(Re)-Learning the City for Intergenerational Exchange

Abstract

Two major international agendas are currently working to realign social, material and representational elements of the city in ways that are helpful for both children and older adults. The Age Friendly City movement (AFC) (led by the World Health Organisation) and the Child Friendly Cities (CFC) movement (led by UNICEF) aim to ensure that planners, policy makers and developers design cities that take account of the interests of age groups who are too often marginalised in current policy and design processes. These movements are valuable and important in themselves, however they also have significant implications for the future of a learning city in which intergenerational exchange is valued. In this chapter, in order to understand better how the city might (re) learn to become intergenerational, we explore different intergenerational assemblages, looking at what is being aligned, and connected in the AFC and CFC movements. We then describe a performative, experimental project that sought to enable different alignments between these movements. A key element of this involved building new imaginative ideas about what might be possible in order to realign these generational assemblages for intergenerational, civic learning. Finally we explore what worked and didn't work, what resisted enrolment, what was easily aligned and what routines were disrupted.

Unhealthy Neighbourhood “Syndrome”: A Useful Label for Analysing and Providing Advice on Urban Design Decision-Making?

“…This has, in turn, led to reductions in social capital which, they reported, can be disproportionately felt by older adults and young children, especially within age-segregated neighbourhoods. Manchester and Facer [126] identified that over the last two decades, interaction between generations in public spaces has diminished: positive contact have reduced as children and older adults alike are encouraged to live and spend time in age-segregated spaces where physical barriers such as gates and high walls predominate. They reported that fear and competition over resources and policies have also contributed to our cities becoming increasingly segregated on generational lines (p. 5).…”

Open government for all? Co-creating digital public services for older adults through data walks

“…Walking and mobility within the immediate environment are particularly relevant when engaging older adults. In the context of co-creation with older adults, it relates to the importance of ageing in place and neighbourhood (Wiles et al , 2012; Manchester and Facer, 2016). A study conducted by Wiles et al (2012) characterises “ageing in place” by the positive perceptions of older adults as a sense of attachment and social connection, a sense of security and familiarity and a sense of identity, linked to independence and autonomy.…”

“We should all feel welcome to the park”

“…Motivated by these findings, researchers have increasingly recognized the need to support the health, safety, and wellbeing of city dwellers across the age spectrum, including children and older adults (Thang and Kaplan, 2012;Cushing and van Vliet, 2016). Age-friendly and child-friendly cities approaches emphasize the role of the built environment in addressing the vulnerability of urban youth and older adults and have been endorsed by the WHO and the United Nations Children's Fund (Manchester and Facer, 2017). Some scholars argue, however, that these two approaches have not converged in practice, often prioritizing the needs of a single age-group rather than embracing shared interests across the age spectrum (Biggs and Carr, 2015;Manchester and Facer, 2017).…”

“…Age-friendly and child-friendly cities approaches emphasize the role of the built environment in addressing the vulnerability of urban youth and older adults and have been endorsed by the WHO and the United Nations Children's Fund (Manchester and Facer, 2017). Some scholars argue, however, that these two approaches have not converged in practice, often prioritizing the needs of a single age-group rather than embracing shared interests across the age spectrum (Biggs and Carr, 2015;Manchester and Facer, 2017).…”