urban change and development. While the trend toward
urban living is worldwide, the pattern of urban growth
demonstrates huge variation: shrinking city populations
in the developed world (Europe especially) and accelerat-
ing urbanization in Africa and Asia, with both continents
demonstrating a mix of rapidly expanding cities in some
cases and declining ones in others (UN-Habitat, 2012).
“Age-friendly” approaches will also need to vary accord-
ing to the size of a city. The approach might, for example,
be different in Europe, where small cities with fewer than
500,000 residents are the norm, compared with the United
States, where large urban agglomerations (with popula-
tions of between 2 and 5 million) are much more com-
mon. Securing “age-friendliness” in the context of the rise
of “megacities” and “hypercities” (the latter with popula-
tions of 20 million or more) provide another variation. At
the same time, processes for developing “age-friendliness”
will need radical adaptation given the slum cities preva-
lent in Southern Asia and sub-Saharan Africa (UN-Habitat,
2012). The bulk of population growth in these continents
has taken place largely through the rise of slums, many
of these located on the periphery of capital cities (Davis,
2006). The problem of reaching older people and migrants
who are “aging in place” and housed in temporary accom-
modation bereft of basic facilities underlines the need for
new models of intervention that can respond to the highly
unequal contexts experienced by the urban elderly across
the world.
A second issue concerns the need to link the debate
about developing age-friendly cities to ideas about “urban
citizenship” and the right to make full use of the city. The
concept of “the right to the city” is closely associated
with the work of Lefebvre (1991) and has been used in
debates around access to public space—or, in Harvey’s
terms (2009, p. 315), the right to “make and remake our
cities and ourselves’ under circumstances in which private
capital is dominating the urban process.” Commenting on
Lefebvre’s work, Purcell (2003, pp. 577–578) argues that
“the right to the city” implies two main rights for its inhab-
itants. The first is to appropriate urban space, the right to
Downloaded from http://ppar.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Texas at San Antonio on June 15, 2015
“full and complete usage” of the city. The second concerns
the right to participate centrally in decision making sur-
rounding the production of urban space. These issues may
be of particular importance for older people who become
reliant upon their immediate environment for achieving a
fulfilling existence in old age. However, the so-called “para-
dox of neighborhood participation” (Buffel, 2012) applies
especially well to older people, that is, they tend to spend
a lot of time in their neighborhood (being part of the
city) but are often among the last to be engaged when it
comes to decision-making processes within their neighbor-
hood (taking part in the city). While cities are increasingly
viewed as key drivers of a nation’s economic and cultural
success, their reconstruction is often to the detriment of
those outside the labor market, especially those with low
socioeconomic status. Achieving recognition of the needs
of different generations within cities, and exploiting the
potential of the city for groups of whatever age, will be
central to the process of making cities more age-friendly.
Third, and following the above, making cities more
“age-friendly” will require radical interventions in terms
of involving older people as well as the generation that is
approaching old age as key actors in setting the agenda for
future urban development. Urban regeneration policies, for
instance, can benefit from the skills and experience of older
people and the attachment and involvement they bring to
their communities. Policy strategies for making cities more
age-friendly will, therefore, require a clear assessment of the
(structural) barriers and vehicles to engaging older people in
community redevelopment. At the same time, there is also a
need to develop strategies targeted at different groups within
the older population, with awareness, for example, of con-
trasting issues faced by different ethnic groups, people with
particular physical or mental health needs, and those living
in areas with poor housing alongside high population turno-
ver (Kelly-Moore & Thorpe, 2012). Rather than focusing
on prescribed “outcome” models of age-friendliness, future
developments would benefit from evaluations of specific
Public Policy & Aging Report, 2015, Vol. 25, No. 1
process models of neighborhood-based interventions. And,
as Golant (2014, p. 13) highlights, evaluating the outcomes
of age-friendly programs is essential: “…that is, how they
have changed, maintained or optimized the material or
social conditions of older people, enabling them to more
effectively realize their goals and needs.”
Conclusion
Developing cities that meet the interests of all generations
remains an important goal for economic and social policy.
The future of communities across the world will in large
part be determined by the response made to achieving a
higher quality of life for their older citizens. A crucial part
of this response must lie in creating supportive environ-
ments, providing access to a range of facilities and ser-
vices. However, the research and policy agenda will need
to change in significant ways if this is to be realized: First,
the issues raised by developing age-friendly communities
within complex urban environments will require a more
coherent link between research and policy than has thus
far been achieved. Research on environmental aspects
of aging has an impressive literature to its name, yet it
remains detached from analyzing the impact of powerful
global and economic forces transforming the physical and
social context of cities. Remedying this will require, as has
been argued in this article, closer integration with develop-
ments in disciplines such as urban sociology, urban eco-
nomics, and human geography. Understanding optimum
environments for aging must be seen as an interdisciplinary
enterprise requiring understanding of the impact of devel-
opments such as the changing dynamics of urban poverty
on older people; the consequences of urban renewal and
regeneration; the influence of transnational networks; and
changing relations between different class, gender, ethnic,
and age-based groups.
Second, in keeping with the approach taken in this arti-
cle, given the rapid changes affecting many urban areas,
new approaches to understanding older people’s relation-
ship to urban change—and city development in particu-
lar—are urgently required. In particular, there is a strong
case for more research in “urban ethnography” to cap-
ture the disparate experiences of those living in cities that
are now experiencing intense global change and that are
strongly influenced by complex patterns of migration on
the one side and population aging on the other. Sassen
(2000, p. 146) pointed to the need for detailed fieldwork
as a “necessary step in capturing many aspects of the
urban condition.” Such work will be especially important
for understanding the impact of urban growth on groups
such as migrants aging in place, single people, and those
on low incomes. Urban sociology was founded (through
7
the work of the Chicago School from the 1920s) upon
detailed studies of experiences of urban life, particularly of
disadvantaged and insecure people from different migrant
populations. Ethnographies will bring to the surface the
attitudes, motivations, and experiences of older people
who are “aging in place” and deepen our understanding
about the way in which cities are changing and about the
positive and negative contributions that the changes have
on the quality of daily life in old age.
Finally, incorporating debates about spatial justice
would greatly strengthen the age-friendly approach. Here,
the relevance of Soja’s (2010, p. 19) argument might be
highlighted, namely, that the “…geographies in which we
live can have both positive and negative effects on our
Downloaded from http://ppar.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Texas at San Antonio on June 15, 2015
lives.” He writes, “They are not just dead background
or a neutral physical stage for the human drama but are
filled with material and imagined forces that can hurt us
or help us in nearly everything we do, individually and col-
lectively.” He concludes, “This is a vitally important part
of the new spatial consciousness, making us aware that the
geographies in which we live can intensify and sustain our
exploitation as workers, support oppressive forms of cul-
tural and political domination based on race, gender, and
nationality, and aggravate all forms of discrimination and
injustice.” Ensuring spatial justice for older people is now
a crucial part of this debate, with developing an integrated
approach to demographic and urban change representing a
key task for research and public policy.
References
Buffel, T. (2012). Experiences of place and neighbourhood in later
life: Developing age-friendly communities. Brussels, Belgium:
VUBPress.
Buffel, T., Phillipson, C., & Scharf, T. (2013). Experiences of neigh-
bourhood exclusion and inclusion among older people living
in deprived inner-city areas in Belgium and England. Ageing &
Society, 33, 89–109.
Burdett, R., & Sudjic, D. (Eds.). (2008). The endless city. London,
UK: Phaidon.
Davis, M. (2002). Dead cities. New York, NY: The New Press.
Davis, M. (2006). Planet of slums. London, UK: Verso.
Fitzgerald, K. G., & Caro, F. (2014). An overview of age-friendly
cities and communities around the world. Journal of Aging &
Social Policy, 26, 1–18.
Golant, S. (2009). Aging in place: Solution for older Americans:
Groupthink responses not always in their best interests. Public
Policy & Aging Report, 19, 33–39.
Golant, S. (2014). Age-friendly communities: Are we expecting too
much. IRRP Insight, 5, 1–19.
Harrell, R., Lynott, J., & Guzman, S. (2014). What is livable?
Community preferences of older adults. Washington, DC:
American Association of Retired Persons Public Policy Institute.
Harvey, D. (2008). The capitalist city. New Left Review, 53, 23–42.
8 Phillipson
Harvey, D. (2009). Social justice and the city (Rev. ed.). Athens, GA:
The University of Georgia Press.
Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. New
York, NY: Vintage Books.
Kelly-Moore, J., & Thorpe, R. (2012). Age in place and place in age:
Advancing the inquiry on neighborhoods and minority older
adults. In K. Whitfield & T. Baker (Eds.), Handbook of minority
aging. New York, NY: Springer.
Klinenberg, E. (2002). Heatwave: A social autopsy of disaster in
Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. Oxford: Blackwell.
Newman, K. (2003). A different shade of gray. New York, NY: New
Press.
New York Academy of Medicine. (2008). Towards an age-friendly
city: A findings report. New York, NY: Author.
Phillipson, C. (2010). Ageing and urban society: Growing old in the
‘Century of the City’. In D. Dannefer & C. Phillipson (Eds.),
The Sage handbook of social gerontology. London, UK: Sage.
Purcell, M. (2003). Citizenship and the right to the global city:
Reimagining the world capitalist order. International Journal
of Urban and Regional Research, 3, 564–590.
Rogers, R., & Power, A. (2000). Cities for a small country. London,
UK: Faber.
Sassen, S. (2000). Cities in a world economy. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Pine Forge Press.
Scharlach, A. (2012). Creating age-friendly communities in the
United States. Ageing International, 37, 25–38.
Scharlach, A. E., & Lehning, A. J. (2013). Ageing-friendly communi-
ties and social inclusion in the United States of America. Ageing
& Society, 33, 110–136.
Soja, E. (2010). Seeking spatial justice. Minneapolis, MN: University
of Minnesota Press.
UN-Habitat. (2012). State of the World’s cities 2012/2013. New
York, NY: UN-Habitat.
World Health Organization (WHO). (2002). Active ageing: A policy
framework. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
Downloaded from http://ppar.oxfordjournals.org/ at University of Texas at San Antonio on June 15, 2015
WHO. (2007a). Global age-friendly cities: A guide. Geneva,
Switzerland: Author.
WHO. (2007b). Checklist of essential features of age-friendly cities.
Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
Zukin, S. (2010). The naked city: The death and life of authentic
urban places. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.