An Introduction to Intergenerational Contact Zones

Intergenerational Contact Zones A Compendium of Applications Edited by Matthew Kaplan, Leng Leng Thang, Mariano Sanchez, and Jaco Hoffman

Table of Contents Introduction An Introduction to “Intergenerational Contact Zones” (Matthew Kaplan, Leng Leng Thang, Mariano Sanchez, & Jaco Hoffman) Recreation: • Community Centres as Intergenerational Contact Zones (Alan Hatton-Yeo & Julie Melville) • Intergenerational Gatherings among the Water and Willows (Patricia O’Neill) • A Portuguese City Park as a Potential Intergenerational Contact Zone (Claudia Azevedo) Culture: • Castles as Intergenerational Contact Zones: Embracing the Challenge of Restoration and the Adaptive Reuse of Abandoned Castles (Thomas Quinlan) • Culture as Animator of Intergenerational Gathering Places (Robert McNulty) Education: • Intergenerational Reading Rooms: Lessons Learned from The Intergenerational School (Catherine Whitehouse, Peter Whitehouse, and Mariano Sanchez) • University Research Spaces as Intergenerational Contact Zones: Opportunities and Challenges (Thomas Scharf) Transportation: • Can Urban Streets and Spaces be Intergenerational Cycling Zones? (Ben Spencer & Tim Jones) • Imagining a Bus Stop as an Intergenerational Contact Zone: Enlivening Everyday Spaces and Playing with Perspective (Jason Danely) Residential: • Beyond Contact - Intergenerational Living in Cohousing Communities (Lisia Zheng) Virtual environments: • Online Gaming Platforms as Intergenerational Contact Zones (Eyu Zang & Leng Leng Thang) Shopping: • Let’s Go Shopping Together: Supermarkets as Potential Intergenerational Contact Zones (Leng Leng Thang, Lee Wee Honf, Zheng Hao Tan, William Henry Taslim, & Zi Heng Wong) Conclusion: • Some Lessons Learned about the Design and Functioning of Intergenerational Contact Zones (Matthew Kaplan, Leng Leng Thang, Mariano Sanchez, & Jaco Hoffman) Appendices: • Appendix 1: The Many Dimensions of Intergenerational Contact Zones (Matthew Kaplan, Mariano Sanchez, Leng Leng Thang, & Jaco Hoffman) • Appendix 2: List of ICZ Workgroup Members Kaplan, M., Thang, L.L., Sanchez, M. & Hoffman, J. (Eds.). (2016). Intergenerational Contact Zones - A Compendium of Applications. University Park, PA: Penn State Extension. Retrieved from https://aese.psu.edu/extension/intergenerational/articles/intergenerational-contact-zones

An Introduction to Intergenerational Contact Zones Each of the following 13 chapters (not including this chapter) highlight a specific application of Intergenerational Contact Zones (ICZs for short). The focus is on creating community settings that welcome age- and generation- diverse populations, provide opportunities for meaningful intergenerational engagement, and, in some way(s), enrich community life.

Overview The driving question that led to the decision to pull together this publication is: How do we create great settings for intergenerational engagement? 1 In particular, we draw attention to the concept of "intergenerational contact zones" and its significance for creating livable, inclusive, and relationship-focused community settings for people of generations. We begin with some background information about intergenerational programs and practices in general, and then move toward examining issues related to the role of the physical environment. We draw upon the ICZ conceptual framework as a tool for investigating and designing spaces for intergenerational engagement.

Background First, a definition of "intergenerational practice:" 2 "Intergenerational practice aims to bring people together in purposeful, mutually beneficial activities which promote greater understanding and respect between generations and contributes to building more cohesive communities. Intergenerational practice is inclusive, building on the positive resources that the young and old have to offer each other and those around them" (Beth Johnson Foundation, 2011). As Kaplan & Sánchez (2014) have explained, in the intergenerational studies literature, we have witnessed slow but steady growth in the production of evidence indicating ways in which intergenerational practices can have a substantial impact on participants' knowledge and skills, level of civic involvement, health, arts and recreation pursuits, social relationships, sense of self-fulfillment, and sense of cultural pride and identity (Brabazon & Disch, 1997; Hatton-Yeo & Ohsako, 2000; Kaplan, Henkin & Kusano, 2002; Kuehne, 1999; MacCallum et al., 2006; Morrow-Howell, Hong, McCrary & Blinne, 2009; Newman, Ward, Smith, Wilson & McCrea, 1997; and Martin, Springate & Atkinson, 2010). Progress has also been made in establishing standards and guidelines for effective practice in the intergenerational field (Larkin & Rosebrook, 2002; Newman & Olson, 1996; Sánchez, Díaz, Sáez, & Pinazo, 2014). So far, competencies needed for professionals working in intergenerational programs include the ability to:

• • • • •

work with individuals at many points along the age spectrum plan age-integrated activities that are developmentally and functionally appropriate for participants coordinate programs with other community agencies design effective, sustainable intergenerational programs being skilled at promoting contacts, social relationships, interactions and bonds between people from different generations

What seems to be lagging is competency in understanding the role of the physical environment in terms of its impact on program processes and outcomes. More broadly, there is a need for greater understanding and innovation in terms of creating intergenerational settings; this goes beyond a focus on formal intergenerational programs. On a positive note, there are some recent publications on intergenerational settings, for example, Vanderbeck & Worth's (2015) edited volume on "intergenerational spaces," an article from Buffel et al. (2014) on the "shared places and spaces" campaign in

the northern England city of Manchester, and a report from the Generations of Hope Development Corporation (GHDC, 2015) which highlights the role of physical design in their "intentional (intergenerational) neighboring" model. It is our intent to add to this rich and expanding literature.

What are Intergenerational Contact Zones (ICZs)? Before we embark on defining "intergenerational contact zones," we feel it is prudent to clarify the distinction between intergenerational spaces and places. Vanderbeck and Worth (2015) use the term "intergenerational spaces" to denote sites that have been "designed for the purpose of facilitating and promoting interaction between members of different generational groups (most commonly the young and the old)" (p. 1). While space in environmental terms has specific physical dimensions, we are primarily concerned with the conversion of a space into a place. In contrast with space, place constitutes a psychological component; a space may remain a space, but it may also become a place as defined by one's emotional feeling and a sense of belonging to the space. In other words, a "space" becomes a "place" once it is has meaning for someone (Thang & Kaplan, 2013). Similarly, Semken & Freeman (2008) describe place as a space "imbued with meaning by human experience" (p. 1,042). Hence, places are meaningful spaces, more than just a backdrop or a container for the action. Specifically, spaces are part of the action when we have in mind child-adult relations and practices (Mannion, 2010, p. 333). To further aid in clarifying the distinction between space and place, we draw on Harrison and Dourish's (1996) assertion that "place" is largely a subset of "space." "A place is generally a space with something added - social meaning, convention, cultural understandings about role, function and nature and so on." The sense of place transforms the space" (p. 3). When we talk about ICZs, we are simultaneously alluding to space and place. We begin with a simple working definition: Intergenerational Contact Zones serve as spatial focal points for different generations to meet, interact, build relationships (e.g., trust and friendships), and, if desired, work together to address issues of local concern. They can be found in all types of community settings including schools, parks, taverns, reading rooms, clubhouses, museums, community gardens, environmental education centers, and multi-service community centers. However, the intergenerational contact zones topic is more complex and multifaceted than this definition implies. Beyond drawing needed attention to the physical configuration of a space in which different generations congregate, it is important to consider sociocultural, political, economic, and historical factors linked to identity that affect how people view and value the site. The "meaning making" process plays out not just at the personal level but also at the social level. There are numerous intersections between the individually held meanings that inhabitants of a space possess; norms and expectations for the intergenerational engagement in a specific setting are negotiated and in large part socially defined. It should also be kept in mind that the inhabitants of ICZ spaces are not passive recipients of environmental influence. They are active in constructing and refining meanings associated with ICZ spaces and in determining which intergenerational engagement possibilities to pursue. Inhabitants of ICZ spaces also proactively influence how these settings function. They help as well to create opportunities for intergenerational learning, living, recreating, and taking civic action.

What is the history of the term "Intergenerational Contact Zones"? The first use of the term "Intergenerational Contact Zones" can be found in a chapter written by Leng Leng Thang (2015) for a book on Intergenerational Spaces, edited by Vanderbeck and Worth. Thang's chapter described her study of a co-(age) located playground in Singapore. Thang's inspiration came from observing Japanese culture, looking particularly at the norm of "keeping in touch"- and therefore building upon similar work by Pratt (1991) who used the term "contact zones" in the context of sharing cultures, ideas and values in classroom settings. Essentially, Pratt argued that when people come together from diverse cultural perspectives there is the potential for tension and even confrontation, but also for greater understanding if efforts are made to change the interaction dynamic. The concept of "intergenerational contact zones" (ICZ) runs parallel to that of "cultural contact zones," except that in the ICZ case, the emphasis is placed on bridging diverse generational perspectives and experience.

Why focus on Intergenerational Contact Zones (ICZs)? The topic of ICZs took center stage at a meeting held at the Oxford Institute of Population Ageing during the summer of 2015. A multi-disciplinary group of 13 scholars and practitioners engaged in groundwork discussions and collaborative inquiry aimed at exploring existing approaches and charting new strategies for creating and/or enhancing intergenerational spaces. An Introduction to Intergenerational Contact Zones

As we learned from the rich insights and resources shared by the Oxford meeting participants and scholars who later joined the ICZ workgroup (see Appendix 1), the ICZ conceptual framework can serve several functions, including as:

• conceptual tool - for studying complex, multi-generational community settings. • programming tool - for broadening the range of intergenerational activity possibilities. • design tool - for generating innovative ideas for developing intergenerational meeting spaces. We anticipate that professionals from different fields of practice will have different ways of "using" the ICZ concept. It might be helpful to frame some of these ways. For the environmental design professional, for example, entertainment of the ICZ concept might stimulate innovative thinking about designing spaces that are conducive to the type of intergenerational encounters appropriate to the overall setting in question, whether the emphasis is on joint learning, discovery, invention, caregiving, or some other mode of engagement. For the intergenerational studies professional, focusing in on ICZs might be a way to reflect on ways to modify the physical environment to better align with program objectives, activities, and organizational policies. The community development oriented professional might tune into the potential of viable intergenerational meeting spaces/places for reducing social isolation and creating new modes of community activity. This is consistent with the research conducted by Partners for Livable Communities on public perceptions of "community livability," where emphasis is placed on the importance of civic gathering places, where people can meet comfortably, and where there is a welcoming environment for newcomers (McNulty & Koff, 2014). ICZ spaces - either through design or serendipity, planned or spontaneous modes of interaction - can make a significant difference in people's lives. ICZs can function as hubs for a wide variety of pursuits that have a social dimension, from play to caregiving. They open up new pathways for community exploration and discovery, and they help people form and maintain social networks and relationships that buffer against the specter of social isolation and loneliness.

About this Publication This publication is a part of a broader effort to crystalize our understanding of the overall ICZ concept and lay the foundations for exploring new applications for intergenerational living and learning. The authors of the 14 chapters in this publication explore ways in which the ICZ conceptual framework could be useful for understanding, creating, or sparking intergenerational engagement in a wide range of practices and settings, including those that exist in virtual as well as physical environments. The chapters are filled with poignant examples of how ICZs breathe new life into communities and social practices. There are ICZs within which and through which new modes of recreation, new family bonding experiences, new horizons for appreciating the natural environment, new ways to explore local culture and history, and new social groupings and networks are generated. To draw attention to the abundance and diversity of ICZs in communities, we made sure to include ICZs (or potential ICZs) in settings that are not typically thought of as hubs of intergenerational activity or possibility, such as small, sparse bus stops (see Jason Danely's chapter) and an abandoned castles slated for restoration and adaptive reuse (see Tom Quinlan's chapter). Throughout the publication an emphasis has been made not as much on presenting theory and concepts as on practical descriptions and developments around ICZs. It has been our purpose to nurture practitioners' capacity to translate and infuse the notion of ICZ into their work. To this regard, the editors of this Compendium would be delighted to get feedback from readers either about further applications from the Compendium's content or ideas for expanding the Compendium with new cases of ICZs.

References and Resources Beth Johnson Foundation (2011). A Guide to Intergenerational Practice. Stoke-on-Trent: Beth Johnson Foundation. Buffel, T., De Backer, F., Peeters, J., Phillipson, C., Reina, V.R., Kindekens, A., De Donder, L., & Lombaerts, K. (2014). Promoting sustainable communities through intergenerational practice. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 1785-1791. GHDC (2015). Physical design facilitates relationships - Core component #4 (of the GHDC "Intentional Neighboring" model). Champaign, IL: Generations of Hope Development Corp. Available online. Harrison, S. & Dourish, P. (1996). " Re-place-ing space: The role of place and space in collaborative systems. " In G.M. Olson, J.S. Olson, & M.S. Ackerman (Eds.), Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW '96), 67-76. Available online.

An Introduction to Intergenerational Contact Zones

Hatton-Yeo, A. & Ohsako, T., (Eds.) (2000). Intergenerational programmes: Public policy and research implications: An international perspective. Hamburg, Germany: UNESCO Institute for Education. Kaplan, M., Henkin, N., & Kusano, A. (Eds.). (2002). Linking lifetimes: A global view of intergenerational exchange. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Kaplan, M., & Sánchez, M. (2014). Intergenerational programmes. In S. Harper, & K. Hamblin (Eds.), with J. Hoffman, K. Howse, & G. Leeson, International Handbook on Ageing and Public Policy (pp. 367-383). Cheltenham: Elgar. Kuehne, V.S. (1999). Intergenerational programs: Understanding what we have created. Binghamton: The Haworth Press. Larkin, E. & Rosebrook, V. (2002). Standards for intergenerational practice: A proposal. Early Childhood Teacher Education, 23, 137-142. MacCallum, J. Palmer, D., Wright, P., Cumming-Potvin, W., Northcote, J., Brooker, M., & Tero, C. (2006). Community building through intergenerational exchange. Report from the (Australian) National Youth Affairs Research Scheme (NYARS). Mannion, G. (2010). After participation: the socio-spatial performance of intergenerational becoming. In B. Percy-Smith & N. Thomas (Eds.), A Handbook of Children and Young People's Participation. Perspectives from Theory and Practice (pp. 330-342). Oxon, New York: Routledge. Martin, K., Sringate, I., & Atkinson, M. (2010). Intergenerational practice: Outcomes and effectiveness. Berkshire: National Foundation for Educational Research. Available online. McNulty, R. & Koff, R. (2014). Cultural heritage tourism. Washington, D.C.: Partners for Livable Communities. Available online. Morrow-Howell, N., Hong, S.-I., McCrary, S., & Blinne, W. (2009). Experience Corps: Health outcomes of participation (CSD Research Brief 09-09). St. Louis, MO: Washington University, Center for Social Development. Newman, S. and Olson, S. (1996). Competency development: Professionalizing the intergenerational field. The Southwest Journal on Aging, 12 (1/2), 91-94. Newman, S., Ward, C.R., Smith, T.B., Wilson, J., & McCrea, J.M. (1997). Intergenerational programs: past, present and future. Bristol, PA: Taylor & Francis. Pratt, M.L. (1991). Arts of the contact zone. Profession, 33-40. Sánchez, M., Díaz, P., Sáez, J., & Pinazo, S. (2014). The professional profile of intergenerational program managers: general and specific characteristics. Educational Gerontology, 40 (6), 4727-441. doi: 10.1080/03601277.2013.844037 Semken, S. & Freeman, C.B. (2008). Sense of place in the practice and assessment of place-based science teaching. Science Education, 92 (6), 1,042-1,057. Thang, L.L. (2015). Creating an intergenerational contact zone: Encounters in public spaces within Singapore's public housing neighborhoods. In R. Vanderbeck & N. Worth (Eds.), Intergenerational spaces (pp. 17-32). London, UK: Routledge. Thang, L.L. & Kaplan, M. (2013). Intergenerational pathways for building relational spaces and places. In G.D. Rowles, & M. Bernard (Eds.), Environmental gerontology: Making meaningful places in old age (pp. 225-251). NYC: Spring Publishing Company. Vanderbeck, R. & Worth, N. (Eds.). (2015). Intergenerational spaces. London, UK: Routledge. van Vliet, W. (2011). Intergenerational cities: A framework for policies and programs. Journal of Intergenerational Relationship s , 9 (4), 348-365.

An Introduction to Intergenerational Contact Zones

Photo caption: During a "think tank" on Intergenerational Contact Zones hosted by the Oxford Institute of Population Ageing (June 26, 2015), workshop participants engaged in an exercise aimed at exploring ways to apply intergenerational design concepts in various community settings. Pictured (from left to right): Mariano Sanchez (Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Granada, Spain; AESE Visiting Scholar - 2012-13 and Penn State Center for Healthy Aging international affiliate faculty), Alan Hatton-Yeo (MBE, Director of Age Friendly Communities Wales and Communities for All Ages/UK), Susan Langford (MBE, Director, Magic Me - London), Matt Kaplan (Professor, Penn State University; Visiting Fellow, Oxford Institute of Population Ageing), and Jaco Hoffman (James Martin Senior Research Fellow, Oxford Institute of Population Ageing; Professor, Ageing and Generational Dynamics in Africa Programme, North-West University, South Africa).

Authors Matthew Kaplan, Leng Leng Thang, Mariano Sanchez, and Jaco Hoffman ___________________________________________________________________________ 1 We use the term “engagement” rather than “interaction” to capture participants’ investment of physical, cognitive, and emotional energies into their intergenerational encounters. 2 From this point onward, we use the term "practices" to include "programs," "policies," and "places."

An Introduction to Intergenerational Contact Zones

Community Centres as Intergenerational Contact Zones Community centers can function as intergenerational as well as mono-generational and multi-generational activity spaces. This chapter highlights an example of a community center in London designed as an intergenerational shared site.

Introduction "Intergenerational relationships are always located in place" (Mannion, 2012). The literature has primarily focused on interactions within age-segregated environments but there has also been an increase and recognized growing need in the field to consider older and younger adults' engagement with and attachment to age-integrated communities and spaces. As such, more recent Acacia Intergenerational Center (Merton, London). View from literature has focused on the use of different public spaces in the outside entry point. urban areas that are shared by many generations. Therefore, a growing interest in exploring public shared spaces and places that are intergenerational is not only increasing but essential as we develop new integrated models to address the aspirations of citizens in a time of significant demographic change. One of the critical issues emerging within the intergenerational field is a lack of attention to how the built environment plays a crucial role in influencing intergenerational interaction (Melville, 2013; Jarrott, Smith, & Weintraub, 2008; Kaplan et al., 2007; Kuehne & Kaplan, 2001; Thang, 2001). From an intergenerational perspective, the objective of a physical space is to create an environment that is appropriate for various age groups, but is also conducive to intergenerational interactions - that is, an environment that fosters meaningful engagement between generations. A community center as an Intergenerational Contact Zone (ICZ) can be conceptualized as a place and space in the local community where the generations can potentially come together in a number of ways and for a variety of reasons. As such, the development and/or management of a community center as an ICZ must consider both the environment and, specifically, people's relationships with(in) their environments. This proposal is predicated on the idea that many community spaces, such as a community centers, currently being utilized by various generations independently could in fact be used 'intergenerationally'.

Discussion The opportunity to consider community centers in the context of the emerging discussion regarding Intergenerational Contact Zones (ICZs) is a timely one. The impact of austerity in the UK and a reconsideration of the reciprocal responsibilities between State and Citizen have created a new dialogue in the UK. There is an increasing emphasis on local solutions by and for local people and a reappraisal of buildings as community assets that need to rationalize and optimize their use to enable them to be both economically and socially sustainable. This article builds on the study the authors undertook in 2013 for the Welsh Government on Intergenerational Shared Spaces (Hatton-Yeo & Melville, 2013) and the emerging European Age-Friendly Environment movement (AFE-Innovnet). Both recognize the importance of seeing people's participation and engagement as being influenced by their physical environment. What is more, the idea of 'community' and 'community center' are also contested terms. Individuals and communities both share having multiple and complex identities and interests and it is essential to take account of this complexity in any discussion of community. It is too easy, and we would argue negligent, to define community in terms of geographical location without taking account of the communities of interest that people also belong to.

In the UK the creation of social cohesion has been a key driver for much of our policy (Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2007). This sees the development of intergenerational relationships as a core element to help bind communities together, i.e. to be socially cohesive. However, the meaning of social cohesion itself remains open to debate. The literature broadly emphasizes two principal elements to the concept: 'the reduction of disparities, inequalities and social exclusion' and 'the strengthening of social relations, interactions and ties' (Berger-Schmitt, 2000, p.28). In much of the literature the second element dominates and is often closely tied to the concept of social capital. Social capital is associated with "people's sense of community, their sense of belonging to a neighbourhood, caring about people who live there and believing people who live there care about them" (Portney & Berry, 2001, p.21). Putnam (2000) argues that positive attitudes and beliefs in one's neighbourhood contributes to cohesion within the local community and hence to residents' willingness to participate in local affairs and to cooperate. Life in communities with high social capital is seen to be good. Given such a move in the UK to seek to develop such 'civic communities' (Putnam, 2000), consideration of the community center as the physical space to foster interaction between people over time is essential. A community center may be a building managed by a local resident committee for the use of local people or owned and managed by the Local Authority for the benefit of local people. Such a building will have a range of physical resources which can include sports facilities, rooms to be used for meetings, learning activities, groups to meet, arts and drama, social and recreational use, etc. Larger community centers may also have a cafeteria and crèche (daycare) facilities. By the very nature of the activities that are offered such a center lends itself to serving the needs of particular communities of interest in segregated sessions. People may attend different groups at different times reflecting their interests and this will be of personal benefit but does such a center contribute to the overall goal of strengthening social relations between the generations? In fact, it might lead to weakening such relationships if different groups see themselves as 'owning the building' at different times. To build a sense of community the building, and its use, has to intentionally create opportunities for people to mix and do things that go across traditional group divides. For instance the growth of interest in baking in the UK (The Great British Bake-Off) has created a wonderful opportunity for people to learn, cook and eat together in an unforced and natural way, but only if the center has the facilities to enable this to happen.

An example of a Community Center becoming an ICZ in the UK The Acacia Intergenerational Center, the UK's first purpose-built intergenerational center, was developed to "provide a range of shared services and facilities under one roof for older people, children as well as families" (LDA, 2009: 72). Driven by increasing concerns about the generations becoming more isolated from one another and reinforced by different groups feeling they were competing with each other for resources, for public space(s) and to get their voices heard, the London Development Agency (LDA) in partnership with the Greater London Authority was tasked with looking at innovative ways of addressing these issues. By merging activities and facilities for older and younger people, the LDA anticipated that a center would help break down barriers and improve educational attainment, reduce crime and provide a better sense of community spirit and well-being. Findings from research during the development and management of this center suggest that utilizing existing research and best practice in the field is crucial (Melville, 2013). For example, access to wider EU networks that have experience developing and delivering similar centers, making use of guidance available and collaboration with professionals in the field of intergenerational practice, who were seen to be 'experts' and have previous experience and knowledge is one method for utilizing examples of best practice and research. Flexibility in the space is crucial in the design of an 'intergenerational' (IG) environment that allows for planned and unplanned activity and different levels and types of interaction between the generations (Epstein & Boisvert, 2005). Furthermore, how the community center and its staff communicate what the center 'is', who it is for and how it can be used, had a considerable effect on who used the center and for what purpose. The quality of staff working in a community center (as an ICZ) is another key element for success - staff have a potentially important role in the planning and implementation of IG programming. More specifically, staff who possess the skills and knowledge to meet age-appropriate developmental needs, and are able to develop and implement IG activities, has consistently been highlighted in the literature as a critical factor in the management and delivery of a variety of intergenerational programs (Melville, 2013). Finally, appropriate planning and implementation is essential to meet the complex demands of activities and services that are appropriate for all ages. Equally, how activities and services are planned and delivered can influence how the generations interact with one another in any given setting.

Community Centres as Intergenerational Contact Zones

What are the key elements for a community center to become an effective ICZ? We would suggest that for a community center to become a successful ICZ, it should aim to possess a number of essential attributes: 1. Participants from different generations are actively involved in the planning and running of the activities and services the center provides. 2. Staff are trained to work with both older adults and young people and have an explicit understanding of the fundamental aim to allow all generations to collaborate on positive activities of shared interest and mutual benefit. 3. Both staff and participants approach risk assessment (i.e., safeguarding children and older adults) as a positive opportunity to build safe relationships and partnerships. 4. However the space is constructed or defined, everyone continually questions how it can be made 'age friendly' to facilitate interaction across - and between - the generations. 5. Both formal and informal opportunities exist - or are created - for people of different generations to come together and enjoy regular contact, both formally and informally. In summary, as public resources shrink and opportunities for the generations to interact remain limited, more collaborative approaches to the delivery of services and programming will become a necessary step for all of society, in practice. Finally, anyone considering embarking on the process of promoting a community center as an ICZ needs to give equal weight to the activities, programs and services (i.e., what happens within these spaces) as to the various or physical spaces and the end users involved.

References AFE-Innovnet, retrieved 19 October, 2015. Berger-Schmitt, R. (2000). Social cohesion as an aspect of the quality of societies: Concept and measurement. EU Reporting Working Paper No 14, Mannheim: Centre for Survey Research and Methodology, Social Indicators Department. Epstein, A. S., & Boisvert, C. (2005 ). Let's do something together: Identifying the effective components of intergenerational programs, final project report. Michigan: High Scope Press. Hatton-Yeo, A. & Melville, J. (2013). Generations Together Cymru: Intergenerational Shared Spaces. Welsh Government. Jarrot, S.E., Smith, C.L., & Weintraub, A.P.C. (2008). Development of a standardized tool for intergenerational programming: The intergenerational observation scale. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 6 (4), 433-448. Joseph Rowntree Foundation (2007). Monitoring poverty and social exclusion. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, UK. Kaplan, M., Haider, J., Cohen, U., & Turner, D. (2007). Environmental design perspectives on intergenerational programs and practices: An emergent conceptual framework. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 5 (2), 81-110. Kuehne, V. & Kaplan, M. (2001). Evaluation and research on intergenerational shared site facilities and programs: What we know and what we need to learn. Generations United Background Paper: Project SHARE. Washington, DC: Generations United. London Development Agency (2009). The London Development Agency and London Borough of Merton Grant Agreement. Unpublished report. London Development Agency. Mannion, G. (2012). Intergenerational education: The significance of reciprocity and place. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 10 (4): 386-99. Melville, J. (2013) Promoting Communication and Fostering Interaction between the Generations: A study of the UK's first purpose-built intergenerational center. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Keele University. Portney, K.E. & Berry, J.M. (2001). 'Mobilizing minority communities: Social capital and participation in urban neighbourhoods', in Edward, B., Foley, M.W. and Diani, M. (eds.), Beyond Tocqueville. Civil society and social capital in comparative perspective, Hanover: Tufts University. Putman, R.D. (2000). Bowling alone. The collapse and revival of American community, New York: Simon and Schuster. Thang, L. (2001). Generations in touch: Linking the old and young in a Tokyo neighborhood. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Community Centres as Intergenerational Contact Zones

Authors Alan Hatton-Yeo, D.Univ, MBE Strategic Development Manager, Volunteering Matters Wales Expert Lead Age-Friendly Wales Contact email: [email protected] Julie Melville, Ph.D. Research Manager within the Faculty of Nursing at the University of Alberta, Canada European Projects Manager with the Beth Johnson Foundation, UK. Contact email: [email protected]

Community Centres as Intergenerational Contact Zones

Intergenerational Gatherings Among the Water and Willows Urban parks can be extraordinarily peaceful, and even spiritual. With water, flowers, birds, trees, and breath-taking views blending with architectural elements and sculpture, they create spaces that feel far removed from what surrounds them. These sanctuaries are like magnets pulling people in from all backgrounds and ages.

Figure 1: A typical gathering in an open space at West Lake. Note the wide range of ages, even among the performers and musicians.

For years I have worked, lived in, or visited virtually all of East Asia, a region whose cultures I have deeply loved from the very beginning. Thus, I vividly remember my first impressions of the beautiful parks I found scattered throughout massive urban landscapes, particularly in China, and how extraordinarily peaceful, even spiritual, they were, and still are. Water, flowers, birds, trees, and breath-taking views blend with architectural elements and sculpture to create spaces that feel far removed from what surrounds them. These sanctuaries are like magnets pulling people in from all backgrounds and ages, at all times of day and night, in all seasons, and for a multiplicity of purposes. In the morning one might find groups practicing tai chi, in the afternoon they may be strolling or picnicking, in the evening there might be dancing and singing. One location that epitomizes the best of this is West Lake, Hangzhou, China, in my view, a perfect example of what an Intergenerational Contact Zone (ICZ) can and should be. West Lake is a "great attractor" for me. I love Hangzhou, but what excites me the most about visiting this great city, is that every time I am there I know I will squeeze out as much time as I can to walk around the lake, sit on its benches, meditate over its beauty and absorb its vistas, watch the local people, have tea in its gardens, and allow myself to be fully engaged and energized. Allow me to share some of this.

About West Lake West Lake sits at one end of a bustling city whose official population is somewhere between 7-8 million. Its east end abuts a business and shopping district, and beyond that, the sprawling urban metropolis of Hangzhou. However, on its other three sides, the lake is surrounded by gentle rolling hills, covered with trees, forming a perfect backdrop. A road for cars and buses rings the lake, with business and residential districts bordering it. There is also a smattering of hotels, as West Lake is a popular tourist destination. Its history and natural beauty are renowned, and it has been the subject of paintings, poetry and graceful living for centuries. Its gardens are said to be the inspiration for ornamental garden design throughout Asia. The surrounding hills accommodate tea plantations and villages, ancient temples, pavilions, and pagodas. Admittedly, West Lake is unique, evidenced by the fact that in 2011 the lake and surrounding area became a UNESCO World Heritage Site. In inscribing "The West Lake Cultural Landscape of Hangzhou" on its World Heritage List, UNESCO described it as bearing "an exceptional testimony to the cultural tradition of improving landscapes to create a series of vistas reflecting an idealized fusion between humans and nature. " I agree. Through my eyes, West Lake is a manifestation of the culture from which it has emanated. It harmonizes the natural world and the people who inhabit it; for West Lake is not just a tourist destination. It is a welcoming setting where the citizens of Hangzhou can relax and enjoy each other.

West Lake as an ICZ One particularly outstanding quality of urban Chinese parks is that they do not allow the cities that surround them to intrude into their environment or puncture their tranquillity. This is true of West Lake. The lake proper is almost entirely encircled by trees, many of them weeping willows or peach trees that bloom profusely in the spring. There are two causeways that divide the lake into sections, connecting all sides of it. These are not just flat stretches of road, but feature traditional Chinese arched bridges. Huge lotus ponds- that bloom all summer- are tucked into the corners of the causeways and other parts of the lake. Pathways cover both the causeways and the areas they connect so it is possible to go by foot or bike around most of the lake, which many people do. Benches and grass are contiguous to the pathways, allowing people to stop and rest, talk, eat, and enjoy the magnificent views, or watch the unbelievably beautiful sunsets. Teashops and coffee houses dot the shores, and most have outdoor patios with views as well as indoor space. Some are located in historical buildings, exuding charm. Nearby, there are historical sites and museums for visiting. There are ferries that traverse the lake, mimicking the classical style of ancient Chinese vessels. There are also bicycles and boats one can rent, to circumnavigate the area. Along most of the lake's perimeter there are also parks, with two principle components: designated open space and pavilions where people can gather. In some instances these are adjacent to each other. The pavilions offer shelter from the sun and rain. The open spaces are generally paved or have wooden surfaces. Both contain seating. Benches are built into the sides of the pavilions, while the open spaces may have low walls or benches. These areas are beautifully landscaped and very often contain sculpture. The latter have cultural or historical significance, whether the image is an acclaimed individual from the past (e.g., Confucius) or people from everyday Chinese life, for example, traders, fishermen, or scholars. These artistic endeavors are aesthetically pleasing and inviting. People come to photograph and admire them; children want to play on them. They lend a cosy and personal feeling to the space. I should add that, from my experience, these pavilions and open spaces are continuously filled with people singing, dancing, talking, taking photos, playing musical instruments, mahjong, and board games.

Intergenerational Gatherings Among the Water and Willows

Figure 2: Dancing at West Lake.

Every evening, at one end of the lake, there is a "dancing waters" show, accompanied by music and lights, which occur at regular intervals. Chairs are set up along the side of the lake for people to watch it; or it can be viewed from the open spaces or outdoor cafes nearby. There is no cost for this. Anyone can attend. At the other end of the lake, there is a (paid) performance of "Impression West Lake," a unique production staged by the famous Chinese director, Zhang Yimou. The story is derived from traditional Chinese folklore and the entire performance takes place over the water, on a specially designed platform constructed just under the water's surface. The point I wish to emphasize here is that all of these amenities and spaces are not just designed for the enjoyment of tourists, but for anyone. Families come out to picnic or go boating, biking or walking together. Others just want to absorb the scenery and views. Many, many people gather together as strangers, unselfconsciously enjoying mutual interest activities. I have been at West Lake during holidays, festivals, but mostly during quieter times. It is always crowded with families, singles, couples, young, old, and in between- all mixing together. From what I have personally and repeatedly experienced, it is utterly ageless. Everyone is welcome.

What we can learn about ICZs from West Lake West Lake developed in two ways: organically and deliberately. Although it is a man- made lake, it is, and always has been, a place of spectacular natural beauty. However, over the years it has gone from being a retreat for the elite to a public space. The Hangzhou government has been instrumental in this transformation. It has been responsible for the development, construction, refurbishment, and maintenance of the parks, gardens and walkways around the lake. It has allowed restaurants and cafes to be opened, and even some souvenir shops to operate. It has permitted a variety of diverse activities to take place 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Its police patrol the space to keep it safe. The city of Hangzhou provides public transportation to the lake, making it convenient and accessible to the local citizenry. Most of all, the lake and surrounding parks are a reflection of the Chinese peoples' love of nature and especially gardens and parks, which have been traditional gathering places throughout their history. As UNESCO observed, West Lake is a "testimony to the cultural tradition of improving landscapes…" These kinds of spaces are an integral and meaningful part of the culture. They will always draw people because they are simply a natural part of life. How does this translate into a successful ICZ? I would like to suggest a formula, modeled after West Lake: 1. Create a venue that has astonishing natural beauty, and is responsive to the cultural needs of the people who are intended to use it. Resources should be made available to maintain, refurbish and enhance it, and to make it accessible and safe. 2. Provide "amenities" that are age neutral. Beautiful walkways, parks, and gardens provide people with a focal point or means to follow their own interests. Not only can they walk, bike or boat, they can, for example, bird watch or enjoy the ornamental gardens. What you don't see at West Lake are playgrounds, basketball courts, football pitches, and other spaces dedicated to a particular age or interest group, or that disrupt the tranquillity of the space. That is not to say these are not Intergenerational Gatherings Among the Water and Willows

appropriate for use as ICZs somewhere else, just not this environment. 3. Sometimes less is more. The combination of pavilions and open spaces, so long as they are well thought out and purposeful, may be enough. Many of the activities taking place at West Lake do not require more than this. The people I continually see bring their own musical instruments, microphones, boom boxes, and karaoke machines. If people share a common interest, they will likely find ways to identify each other and communicate regardless of their age or background. 4. Resist the temptation to overdevelop. Restaurants, cafes, shops and hotels should be unobtrusive, out of the way, mostly hidden from view, and kept to a minimum. Importantly, they should not interfere with peoples' views or quiet enjoyment of the space. Likewise, the surrounding area should be left alone. Build Senior Centres, schools, medical facilities, and so forth somewhere else. It is true that West Lake has matured over time, and that it is favored by its location. However, whether by luck, intention, or both, the right balance has been achieved. The concept and orientation are worthy of reflection and perhaps application elsewhere.

Figure 3: Humanlike statues scattered throughout the open spaces at West Lake.

Author Patricia O'Neill, DPhil (Oxon), JD, MSG Visiting Academic School of Interdisciplinary Area Studies (SIAS), University of Oxford Bio: Dr. Patricia O'Neill is a socio-gerontologist and attorney whose current research interests are focused on ageing in Asia. She is currently affiliated with Contemporary China Studies (SIAS), University of Oxford. She can be contacted at [email protected].

Intergenerational Gatherings Among the Water and Willows

A Portuguese City Park as a Potential Intergenerational Contact Zone This chapter focuses on a city park in Portugal and some of the factors that have influenced its design, redevelopment, and patterns of community use. The Intergenerational Contact Zone concept is used to explore the park’s potential to provide residents with opportunities to meet, interact, and relate to one another without obstruction.

Introduction Following the international and European agenda in the 1990's, Portugal started to make the first steps on intergenerational programming. The emigration process in the 1950's and 1970's took away many young people 2 from Portugal and caused a reduction in the potential of fertility which intensely affected the Portuguese age pyramid. The Census (2011) shows that the aging process is not an inland phenomenon but is spread all across the country. The political agendas at the world-wide level (e.g., 2nd UN World Assembly on Ageing in Madrid, 2002, Age Friendly Cities), European level (Horizon, 2020; European Year of Active Ageing and Solidarity between Generations, 2012) and local level (City Council Gerontological Plan) drive us to create synergies that structure a more cohesive society for all ages (Henkin, 2004), rooted in values of intergenerational solidarity (Bostrum, 2000; Kuehne, 2003). We observe that all these demographic, social and economic changes have led us to a growing interest in approaches that seek to increase intergenerational programming and relationships. In 2012, the boom of intergenerational programming happened in Europe, due to the large number of grants from the EU [European Year of Active Ageing and Solidarity between Generations], as well as national funding from government or private sources, such as the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation. Since then intergenerational programming became very fashionable, reaching the point where almost every social community project is being called an " intergenerational program " of some sort. The focus of this chapter is not on specific intergenerational program models or activities per se, but rather on the physical and social dimensions of the community settings in which intergenerational engagement occurs. We focus in on city parks, in particular the Infante D. Pedro City Park in Aveiro, Portugal, and draw upon the concept of intergenerational contact zones (ICZ) (Thang, 2015) to conduct a critical review of factors related to the design, redevelopment, and functioning of this park in terms of its capacity to provide meaning and opportunity for people of different generations to meet, interact, and relate to one another freely. We also draw upon findings from an intergenerational research project that Vieira & Guerra (2012) conducted in the aforementioned park. This project, entitled, "Project = Space with Stories and Nature to Socialize" (P=LHNS), will serve as a starting point to the following discussion. Based on that study's data, a critical approach will directly underpin the ICZ framework.

City Parks as Intergenerational Contact Zones Instead of using coordinates, people in general tend to use descriptive statements about their location; for example, " I'm home " or " I'm at the park." However, those are not only locations; often people attach meaningful and descriptive semantics to those spaces through which they became places. A space can't be understood as a neutral setting, only when the social context is applied. For subsequent social interaction, experience and cultural meaning emplaced from the very start, animated and constituted by the people that inhabit that space helps it become a socially meaningful "place" (Thang & Kaplan, 2013). Normally, city parks are public spaces without any restrictions on access based on individual characteristics. However, if we look carefully at the spaces and activity opportunities in city parks, we may spot some age-based deliberations. For example, the playgrounds are mostly occupied by children; the sport fields are typically directed to youth and the tea rooms tend to enroll older people. What does it mean to create a city park in a way that maximizes its potential to generate meaningful possibilities for

intergenerational interaction and cooperation?

The Infante D. Pedro City Park At the beginning of 2010, the Project P=LHNS (Vieira & Guerra, 2012) aimed to redevelop and re-energize the Infante D. Pedro City Park in a way that preserved its biodiversity and social resources and attracted and engaged a generationally diverse body of park users. P=LHNS priorities were twofold: (1) to demonstrate and reinforce the intergenerational practices within the city park redevelopment campaign; (2) to gather together citizens around a common achievement that turned the city park into a place with rich stories, nature, and pro-social, community relationship-building socialization opportunities (Vieira & Guerra, 2012). The city park was first opened in 1927. At its glorious times it was a meeting point and thus, a meaningful place for the entire community (Vieira & Guerra, 2012). Initially the city park appeared to foster community engagement and promote contact between different generations. A variety of activities happened in that space, from sporting events to dating, and meeting friends and family. During the 80's, the lack of maintenance of the park began to lead to degradation, and consequently fewer and fewer visits from the community. At the same time, delinquency and vandalism episodes were found to be commonplace. The P=LHNS project thus aimed to restore the park with the concerns and insights of the community in mind.

Figure 1: Infante D. Pedro Park in Aveiro, Portugal.

The project applied a range of participatory data collection tools to get to know citizens' expectations, including the use of social networks (Facebook and a blog); social media (radio, local and national newspapers); emails and phone calls; meetings and structured site visits with potential partners (individual citizens and institutions), and informal park-related conversations with residents in surrounding communities. Viera & Guerra (2012) note that a total of 17 institutions and 210 citizens participated in the park assessment effort, followed with nine meetings at the park and five guided tours through the park escorted by a biologist from the University of Aveiro. Sixteen more meetings happened around the city, with the active participation of the local University and the City Council. Based on the evidence collected, this mixed, participatory site evaluation and redevelopment planning process contributed to mutual understanding, improved dialogue and a shared sense of community among 'citizens of all ages'. In that sense the contribution of a collaborative approach was essential in making listening to the insights and suggestions of all participants possible: including those affiliated with local non-profit organizations, city agencies and the city council, and the local university. It was also a way of giving individual users of the city park a sense of active participation in the project (Keast & Waterhouse, 2006; Pain, 2005; Vieira & Guerra, 2012). With preliminary feedback in mind, the following initiatives were developed and implemented: an intergenerational walkway named " Curios Park Ages," an exhibition with old pictures and a movie of the Park, an interactive family tree activity, a flowers battle to remember the 84th anniversary of the Park, a monthly fairs series under the title of " There is life in the park," plays, workshops, traditional games, storytelling activities, and commemoration of national and international days, such as: Family's Day, Grandparents' Day and International Children's Day. A Portuguese City Park as a Potential Intergenerational Contact Zone

A continued project evaluation process took place. This included 28 in-depth interviews with people 60 years of age and older to better understand the participants' life stories and their memories as well as their park usage behaviors. Furthermore, all available park-related documents and data outputs (including images, videos, maps, news from tourism magazines between 1940 and 1980, and municipality's minutes) were content analysed to gain insight into how the park was perceived and used by the community. The results of this qualitative evaluation showed that the citizens considered it essential to improve the physical and environmental condition of the Park in order to breathe new life into it and reinforce its safety. Based on this evaluation the Sustainability Park was created. Following the success of the P=LHNS scheme, which intendedly embraced the aim of gathering together people from all generations, further refurbishments led to the development of two additional Parks which were all named collectively as the "Sustainability Park."

Towards ICZ for Infante D. Pedro City Park: Future prospects and challenges The three most active ICZ areas within the refurbished Sustainability Park are: the Recreational Zone, Walkways and the Tea Room, a pre-existing building belonging to the old Park that became actively used again after the P= LHNS. These sites are heavily utilized, with people flowing freely into and out of these places. The following discussion will be focusing on these three sites. These three park areas were selected as sites for an observation study conducted by internship students engaged in the course Sport's Support & Management at the Escola Secundária Jaime Magalhães Lima. The aim of this study was observing in loco, recording and evaluating the park's infrastructure and describing both positive and negative aspects regarding how those places were being used (e.g., times in the day for visits by people from different generations). One of the questions considered by the study group was why there was limited intergenerational interaction in the sites even though originally conceived as ICZs of sorts. One line of interpretation was that there was not enough attention paid to the sociocultural dimension of these sites. Concerns about how these spaces served to meet individual needs seemed to overshadow considerations related to intergenerational interaction. The challenge in ICZ development is how to inspire people to look outside of their own sphere and realize the various possibilities available to experience social contact. Specifically, in the case of the Sustainability Park, people did not always use the park's infrastructure, especially the recreational zone. Thus, creating the infrastructure is not enough to make a place become an ICZ, rather is only the first step. It appears to be the case that the physical space only provides for multigenerational presence; it is in the social space in which the intergenerational interactions occur. The physical space is bound to the social space; one doesn't exist without the other. In the words of Simmel, " The reciprocal action interplay makes the space hitherto empty and nothing, anything for us, holds it as it makes it possible " (Simmel, [1908]1992: 601). The Recreational Zone The recreational zone is situated on one of the edges of the Sustainability Park, and it contains a tennis court, a football field and a skate ground, fitness equipment stations and children equipment. This is a public space that might bring together three or four generations (children and younger people, adults and older people). It is a crucial physical facility for generating multigenerational contact, as people can freely move between the different grounds and there are not any fences. Importantly, there are no signs indicating restrictions for any age group and there are also visible pathways, namely the walkways that provide a relaxed exit from such potential interaction. Looking to the recreational zone's structure overall, it is clear the intentional focus was on creating a multigenerational site capable of accommodating a wide range of intergenerational activities. Despite these positive aspects, the recreational zone was not fully successful as an ICZ. At this stage it is not completely apparent why this should be the case and further research should be conducted to better understand the underlying reasons. Perhaps, the key difference between the P=LHNS and the reconstruction of the Sustainability Park could be related to the extended closure and reconstruction period which made the park completely unfamiliar to the citizens. It might be a novel idea to revisit some of the activities initially developed by the P=LHNS as their report demonstrated a selection of events which achieved good public attendance. This might help to convert the recreational zone into a functional ICZ.

A Portuguese City Park as a Potential Intergenerational Contact Zone

Figure 2: Recreational Park - Parque dos Amores (Lovers Park). Courtesy of Aveiro Municipality.

Figure 3: Recreational Park - Tennis ground, football ground and skate ground.

The Walkways The walkways seem to be more used by the runners, instead of older people. The observation study showed that these walkways are not fully finished. There are no signals to show the way and it is easy for one to get lost. Also the lack of streetlights is noticeable. Along the walkways, it seems that the ground is not accommodating people with reduced mobility including older people and young children.

Page 4

A Portuguese City Park as a Potential Intergenerational Contact Zone

Figure 4: Building Walkways at Sustainability Park - A work in progress.

Probably it will be a good idea to distribute along the walkways some fitness activities stations, especially where you find tables and benches, so people can interact with each other more naturally. It looks like the walkways could facilitate a parallel co-existence as children, adults and older people could walk along the trails. Occasionally, intergenerational contact could happen, but these interactions are likely to be brief, non-committal and free-flowing. The Tea Room The Tea Room is another place that could be strategically developed to generate more intergenerational contact. After its renewal, the tea room serves as a practice space for the Beiras' orchestra and as a storage room for the park's grounds keeping tools. Although it lacks utility, people often said that it was very pleasant listening to music while they walked or played in the park. Transforming the tea room into a more attractive place, with the inclusion of facilities that accommodate a broader range of social activities (including those with an intergenerational component), would be a good strategy for making this section of the park a more functional ICZ.

Conclusion If we look closely at the case of the Infante D. Pedro City Park and its reframing and re-development into the "Sustainability Park," and we take into account both the good and not-so-good decisions made to transform it into an intergenerational park, we can learn some lessons about intergenerational contact zones in large city parks.

• Lesson #1: Do not take an ICZ space that works well for granted. When the park opened (in 1927), it provided the community with a great public space, utilized by entire families and all generations. This treasured community asset was filled with recreational spaces and activities suitable for families, students, children and young people as well as older people. Over time, particularly during the fiscal challenges of the 1980's, the maintenance budget was cut, facilities deteriorated, and the park became less safe and less heavily utilized by the community. In effect, this unique and cherished park, which once was seen as a trusted and safe place for community congregation, lost its capacity to function as an effective ICZ for families and neighbors.

• Lesson #2: [In (re-)designing, (re-)developing, and building public parks intended to function as age-inclusive sites] Utilize multiple methods for obtaining diverse community voices and support. As Vieira & Guerra (2012) note, community residents and local organizations took note of the growing public and private interest and commitment to improving the park, and this contributed to their enthusiasm to participate in the planning process and advocate on behalf of efforts to restore the park as a community-wide gathering place.

• Lesson #3: Mechanisms for community participation need to be kept in place even after the parks planning and (re-)development process is completed. Through community interviews conducted after (re-)developing several areas of the Infante D. Pedro City Park and two additional adjacent parks, it was determined that there were some features of these parks (e.g., poor lighting and limited seating areas) that hindered some residents from frequenting these spaces. Seeking and A Portuguese City Park as a Potential Intergenerational Contact Zone

heeding this additional community feedback is vital for realizing the vision of local parks that sustainably function as local intergenerational engagement hubs.

References Bostrum, A. (2000). A general assessment of IP initiatives in the countries involved. In A. Hatton-Yeo & T. Ohsako (Eds.) Intergenerational programmes: public policy and research implications, an international perspective. Chapter 1: 4-8. Unesco Institute for Education. The Beth Johnson Foundation. Retrieved June 17, 2011. Henkin, N., (2004). Beyond programs: Moving toward age-integrated communities. Presentation conducted at the Second Biennial Conference of the International Consortium for Intergenerational Programmes, June 3-5, 2004, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. Keast, R. & Waterhouse, J. (2006). Participatory Evaluation: The missing component in the social change equation? Strategic Change, 15 (1): 23-35. Kuehne, V. (2003). The state of our art: intergenerational program research and evaluation. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 1 (1):145-61. Pain, R. (2005). Intergenerational relations and practice in the development of sustainable communities (Background paper for the office of the deputy prime minister). Thornaby, UK, Durham University, International Centre for Regional Regeneration and Development Studies (ICRRDS). Simmel G. ([1908] 1992). Sociologie. Paris, Presses Universitaires de France. Thang, L.L. (2015). Creating an intergenerational contact zone: Encounters in public spaces within Singapore's public housing neighborhoods. In R. Vanderbeck & N. Worth (Eds.). Intergenerational spaces (pp. 17-32). London, UK: Routledge. Thang L. L., & Kaplan, M. (2013). Intergenerational pathways for building relational spaces and places. In G.D. Rowles, & M. Bernard (Eds.). Environmental gerontology: Making meaningful places in old age (pp. 225-251). NYC: Springer Publishing Company. Vieira, S. & Guerra, S. (2012). Revitalizing city parks through intergenerational activities: The Park Infante Dom Pedro, city of Aveiro, Portugal. Revista Temática Kairós Gerontologia, 15 (1), 135-152.

Author Claudia Azevedo 1 PhD Student of Gerontology Visitor Fellow at Oxford Institute of Population Ageing Research Officer at LARNA (Latin American Research Network on Ageing) _________________________________________________________________________ 1 Claudia is currently finalizing her PhD “Towards Sustainable Intergenerational Programmes: current challenges and future prospects”, at the Instituto de Ciências Biomédicas Abel Salazar (ICBAS), in Porto University. Claudia is also a Research Officer for LARNA (Latin American Research Network on Ageing) at the Oxford Institute of Population and Ageing. 2 During that period a massive youth emigrated to France, Germany, UK, Swiss, Sweden, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg and finally, Venezuela and Australia. That migration flux changed the Portuguese population pyramid radically.

A Portuguese City Park as a Potential Intergenerational Contact Zone

Castles as Intergenerational Contact Zones: Embracing the Challenge of Restoration and Adaptive Reuse of Abandoned Castles Part of the castle restoration process involves helping participants to pull together an integrated plan that incorporates each generation's interests and hopes for the future.

Figure 1: Menlo Castle, on the outskirts of Galway, Ireland.

The reconstruction of a castle is a multi-intergenerational project and medium of communication. It brings people of all ages together where all can contribute to its past, present and future. It helps us embrace the mystery of finding our ancestry and who we are through history and time. Discovering how our earliest families and even our not so distant family lived, explored, defended can all be unveiled in the walls of a castle and used to pave the future through intergenerational planning. Children, adults and grandparents alike can help make the past a living and useful part of the present. Explore the possibilities through intergenerational cooperation, sharing, communication, team work and building trust. Finding commonalities for all ages and organizing events in local communities to provide constant input is made possible by the subject itself. Everyone from the youngest to the oldest finds intrigue, mystery, pride in their past associations with their vernacular castle and in knowing more about who they are and why they do what they do can often come from the people who have lived within. It is all the more interesting now in Ireland as we will celebrate the 100 year anniversary of the Easter Uprising of 1916 that eventually led to our independence from England. Who are we as a people released from occupation after 800 years? The schools can sometimes be the catalyst to involving the whole family in the intergenerational projects. One technique involves offering the schools and the children the opportunity to make a model of their town/village/street and castle to scale with everyone's residence included in a three dimensional format. This has attracted the interest and pride of their parents, grandparents, neighbors, businesses and media. To offer the children the opportunity to be in the local newspaper with the proud relatives and local politicians has contributed considerably to successful outcomes in reconstruction projects of this nature. Including all ages in the process is the key to long term success. The intergenerational approach opens many more doors, reduces miscommunication and leads to an outcome that remains intact for generations to come. For example, on another historic project we identified the yearly gathering events that traditionally brought a community together and availed of opportunities for contributing to the planning process. One such opportunity involves having local children help compile and distribute an intergenerational survey for the community to express their concerns and remedies about renovating the local castle. We then invite them to come to the castle to see the results of their input and the children's work on the location model and survey results. When I facilitate gatherings I often give out small green, yellow and red stickers so everyone has a chance to listen to each other and indicate their preferences on the wall boards of selected preference in the ideas put forward. These are learning hubs that are designed to accommodate multigenerational involvement. Halloween is another effective week for organizing intergenerational gatherings at castles to move forward the input phase and to listen to the grannies and grandads tell the local folklore about the castle while the younger generations get to ask questions and learn. The children get to then explore; one popular activity involves trying out the "public shaming devices" that suggest how life was like for their ancestors, and how humble our grannies can be when restrained (see Figure 2, below).

Figure 2: Trying on "public shaming devices:" A humbling, yet kind of fun intergenerational experience.

Most of the castles we restore are for an adaptive reuse that is self-sustaining. It therefore helps with the planning process if the intergenerational community is participating, informed and supportive of the application which makes the project more affordable. The word-of mouth advertising through this process is far more effective with intergenerational input. The castle means different things to different people and it is effective when all participants claim association in saving it from demise. It can begin as a backdrop for weddings and social events on the grounds prior to the planning process and restoration Castles as Intergenerational Contact Zones: Embracing the Challenge of Restoration and Adaptive Reuse of Abandoned Castles

work. When we put out the question of what it means to be Irish or from Galway, they all look at the castle and see that the essence of who we are will be preserved for future generations to come. The cultural continuity goal is most often remedied through intergenerational participation. Through embracing the challenges of restoring and facilitating adaptive reuse of old castles, including Menlo, Terryland, Merlin Park Castle, Lynches Castle and many more, we have developed and piloted a wide range of intergenerational activities geared toward helping to make the past a living and useful part of the present. Here are some examples:

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Intergenerational brainstorming sessions. Looking for maps. Listening to stories & tales. Show and tell. Barbeque baroque. Model making. Construction samples. Discovering history. Researching the Kings, Queens and royal families. Helping with archaeological digs. Finding and marking where the walls, moat and gates were. Exploring castle secrets. Hidden chambers and passageways. Finding treasure items. Clearing the dungeon. Learning how to defend yourself. Exploring ways to communicate with the neighbor fortress. Learning how to rebuild your defenses. Making tools and wheels to rebuild the cannon-balled castle. Boating up the Corrib (a lake in the west of Ireland) to connect the castles. Genealogy. Viewing marine archaeology findings. It has been most truly said that these old buildings do not belong to us only, that they belong to our forefathers and they will belong to our descendants unless we play them false. They are not in any sense our own property to do as we like with them. We are only trustees for those that come after us. William Morris, 1889.

Author Thomas A Quinlan, Architectural Heritage Specialist, Galway, Ireland. [email protected]

Castles as Intergenerational Contact Zones: Embracing the Challenge of Restoration and Adaptive Reuse of Abandoned Castles

Culture as Animator of Intergenerational Gathering Places The value of arts and cultural institutions for intergenerational gathering places depends not only on their specific design, but also on how they "animate" diverse gatherings of young and old to associate and mingle. Through this programming, they become "civic glue" and reward any location.

Engaging Older Adults Americans are enjoying longer and healthier lives. By 2030, more than 20 percent of U.S. residents are projected to be aged 65 and over, compared with 13 percent in 2010 and 9.8 percent in 1970. In 2050, the population aged 65 and over is projected to be 83.7 million, almost double its estimated population of 43.1 million in 2012. 1 An aging nation: The older population in the United States. (U.S. Census Bureau Publication No. P25-1140). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. The vast majority of Americans want to remain in their communities as they age. Contrary to popular belief, only a small minority actually move to warmer climates upon retirement. In 2010, only 3.1 percent (1.3 million) of those age 65 and over lived in skilled-nursing facilities. 2 The older population: 2010 census briefs. (U.S. Census Bureau Publication No. C2010BR-09). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Instead, most Americans choose to age in place, within the same communities where they have long lived. Every community, from fast- growing suburbs to more stable rural areas, will have to adapt to a maturing population. Although most residents want to age in place, they confront many barriers to remaining active and engaged in their communities. The following are some of the most common barriers:

• A lack of affordable and appropriate housing options • Few opportunities for walking, bicycling or other forms of physical activity, making it more difficult to remain healthy and engaged

• • • •

Inadequate mobility options Limited information about available health and supportive services in their community Concerns about the safety and security of the community Limited opportunities for civic participation, including meaningful prospects for volunteer service and employment

These challenges to aging in place are community-wide concerns that affect residents of all ages and abilities. On a positive note, communities of all shapes and sizes - big cities and counties, medium-size cities, small towns, rural townships, rural counties, suburban bedroom communities and edge cities - are implementing creative solutions to meet the challenges of a maturing America.

Culture, Place and Intergenerational Exchanges What Partners for Livable Communities believes, and what recent studies are showing, is that effectively highlighting the culture and heritage of a place cultivates attachment to that place, and thus makes people want to settle in that area and lay their roots down. Heritage assets can include a wide variety of community amenities including, parks, squares, plazas, and historically preserved neighborhoods. It is in these places that the renewal of American cities are taking place today, and culture and heritage are at the heart of this renewal. More and more, residents want to preserve the community gathering places that existed in the past, places that provide the nodes of community exchange and that thus hold the most value to their cities.

Arts and cultural institutions are often the nexus for exchanges between patrons of all ages. This type of intergenerational animation is an indicator of both a communities' quality of life as well as its economic competitiveness. Culture embraces a broad range of activities and programs that allow individuals to creatively express their identity and history. As the baby boom generation ages, the demand for arts and cultural activities will grow. Participation in arts and culture programs has proven health benefits for older adults. However, most communities are unprepared for the coming demand. Providing a range of arts and culture programs attuned to older adults' interests and abilities requires partnerships with youth programs to foster intergenerational learning, as well as with universities, senior centers, libraries, and other groups and institutions. Providing these opportunities can also build a powerful advocacy voice in the community for more funding to libraries, parks and schools. Local governments can encourage and help fund programs that use arts and cultural activities to bring together different generations and cultural groups. For example, many programs use theater as a tool to educate the community about cultural and generational differences. Some programs, such as that of San Francisco's Planning for Elders in the Central City, use theater as an educational and advocacy tool on issues such as health care and housing. By encouraging partnerships between repertory theaters, artists and community organizations and agencies serving older adults, local governments can create new opportunities to fund and increase the relevance of arts and cultural programs in the community.

What Matters Most A 2010 major U.S. study undertaken by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, Why People Love Where They Live and Why it Matters: A National Perspective, surveys what sorts of resources provide total attachment of people to a community and make them want to put down roots, build a life, and work together to make it better. Knight and Gallup found three elements that were most important: 1. an area's physical beauty, the preservation of its historic open spaces and buildings 2. opportunities for socialization 3. a community's openness to all people including "new" comers. According to Why People Love Where They Live and Why it Matters, what attaches residents to their communities doesn't change much from place to place. While one might expect the drivers of attachment would be different in Miami from those in Macon, Ga., in fact the main drivers of attachment differ little across communities. Whether you live in San Jose, Calif., or State College, Pa., the things that connect you to your community are generally the same. When examining each factor in the study and its relationship to attachment, the same items rise to the top, year after year:

• Aesthetics - The physical beauty of the community including the availability of parks and green spaces. • Social offerings - Places for people to meet each other and the feeling that people in the community care about each other. • Openness - How welcoming the community is to different types of people, including families with young children, minorities and talented college graduates.

Institutions as Fulcrums for Change Traditional institutions already embedded in many communities--such as: libraries, faith congregations, heritage organizations, universities, community colleges, museums, zoos, aquariums, botanic gardens, and arts and humanities agencies--can take on new roles of social service and economic development to address emerging challenges. As such, they become new resources for a caring community.

• • • • •

Libraries can become anchor tenants in downtown revitalization programs. Parks and recreation departments can be health and welfare delivery centers. Historical societies can help launch goal-setting agendas with their communities. Universities in partnership with towns can become research and policy centers that help solve urban problems. Museums can be neutral meeting grounds to discuss explosive issues such as racism.

Culture as Animator of Intergenerational Gathering Places

Best Practices The Queens Museum of Art: Breaking Barriers, Re-Defining Access to the Arts [ www.queensmuseum.org ] The Queens Museum of Art, housed in the iconic World's Fair building of 1939, is set in the nation's most diverse neighborhood that is home to more than 200 spoken languages: Queens, New York. The Museum's mission, "to present the highest quality visual arts and educational programming for people in the New York metropolitan area, and particularly for the residents of Queens, a uniquely diverse ethnic, cultural and international community," rings true to its invaluable presence in the community. Since 2005, the Museum has re-dedicated its programming to reflect and engage the local community, "attempting to exert the same sort of imagination, experimentation, and resources to community engagement as in the galleries, 3 " through a museum department titled The Queens Museum of Art in the Community. Today, the QMA is the marriage of form and function. Expansive, light-filled space houses ambitious exhibitions, forward-thinking educational initiatives and community-minded programming that engages myriad constituencies--residents, tourists, children, artists, individuals with special needs, families, seniors and recent immigrants. The Queens Museum works tirelessly to engage the community outside its four walls. Not only does the Museum have a full-time community organizer on staff working actively in the immediate Corona neighborhood of Queens, a position currently unmatched by any other art museum in the country, but it provides numerous, ongoing partnerships to community organizations specifically within the immigrant and older adult communities. Catering to the diverse immigrant populations of Queens, the Museum hosts Passport Fridays, sponsored events showcasing a different country every week from South Korea to Colombia to India. The Queens Museum of Art with the Queens Public Library, one of the largest urban library systems in the world containing 66 branches, created the New New Yorkers (NNY) program - education classes to meet the needs of immigrant adults. The program hosts ESOL classes that teach English as a second language, and provides myriad multilingual research tools, citizenship materials and arts publications. The Museum operates as one of its feature community engagement programs: El Corazón de Corona or The Heart of Corona Initiative, a project that "aims to address the health of residents and to activate and beautify Corona's public space." The Initiative boasts several cross-sector projects created in collaboration with local health, business, and elected leaders: Beautification and Clean-Up (see Figure 1, below), a Healthy Taste of Corona cook book, and numerous public arts projects as well as popular street festivals such as the recent 107th Corona Block Party, My Street My Home. The Corona neighborhood is an historic hub of ethnic diversity, home to such legends as Ella Fitzgerald, Louis Armstrong, and Malcolm X. In the last three decades, Corona has experienced major demographic shifts aligned with national trends; the neighborhood has become home to a steady increase of immigrant populations. As a premiere institution located in the heart of Corona, the Queens Museum of Art engages as a primary stakeholder in the community to serve as a vehicle for community revitalization. With high-quality public engagement programs, the Museum promotes such unique initiatives as: The Immigrants & Parks Collaborative, immigrant-led civic engagement programs in public parks; and The Corona Studio, which curates new works of community- engaged public art to traditionally under-served audiences. Beyond providing ample community engagement and recreational events, the Museum strives to meet many of the social challenges facing neighborhood residents through the umbrella art therapy program, Art Access which serves community members with special needs. An award-winning program recognized by the Institute of Museum and Library Services for exemplary leadership and community partnership, Art Access was launched in 1983 with a mission to "promote exploration through the arts and to highlight the creativity that exists in all people." Originally, the program was created to provide art education for the visually impaired; today, Art Access has widely expanded its mission and capacity to serve over 5,000 New York City school children enrolled in special education programs each year. The program primarily staffs therapists trained in creative art therapies who are able to adapt their expertise to meet community needs. Acclaimed programming within Art Access includes: The Autism Initiative, Gallery Gatherings, in-house programming for families hosting children in the foster care system, the Multi-Sensory Tour Kit, Sign Language Tours, and more. This extensive, diverse programming proves the Queens Museum's priority in maintaining an accessible institution beyond the parameters of what most consider eliminating barriers to access: The Museum goes above and beyond opening its doors to simply pave the path for all patrons to first get to the doorstep. The Queens Museum of Art, through incredible outreach programming designed for the older adult and immigrant populations, as well as those with diverse special needs, proves itself as an institution which extends far beyond its four walls to not only conduct programming in community venues but to also bring back residents to the Museum for engaged learning. The Museum today acts as a good leader and role model for all institutions attempting to break down barriers to access and to reach out to all community residents. Culture as Animator of Intergenerational Gathering Places

Figure 1: Volunteers from the Corazón de Corona project take a break during the beautification and clean-up of public space near the Museum. Courtesy of Queens Museum of Art.

Key Lessons:

• The Queens Museum of Art breaks down traditional ideas of a museum and its relations to the surrounding community, and rather presents the institution as community-based, structuring a majority of its programming based on community needs and outside of its four walls.

• The Museum uses a community organizer to expand beyond the institution to engage the community in places and with methods meaningful to the residents.

• Access to the arts is considered an inherent right for all residents, especially for those experiencing barriers to access in their daily lives. The Museum provides programming for all specialized populations: immigrants, older adults, and those with disabilities.

Dance Exchange: An Intergenerational Dance Company Takoma Park, Maryland [ www.danceexchange.org ] Based outside of Washington, D.C., the Dance Exchange is an intergenerational company of artists that creates dance and engages people in making art. The nonprofit serves as an incubator for creative research, bringing ideas to action through collaborations that range from experts in the field of dance to unexpected movers and makers. Through these exchanges the company stretches the boundaries between the studio, stage and other environments to make dances that are rooted in the particularity of people and place. The mission of the Dance Exchange, formerly known as the Liz Lerman Dance Exchange, is to create dances that arise from asking: Who gets to dance? Where is the dance happening? What is it about? Why does it matter? The company recognizes the body and movement as an essential resource to understand and investigate across disciplines. Through local, national, international and online projects the Dance Exchange gathers and creates community to contribute to a healthy and more sustainable environment. In 1975, its founder Liz Lerman began teaching senior adults at the Roosevelt for Senior Citizens, a city-run residential facility in inner-city Washington, D.C. Shortly after, she created "Woman of the Clear Vision," a dance about her mother's death with a cast of professional dancers and Roosevelt residents. In 1976, the Liz Lerman Dance Exchange was incorporated and opened a school for professional and avocational dancers in downtown D.C. Since then, the Dance Exchange has produced more than 100 innovative dance/theatre works, presented thousands of performances and conducted innumerable community encounters. With these activities, the company has reached communities of every size, from Los Angeles to Eastport, Maine, and from Yamaguchi, Japan, to Gdansk, Poland. According to Lerman: "Sometimes art achieves what therapy, medicine or the best care of health professionals cannot. Sometimes art even achieves something that's beyond the best intentions of the artist. These moments can feel like little miracles when they happen, but they are usually instances of art functioning as it normally does: inspiring motivation, engaging parts of people's bodies or brains that they haven't been using, or allowing them to transcend their environments for a little while." Culture as Animator of Intergenerational Gathering Places

Dance Exchange breaks boundaries between stage and audience, theater and community, movement and language, tradition and the unexplored. Now under the artistic direction of Cassie Meador, Dance Exchange stretches the range of contemporary dance through explosive dancing, personal stories, humor and a company of performers whose ages span six decades. The work consists of concerts, interactive performances, community residencies and professional training in community-based dance. Dance Exchange employs a collaborative approach to dance making and administration. Recent and current projects include explorations of coal mining, genetic research, human rights, particle physics, ecology, land use and rest in a hyper-driven society. Drawing on its rich history, and in partnership with MetLife Foundation, the Dance Exchange concentrates the work of its Healthy Living Initiative in two main areas: Arts in Healthcare and Creative Aging. During the 35 years that Dance Exchange has been making dance with people of all ages in community and health care settings, it has regularly seen participants surprise themselves and others by coming alive in unexpected ways. This sense of connection--or reconnection--to life is the essence of wellness. The ability of dance to produce this experience in people seems unparalleled. Dance is an efficient and cost-effective path to wellness for individuals and communities. Arts in Healthcare

• Artistic work with people in health care settings: The Dance Exchange's multi-disciplinary approach to art combines movement, verbal expression, creative challenge and collaboration. Methods have been used with a variety of people, including those with Huntington's disease, brain injury, dementia, addiction, chronic mental illness and mobility issues.

• Training for artists, health professionals and caregivers: Experiential activities, model teaching and new frameworks help participants explore the ways in which dance and art-making can enhance the effects of therapeutic work and re-energize relationships with patients, family members and the self.

• Creation and performance of new works: The intergenerational Healthy Living Commissions provide research vehicles for dancers and offer fresh insights and experiences in health care, conference and stage settings. Creative Aging

• Dancers Over 50: Classes, workshops, intensives and institutes for new and experienced dancers over 50 give participants the chance to engage in dance that is artistically rigorous and adaptable for different bodies.

• Intergenerational Projects: Across the U.S. and abroad, Dance Exchange uses its highly respected creative practices to connect elder and younger members of a community together through the exploration of important life themes in workshops and residencies.

Figure 2: Dance Exchange artists Thomas Dwyer, Dante■ Brown, and Andy Torres. [Photo: Ben Carver, courtesy of Dance Exchange]

Creative Place Making The role that arts and cultural centers can play in preserving local character and in reinforcing a sense of place across generations has been advanced substantially by the agenda of creative placemaking. There are two forces within the creative placemaking movement. Project for Public Spaces of New York city, initially founded by the leadership of William H. Whyte who wrote the book Social Life of Urban Spaces, is led by Fred Kent and has advanced placemaking as a conversation between potential users, i.e., citizens, on what they would like to see as a safe and important gathering place that could advance their enjoyment of such a setting, be it a square, vacant lot, park, or neighborhood gathering place. A new movement in recent years called Art Place, organized by a consortium of foundations led by the Ford Foundation in association with the National Endowment for the Arts, believes that artists can play a critical role of serving as catalyst for such Culture as Animator of Intergenerational Gathering Places

creative placemaking. Both Project for Public Spaces and Art Place focus upon the relationship of local people being engaged, from young to old, workers and retirees, from low income to high income, as decision makers on the first steps of creating vibrant community gathering places. Both movements agree that anchor institutions, particularly cultural institutions, play a critical role of offering resources. Both movements agree that the role of the architect, planner or landscape architect in creating such intergenerational gathering places is secondary to the role of engaging the local population in decision-making and priorities of first steps for creating valuable gather places. The many arts and cultural initiatives noted throughout this chapter, including the Queens Museum of Art, Dance Exchange and the many "creative placemaking" endeavors taking root in countless communities, serve to "animate" intergenerational gathering places, thereby enhancing community livability and quality of life for all ages.

Author Robert H. McNulty, President of Partners for Livable Communities __________________________________________________________________ 11 U.S. U.S. Department Department of of Commerce Commerce Economics Economics and and Statistics Statistics Administration. Administration. (2014). (2014). An An aging aging nation: nation: The The older older population population in in the the United United States. States. (U.S. (U.S. Census Census Bureau Bureau Publication Publication No. No. P25-1140). P25-1140). Washington, Washington, D.C.: D.C.: U.S. U.S. Government Government Printing Printing Office. Office. 2 U.S. 2Department U.S. Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration. Thepopulation: older population: 2010 census of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration. (2011).(2011). The older 2010 census briefs. briefs. (U.S. (U.S. Census Census Bureau Bureau Publication Publication No. No. C2010BR-09). C2010BR-09). Washington, Washington, D.C.: D.C.: U.S. U.S. Government Government Printing Printing Office. Office 3 The Queens Museum of 3Art, The"QMA Queens of Art, "QMA in the Community". in Museum the Community"

Culture as Animator of Intergenerational Gathering Places

Intergenerational Reading Rooms: Lessons Learned from The Intergenerational Schools How can schools become vibrant intergenerational settings? To explore this question, we focus on the Intergenerational Reading Room (IRR) component of The Intergenerational Schools (TIS) model established in Cleveland, Ohio.

Introduction Everywhere in the world, schools are clear examples of spaces for intergenerational engagement. The fact that formal education is typically organized in facilities where teachers and students (not to mention children's parents) from different generations meet and interact every day under one roof may lead to a belief that the intergenerational nature of the school system can be taken for granted. However, the fact that schools congregate different generations only makes them multi-generational spaces, not inter-generational zones. Here we examine how schools can enhance their intergenerational profile. In this paper, we do so through presenting Intergenerational Reading Rooms (IRR) as approached by The Intergenerational Schools (TIS), in Cleveland, Ohio. IRR are featured as a case of an Intergenerational Contact Zone (ICZ) in Elementary (K-8) schools. The concept of ICZ refers to the many dimensions of spaces that serve as "focal points for older adults and younger generations to "Can I just sit by your side and read with you?" [Photo: Dr. Cathy Whitehouse, TIS founder and Chief Educator] meet, interact, build trust and friendships, and work together to address issues of local concern" (Kaplan & Hoffman, 2015). In the particular case of IRR, the main concern is how 5-12 year old children learn, particularly with regard to their development to become lifelong readers: "We don't want to just teach you to read, we want to teach you to be a reader," says Cathy Whitehouse, Chief Educator at TIS. In this paper we argue that school IRR planned through an ICZ lens are opportunities to raise awareness of how educational spaces can simultaneously function to enhance intergenerational relationships.

Connecting generations of readers The Intergenerational Schools see themselves as communities of lifelong learners: "TIS was founded on the belief that adults and children - of all ages, mixed together, embracing the life cycle - could help each other learn about important values, academics, and 'real stuff.'" (Learning Network Associates, 2009). However, more than just another school devoted to education and learning, TIS considers itself the seed of an intergenerational wisdom center, i.e. a space and community within which generational knowledge, experience, and engagement are able to flow and cross in all directions, both through planned activities and spontaneous and flexible meetings. According to its founders, at TIS "no other pursuit receives as much attention as reading. Reading is ubiquitous." To this purpose, TIS develops multiple strategies, one of which is the Reading Mentor Program. Through this program over 70 volunteer adult/senior reading mentors commit to at least 2 hours per week with students "for one-on-one reading, sharing stories and building relationships." ( TIS, 2015). In the 2013/14 academic year reading mentors spent over 4,000 volunteer hours with students. "She just needed someone to talk to ... that day we didn't read." - Elizabeth LeVert, senior reading mentor (Learning Network Associates, 2009)

Who are these mentors? They are mostly retired local citizens age 60 and over, "representing a variety of cultural and professional backgrounds from Civil Rights activists to retired FBI agents" (TIS, 2015). What do these mentors actually do? They do not "teach" students to read but they listen to them read, and read to them. Most importantly, they discuss the stories together sharing and comparing perspectives. When does this reading mentoring happen? During class time. Finally, where does the reading take place? Typically in quiet sitting areas located in the school hallways. These areas are TIS's Intergenerational Reading Rooms, the ICZ we would like to focus on.

IRR at TIS TIS has had two principle homes during its 15 year existence, both old repurposed hospitals. The first was a multi-building merchant marine hospital where the school was eventually located in the main building that was shaped like an anchor. This unusual fluke and shank, spindly structure was a challenge for both classroom size and creating intergenerational spaces. TIS' current home is a boxed-like wing of a more traditionally shaped hospital that was completely gutted and allowed designing classrooms and special spaces for reading and story sharing from the building shell on out. Regarding IRR the focus on the space was to create niches close to the classrooms so that students and mentors could move back and forth efficiently. Because of the large number of intergenerational pairs doing various kinds of activities the space was designed with comfortable chairs and tables to allow both reading and, as needed, writing and other activities. Moveable panels in some niches allowed subdividing the space. The space has good natural light and is wheel-chair accessible for older mentors with mobility and/or visual challenges. Direct face-to-face interaction minimized hearing impairments. Policies throughout the school including the intergenerational niches encourage quiet, respectful forms of communication. Some IRR spaces contain school mementos like school team trophies but in general decoration was kept to a minimum to avoid distraction.

Spatial dimensions of IRR IRR are designed to look and function as "living rooms" or "family rooms" rather than as traditional "class rooms". Much attention is paid to the choice of furniture so that there is adequate support for seniors who might have more difficulty getting up and down (firm cushions and arm rests, for example). The spaces are intended to mimic the intimacy of reading together at home, while also meeting the requirements for student safety. Toward that end, the activities must be fully visible at all times, while simultaneously affording opportunities for one-to-one conversation and connection. Reading mentors (and all mentors) receive training so that they understand what is and isn't part of their role. The goal is to create an equal relationship where the child is a partner. It is this relationship that determines how the reading session will go. The students generally choose the books for their session, and self-determine whether they will read to the mentor or have the mentor read to them. Mentors are highly encouraged to have rich discussions during the session, usually in response to the ideas contained in the reading material. The mentors' role is NOT to teach reading, but instead to instill a love of books. In respect of mentors' varying physical capabilities, the spaces are handicapped accessible and assistance is available as needed from staff. IRR spaces are located adjacent to areas that are quite active during the school day, yet, they also provide a reasonable level of quiet so that mentors can hear the children even if they have mild hearing loss. Mentors with mild to moderate cognitive or memory difficulties can be accommodated in most cases, although sometimes such mentors are accompanied by an aide or family member.

Principles and practical tips Drawing upon experiences tied to planning and implementing IRR at TIS, we present a few principles and practical tips for consideration when developing school-based IRR sites:

• Convenient location in areas that are clean, tidy, uncluttered, and homey. • Components that facilitate and favor interaction, such as choice of sitting arrangements, inviting comfortable furniture, and adequate lighting.

• Availability of books for reading. • Flexibility for multiple uses - reading, writing, chess, knitting: remember that while reading is the main purpose of IRR, sometimes formal and informal activities and encounters other than those around reading may nurture the intergenerational contact involved.

Intergenerational Reading Rooms: Lessons Learned from The Intergenerational Schools

Figure 1: Flexibility in furniture layout.

• • • •

Handicapped accessible. Visible location so that IRR can be sort of "lighthouses" exemplifying intergenerational interaction publicly. Shared rules for usage. Careful scheduling so as to coordinate with literacy instruction: in-classroom activity and activities at IRR must be attuned.

References Kaplan, M. & Hoffman, J. (2015, August 19). Intergenerational Contact Zones: What and Why? [Blog comment]. Learning Network Associates (2009). The Intergenerational School: Civil Learning Across the Generations. TIS (Winter, 2015). Intergenerational Programming. Connect, 2 (2).

Authors Catherine Whitehouse, PhD. TIS founder and Chief Educator, [email protected] Peter Whitehouse, PhD. TIS founder and professor of Neurology at Case Western University, [email protected] Mariano Sanchez, Doc.Soc. Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Granada, Spain, [email protected]

Intergenerational Reading Rooms: Lessons Learned from The Intergenerational Schools

University Spaces as Intergenerational Contact Zones: Opportunities and Challenges This chapter examines the idea of developing university spaces as Intergenerational Contact Zones (ICZs), looking at ways in which new premises might, in time, promote meaningful intergenerational contact. Such facilities also have implications for contributing to the research, teaching, and service missions of universities.

Figure 1: The new Institute for Lifecourse and Society building. National University of Ireland Galway.

Opened in 2014, the Institute for Lifecourse and Society building at the National University of Ireland Galway accommodates several research centers and clusters which collectively address multiple aspects of the life course through research, education, and policy and practice development. Creating an Institute such as ILAS, which, as noted in this chapter, has the potential to function as an "intergenerational research and teaching hub," could ultimately provide the University with a launching point for a steady stream of innovative research and educational practices - on campus, in the community, and online - for the benefit of traditional as well as non-traditional learners. In many ways, the idea of developing universities as zones of intergenerational contact is not that novel. If we accept the traditional model of a university, in which young students benefit from the tuition, guidance and wisdom of more senior, typically older, academic staff, then there is at least an implicit assumption that contact between the generations is a core feature of what universities do. Of course, even if it ever existed in the first place, this traditional model of a university is subject to a range of pressing challenges, including:

• Demographic change, with declining fertility, extended life expectancies, and growing migration affecting the supply of and demand for students and academic staff alike;

• De-institutionalisation of the life course, necessitating a reorientation of thinking in terms of where higher education and training fit in to individuals' increasingly diverse and fragmented life trajectories;

• Pressures to make universities more meaningful and relevant to their local communities, contributing not only to knowledge generation but also to local economic and social development; and

• Evidence of the proven benefits of intergenerational activities in higher education in terms of, for example, providing mentoring and social and emotional support to students, and offering volunteering opportunities that contribute to personal skills development. It is within this broad context that the Institute for Lifecourse and Society (ILAS) at NUI Galway should be seen. Research institutes represent a major feature of a university's strategic footprint, emphasising the institution's priorities in research and education. In the case of ILAS, the focus is on nurturing applied and interdisciplinary social research with a view to informing policy and professional practice and making a positive difference to people's lives. ILAS combines existing activity at NUI Galway in relation to such population groups as older people, children and families, and persons with disabilities. As such, ILAS accommodates the UNESCO Child and Family Research Centre, the Irish Centre for Social Gerontology, the Centre for Disability Law and Policy, the Irish Centre for Autism and Neurodevelopmental Research, the Health Economics and Policy Analysis group, the Community Knowledge Initiative and other, smaller research clusters.

Figure 2: Michael D. Higgins, President of Ireland (right), and Thomas Scharf (left) on a tour of the Institute for Lifecourse and Society (ILAS) building. President Higgins, in his inaugural lecture at ILAS, remarked on the Institute's "interdisciplinary character."

The Institute's four broadly conceived thematic interests are: Life Transitions and Human Flourishing; Intergenerational Relations; Social Health and Wellbeing; and Civic Engagement and Participation. The "Intergenerational Relations" theme identifies the potential of ILAS to become a "hub for intergenerational innovation": "The need for greater connectivity between generations and vulnerable groups in communities to achieve their mutual benefit is fundamental. However, how best to enable this connection is less well-known, particularly where there are multiple issues for communities. Thus, the ILAS is particularly interested in how populations can be connected through participatory approaches to improve the chances of more meaningful intergenerational cohesion. In particular, the Institute wishes to learn more about how resilience of capacity to overcome adversity through social support can be enabled between children, youth, adults and elders, and in the context of disability." (see ILAS research areas ). Two key factors contribute to the potential of ILAS to pursue this ambitious vision and become the desired hub for intergenerational innovation. First, ILAS coalesces university faculty and staff with complementary program development and evaluation skills. Under the ILAS umbrella, interdisciplinary teams could readily be established to study a wide range of intergenerational models and their outcomes for participants across the lifecourse, their families, participating organizations, and the broader community. Second, ILAS has a distinctive physical environment that is conducive to intergenerational programs. Funded in collaboration between the University and philanthropic sources, the new, purpose-built premises accommodate the various research centers and clusters that are core to the Institute's mission. The space occupies a green-field site on the northern edge of NUI Galway's extensive city center campus. Conceived as a space which brings together the research community and its various stakeholders, including 'ordinary' citizens and public and not-for-profit organisations, the building provides office space for academic staff, shared rooms for ongoing research projects, a 220-seat state-of-the-art auditorium, seminar rooms with varying capacities, small meeting rooms, an exhibition area and foyer space, and a range of other shared spaces. At the heart of the building is an innovative community café, operated as a not-for-profit social enterprise and providing supported employment for people with learning disabilities. Overall, the ILAS building is already regarded as the most accessible space on campus and has a range of features, such as lifts, power-assisted doors, bathrooms and IT facilities that allow relatively easy access for people with a range of disabling conditions. The building is situated on a large plot of land, with potential for development of community and/or intergenerational garden projects.

University Spaces as Intergenerational Contact Zones: Opportunities and Challenges

Even at this early stage of the Institute's development, it is possible to identify a number of opportunities, layered upon existing programs, resources and expertise from the centers within ILAS, that would support developing the space as a site for greater intergenerational contact. Within ILAS, there is already good awareness of and commitment to the value of intergenerational programs. For example:

• The Irish Centre for Social Gerontology has supported a range of intergenerational activities in recent years, conducting with Age Action Ireland and the Beth Johnson Foundation an initial review of intergenerational programs across Ireland (Finn and Scharf, 2012), offering workshops and training on intergenerational issues, and supervising a doctoral project on intergenerational programs in primary schools (Hanmore Cawley, 2015).

• The UNESCO Child and Family Research Centre has completed the evaluation of Foróige 's Big Brothers Big Sisters of Ireland youth mentoring program (Dolan et al., 2011a, 2011b).

• The Community Knowledge Initiative, which fosters community-university partnerships, runs the ALIVE student volunteering program which supports, amongst countless other activities, training in basic IT skills for older adults.

• The community café already acts as a site for mutual interaction between researchers from the various centers and clusters, students attending classes in the building's seminar rooms, community stakeholders using the building for meetings, and 'ordinary' citizens.

• Since the building opened in 2014, it has hosted a range of events that provide opportunities for interaction across age groups and across the centers and clusters based in ILAS. This has included, for example, conferences exploring family support, workshops on community engagement in different geographic contexts, and public lectures. Moreover, ILAS and its centers are well connected to local and national NGOs, such as Age Action Ireland, Age Friendly Ireland and Foróige, which also share an interest in intergenerational programs. In this respect, and notwithstanding the need to embed an intergenerational approach within the everyday life of the Institute, transforming the ILAS building into a model for an ICZ is starting from a reasonably solid foundation. Enhancing the intergenerational research component of the ILAS facility also has implications for expanding the University's capacity for serving multi-generational groups of learners in university and community settings. For institutions of higher education, demographic aging has contributed, and will increasingly contribute, to a more age-diverse student profile. We also see a wide range of strategies for engaging older adult learners. While some universities establish separate schools or divisions devoted to providing older adults with easier access to degree and non-degree bearing educational programs, others embrace the challenge of mainstreaming older adults into "regular" classrooms, having them share instruction with "traditional" students. However, it is not necessarily clear to faculty with teaching assignments how to exploit this added age- and experience-diversity within the student body to enrich qualitatively the educational experience and bolster student learning outcomes. Considering its diverse faculty, multi-disciplinary focus, and assorted classroom spaces, ILAS is well positioned to play a leadership role in addressing the question, "What are some effective ways to transform 'multi-generational' classrooms into intergenerational classrooms?" One of the ILAS classroom spaces has the potential to be converted into a classroom laboratory of sorts for developing and assessing strategies for framing and sustaining the involvement of older adults in age-integrated learning experiences. A select group of ILAS faculty and advanced students could be assembled to study the four dimensions of anticipated benefit: impact on individual learners; impact on participating educators; impact on the University; and impact beyond the University. Akin to the early childhood demonstration labs that many universities establish to develop evidence-based, age-appropriate curricula for early childhood education programs, this would be an intergenerational classroom lab. Beyond being the focal point for research in this area, such a lab could be used to offer professional development programs for training educators in effective intergenerational learning strategies that can be implemented in diverse university and community settings. Other opportunities also exist, not least those that can build upon the educational programs spearheaded by ILAS centers. For example, the Irish Centre for Social Gerontology (ICSG) has conducted several lifelong learning initiatives which have a distinct intergenerational component and, potentially, could involve other ILAS centers:

• In 2015, a team based at ICSG joined with the Active Ageing Partnership - a collaboration of three national age-sector organisations - to develop the Touchstone program. This initiative involved delivering an education and skills development course supplemented by project management training to people aged 55 and over, with a view to enhancing participants' civic engagement skills. Adopting an adult education approach, the pilot Touchstone program in Galway was evaluated highly favorably by participants, leading to implementation of a diverse range of social action projects. This model can now be built upon not only to encourage future participants to engage in intergenerational initiatives but also to open up civic engagement opportunities to people of all ages.

• Also in 2015, in partnership with Penn State University, ICSG delivered a training workshop aimed at developing intergenerational leadership skills amongst people who had previously been involved in IG programs. Modeled on the emerging idea of an " Intergenerational Leadership Institute ", the workshop sowed the seeds that might lead to the formal establishment of a local ILI chapter in Galway, based at ILAS. The workshop delivered skills training that would help University Spaces as Intergenerational Contact Zones: Opportunities and Challenges

volunteers to plan and implement intergenerational programs in areas in which they have content knowledge and expertise. For example, a retired horticulturist who goes through this ILI training might be willing to play a leadership role in developing an intergenerational friendship garden on the grounds of the ILAS facility. Alongside such opportunities, there are, however, also a variety of challenges and obstacles that may yet hinder the development of ILAS as a meaningful ICZ. Two such challenges include:

• The fact that intergenerational programs have (at least not yet) been identified as being a core feature of the wider University mission. While ILAS and its constituent research centers and clusters have played a leading role in raising the profile of such programs in Ireland, without dedicated resources the foundations of intergenerational programs, and of ICZs, will remain relatively weak. Having the space to conduct intergenerational activities is an excellent starting point, but staffing and financial support for such activities is also needed.

• All ILAS centers and clusters have national and international reputations for the quality of their research work and for the ways in which they engage with public policy and professional practice. Inevitably, each unit is fully committed to developing their activities within their particular area of specialism, in relation, for example, to persons with disabilities, children and families, and older people. Regardless of the benefits arising from intergenerational programs, this may leave relatively limited space for work that adds value to the disparate activities of each center/cluster. Locating within ILAS a champion or leader for intergenerational programs might represent a key challenge in the years ahead. These challenges are by no means insurmountable. However, unless they are addressed, the substantial opportunities that exist to transform the ILAS building into a model intergenerational contact zone may remain unrealized.

References Dolan, P., Brady, B., O'Regan, C., Russell, D., Canavan, J. and Forkan, C. (2011a) Big Brothers Big Sisters of Ireland: evaluation study: report one: randomised controlled trial and implementation report. Galway: Child & Family Research Centre. Dolan, P., Brady, B., O'Regan, C., Russell, D., Canavan, J. and Forkan, C. (2011b) Big Brothers Big Sisters of Ireland: evaluation study: report two: qualitative evidence. Galway: Child & Family Research Centre. Finn, C. and Scharf, T. (2012) An overview of intergenerational programs in Ireland. Galway: Irish Centre for Social Gerontology, Age Action Ireland and Beth Johnson Foundation. Hanmore Cawley, M. (2015) Intergenerational learning: Collaborations to activate young children's civic engagement in Irish primary school, PhD thesis, Galway: NUI Galway.

Author Thomas Scharf, FAcSS 1 Irish Centre for Social Gerontology, Institute for Lifecourse and Society, NUI Galway, Ireland _________________________________________________________________________ 1 As of 2016, the author changed positions. His new contact information is as follows: Thomas Scharf, Professor of Social Gerontology, Institute of Health & Society, and Newcastle University Institute for Ageing, Newcastle University (Newcastle upon Tyne, UK). [email protected]

University Spaces as Intergenerational Contact Zones: Opportunities and Challenges

Can Urban Streets and Spaces be Intergenerational Cycling Zones? This chapter reviews ways in which cycling spaces can be designed to provide family-oriented, community-building social and physical activity as well as an additional mode of transportation.

Introduction There is a general consensus among European Ministers that cycling should be promoted as healthy and sustainable mobility (Presidency of the Council of the European Union, 2015). The major trend over the last half-century across many countries in Europe, however, has been towards a decline in cycling for everyday local transport. We describe how the concept of Intergenerational Cycling Zones could help engage younger and older generations to work together to develop more civilized, harmonious and inclusive cycling environments that enable cyclists of all ages and abilities to use bicycles with ease and to interact with each other positively. Finally we discuss potential facets of Intergenerational Cycling Zones and the challenges to their acceptance within the UK context.

Background The majority of the UK population seldom engages with cycling in any form - two-thirds of the population never ride a bicycle or do so only once a year. Cycling for transport in the UK, with the exception of some cities including Cambridge, Oxford and York, is unusual. What over half a century ago was a major mode of urban mobility has today become a very minor one. Cycling now accounts for around 2% of all journeys and 3% of commuter journeys (UK Department for Transport, 2011 a ). Cycling is also becoming less significant for people in achieving recommended levels of physical activity. 1 Between 1995 and 2010 the average time spent cycling declined from 6 hours to 5 hours per person per annum (ibid.). The share of journeys made by bicycle in the UK is low but particularly low for older age groups. There is also gender disparity with older men twice as likely to cycle as older women (UK Department for Transport, 2011 a ). Only 1 per cent of all journeys made by people aged 65 and above in the UK are by bicycle compared to 9 per cent in Germany, 15 per cent in Denmark and 23 per cent in the Netherlands (Pucher & Buehler, 2012). Older people's cycle journeys are typically shorter and more localized than younger adults' and are more likely to be for personal business or social purposes as opposed to commuting (UK Department for Transport, 2011 b ). The main reason that puts people off cycling in the UK, and particularly older people, is the perception that cycling on roads dominated by large numbers of fast-moving motorized vehicles is dangerous (Pooley et al., 2013). Older 'empty nester' householders generally have more leisure time and potential to rediscover cycling but they are inhibited from doing so because of concerns about traffic danger and also personal fitness levels and ability (Davies et al., 1997). Indeed, nearly half of older people feel it is physically difficult for them to cycle and only one in five are confident cycling on the roads (UK Department for Transport, 2011 c ). There is potential to engage older people in cycling if these concerns were addressed as 42 per cent say they would cycle more if there were more dedicated cycle paths (ibid.).

The Marginalization of Cycling UK mobility culture has been shaped by mass car ownership which in turn has shaped how the transport system has evolved under a paradigm that has fueled faster and longer distance travel (Banister, 2008). Car use is now the norm and is convenient and considerably safer than half a century ago whereas cycling has become less convenient, less comfortable, less safe and therefore less desirable. This is because to cycle in UK cities more often than not involves negotiating space shared with cars and larger motor vehicles. The fact that many people do not even contemplate cycling is unsurprising given that the transport system has focused historically around ensuring safe passage and smooth flow of motor traffic. Cycling for general mobility in the UK is now restricted to a minority of mostly committed cyclists or those who have little choice but to cycle for economic reasons. The remainder of the population eschews cycling or at best engages in occasional

cycling for leisure in green and quiet space away from motor traffic on a weekend. This is despite a strong desire by older cyclists to share, encourage and enjoy cycling with younger generations communicated by participants in our research. This serves to consolidate the belief that to drive in the city is 'normal' and to cycle is somehow 'abnormal', even for short journeys where cycling would be the most sensible option. Cycling therefore continues to become marginalized and cyclists on city streets are regarded as a 'nuisance'. Those who continue to cycle in most UK cities today are typically young, male, white, 'hardened' cyclists. They are the product of a predominantly car based system that marginalizes cycling and expectations are that the performance of their cycling requires riding quickly and assertively adorned special protective gear. This type of 'vehicular cycling' underpinned by the notion that, 'cyclists fare best when they act and are treated as drivers of vehicles' (see Forester, 1994), often looks more like sport cycling than an ordinary method of moving around the city - see video clip excerpt of 'vehicular cycling'. The perpetual acclimatization to current hostile (vehicular) cycling conditions has shaped UK cycling identities and practice so-much-so that in the process of 'being a cyclist' committed cyclists often struggle to understand why more people do not cycle. Paradoxically, narratives on the advantages of cycling are often accompanied by tales of experiences of accidents and 'near-misses' (Aldred & Crosweller, 2015); this inadvertently perpetuates the identity of a 'cycling elite'.

Figure 1: Typical Scene of Cycling in London. Source: Public Health England.

The picture then is of one where the emphasis is on promoting cycling safety through riders taking responsibility for their own protection (cf. helmet wearing) within a predominantly car-based transport system. The lack of progress in creating a comprehensive cycling system similar to those experienced in other northern European cities stymies any hope of intergenerational cycling. A more diverse landscape for cycling which embraces all ages and abilities is clearly needed. We now turn to some strategies for moving in this direction.

Towards UK Intergenerational Cycling Zones Established "cycling cities" such Amsterdam (NL) and Copenhagen (DK) have a long heritage of planned interventions for cycling at both city and national level that provide conditions for intergenerational cycling. Other cities across Europe beginning to reallocate space for cycling include Munich (DE), Malmo (SE), Bordeaux (FR) and Seville (ES). So how could intergenerational cycling in the UK be achieved? Fundamentally, to encourage more cycling in urban areas requires adapting current infrastructure to provide people with the choice to be able to cycle in a safe, comfortable and inclusive environment (see Ormerod et al., 2015 on inclusive design). A number of actions will help to achieve this. The reallocation of road space from motor vehicle use to create space for cycling and walking is a key first step ( Space for Cycling Campaign ). This would include local interventions in residential areas such as slower speed zones and Home Zones or Woonerfs. These balance the needs of residents to use streets as social spaces, with the need for vehicular traffic access such that street space is not dominated by fast moving through-traffic and parked cars. It makes possible the growth of cycling as a family-oriented recreational and practical activity in people's neighborhoods and by linking to a wider cycle-friendly network. Traffic speed reduction and dedicated cycle space is required on busier urban roads, particularly arterial routes into towns and cities. These roads are usually the most direct routes to places in urban centers that people wish to travel to but are also themselves frequently the location for many of the services and facilities people wish to access, such as shops, health and education centers and parks. Providing sufficiently wide consistent and continuous dedicated cycle paths also enables safe and social side-by-side cycling along these roads by different generations together. These approaches are being tested in parts of London through the Mini-Holland program which not only aims to 'encourage more people to cycle, more safely and more often Can Urban Streets and Spaces be Intergenerational Cycling Zones?

while providing better streets and places for everyone' (TfL, 2015) but also to 'encourage community interaction' (see ' Mini Holland' ) and 'attract more women, children, families, older people' to cycle (Waltham Forest, 2013 p. 18).

Figure 2: Developing the Walthamstow Mini Holland (Walthamstow, London): A space where intergenerational cycling could flourish. [Source: http://cycleenfield.co.uk/ ]

Through widespread implementation of these measures across the UK people of all ages can be encouraged to cycle together and experience positive intergenerational social interaction. There is also need to promulgate the notion of a 'generationally intelligent city' (Biggs & Carr, 2015, p. 108). This concept moves beyond the 'working age city' and recognizes that, 'each generational group will have life projects, arising from the point they have reached in their life course, which give rise to distinctive requirements of urban space' (ibid). There are implications here for advocates of cycling and committed cyclists who cherish the ability to travel at speed around UK city streets. This fast 'vehicular' cycling in cities is often at the cost of more sedate cycling for all age groups and capabilities. A generationally intelligent use of space will ensure that planning and design does not cater for one type at the expense of the other although compromises will need to be made among 'speedier' cyclists which may require a rethink on the performance of cycling and expectation of travel time. There is a need to avoid falling in the same trap that purveyors of autopia fell into in the 1960s where the desire for speed and unfettered automobility was often at the expense of quality and civilized urban space. Expectations of cycle speed will need to be addressed that recognize that cycling is not simply about getting from A to B as fast as possible, but also about the reliability of the journey time and the positive social and sensory experience along the way that can make cycling a more desirable activity. Participants in our current study of older people's cycling in the UK have reported the negative impacts of the behavior of some younger cyclists. This included the perception that they cycle too fast in city streets and pass too close to other riders. Our participants have explained their own attempts to cycle in a civilized way by leaving sufficient journey time and interacting with other road users in a courteous and considerate manner. Enhancing the quality of experience of riding through the city will be important in garnering appreciation of the need to think beyond simple speed. This could be achieved through concerted campaigns promoting a vision of civilized (and not competitive) 'smoother cycling' for young and older alike. It will require a move away from a single 'cycling identity' towards multiple and diverse identities of bicycle users (Handler, 2014). The creation of safe, comfortable spaces for cycling would not require high levels of cycling capability and vigilance. This more forgiving and relaxed environment would enable greater appreciation of the wider surroundings whether historic architecture or the social 'street ballet'. The provision of smooth surfaces is of course fundamental in allowing riders to be able to look-up and appreciate their local surroundings rather than being fixated on road conditions below their wheels. Finally, in order to enhance the aesthetic experience of cycling in urban areas, the urban design profession needs to apply the same attention to cycling as it currently does to walking and ensure that this is not left to the purely functionalist tendency within traffic engineering (Forsyth & Krizek, 2011).

Can Urban Streets and Spaces be Intergenerational Cycling Zones?

Conclusion We have outlined how Intergenerational Cycling Zones could be created in the UK that enable more civilized, harmonious and inclusive cycling by all ages. This would create towns and cities that 'are more than simply rat-runs between centers of work, consumption and closed door domesticity' (Biggs & Carr, 2015, p.108). This implies an abandonment of the current focus on training and improving the capability of riders to survive a system developed for the motor-vehicle. Instead we argue for fundamental change to the system to provide greater spatial justice for all ages and types of cyclist. This has the potential to break down ageist social norms about who can and should cycle, reduce social isolation, and ensure the safety of vulnerable members of the community. This would not only improve connections to activities across local neighborhoods and the wider town or city but make the experience of using a bike to make those connections enjoyable and sociable, thus providing greater opportunity for active living and positive social contact for all.

References Aldred, R. & Crosweller, S. (2015). Investigating the rates and impacts of near misses and related incidents among UK cyclists. Journal of Transport & Health, Volume 2, 3, 379-393. doi:10.1016/j.jth.2015.05.006 All Parliamentary Cycling Group (2013). Get Britain Cycling: Summary & Recommendations. APCG. Banister, D. (2008). The sustainable mobility paradigm. Transport Policy, 15, 73-80. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2007.10.005 Biggs, S. & Carr, A. (2015). Age- and Child-Friendly Cities and the Promise of Intergenerational Space, Journal of Social Work Practice, 29:1, 99-112. doi:10.1080/02650533.2014.993942 Davies, D.G., Halliday, M.E., Mayes, M., Pocock, R.L. (1997). Attitudes to Cycling: a qualitative study and conceptual framework. Crowthorne: Transport Research Laboratory. Forester, J. (1994). Bicycle Transportation: A Handbook for Cycling Transportation Engineers. USA: MIT Press. Forsyth, A., & Krizek, K. (2011). Urban Design: Is there a Distinctive View from the Bicycle? Journal of Urban Design, 16, 531-549. Handler, S. (2014). A Research & Evaluation Framework for Age-friendly Cities. UK Urban Ageing Consortium: Stoke-on-Trent. [accessed 9 November 2015] Laker, L. (2014). Visiting Walthamstow's Mini Holland.. [Accessed 9 November 2015] Ormerod, M., Newton, R., Phillips, J., Musselwhite, C., McGee, S. & Russell, R. (2015). How can transport provision and associated built environment infrastructure be enhanced and developed to support the mobility needs of individuals as they age? Future of an ageing population: evidence review, Foresight, Government Office for Science. [accessed 9 November 2015] Pooley, C., Jones, T., Tight, M., Horton, D., Scheldeman, G., Mullen, C., Jopson, A., Strano, E. (2013). Promoting Walking and Cycling: New Perspectives on Sustainable Travel. Bristol, UK: Policy Press. Presidency of the Council of the European Union (2015) Informal meeting of EU ministers for Transport - Declaration on Cycling as a climate friendly Transport Mode. [accessed 9 November 2015] Public Health England (2014). Everybody Active Everyday: An Evidenced Based Approach to Physical Activity. London: PHE. Pucher, J. & Buehler, R. (2012). City Cycling. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. Transport for London (2015). Mini-Hollands [accessed 9 November 2015] UK Department for Transport (2011 a ). National Travel Survey 2010. London: DfT. UK Department for Transport (2011 b ). National Travel Survey 2008-2010. London: DfT. UK Department for Transport (2011 c ). Climate change and transport choices: segmentation study final report. London: DfT UK Department for Transport (2014). National Travel Survey 2013. London: DfT. Waltham Forest Council (2013). Waltham Forest Council Mini-Holland. [accessed 18 Dec 2015]

Author Tim Jones, PhD. and Ben Spencer, PhD. Faculty of Technology, Design and Environment School of the Built Environment Oxford Brookes University __________________________________________________________________________

Can Urban Streets and Spaces be Intergenerational Cycling Zones?

1 Public Health England advises that adults aged between 16 and 65 should be at least moderately active for 150 minutes per week (Public Health England, 2014).

Can Urban Streets and Spaces be Intergenerational Cycling Zones?

Imagining a Bus Stop as an Intergenerational Contact Zone The Intergenerational Contact Zone (ICZ) concept could stimulate our imagination and creative efforts to bring new energy and activity into public spaces that tend to be non-interactive and somewhat lifeless, even bus stops. This chapter looks at the Intergenerational Contact Zone (ICZ) framework as a way to transform not only spaces, but the human processes of creating those spaces as well. Inclusion and integration of different generations can be part of the purpose and, indeed, the fun of planning ICZs. Intergenerational collaborations allow a more innovative multi-perspective approach focused on creative potentials that goes beyond a framework based solely on assumed limitation. Thinking about ICZs encourages us to ask what a world and the built environments we move through might feel like to a seven year old child or an eighty-seven year old adult. What happens when these perspectives are brought together into a shared cognitive and communicative ecosystem (Hydén, 2014) like an ICZ? I suggest that ethnographic approaches may offer some insights for cultivating this multi-perspective approach. As a cultural anthropologist specializing in aging societies and care of the elderly, I was immediately drawn to the ICZ project and the idea of translating notions of well-being, relationality, play, and community into real designs for living. Critics of the "aging-in-place" model of later life point out that simply staying put does not mean that one can retain a healthy sense of community, as people and environments are not bounded and static (Andrews, Evans, & Wiles, 2013). Connecting generations is potentially much more complex ( Hopkins & Pain, 2006 ), but the benefits to health and well-being are clear (Portacolone, 2015). As a health risk, social isolation is equivalent of fifteen cigarettes per day. Who wants to age-in-place all alone? Having lived in Japan for many years and now as an US ex-pat living in the UK, I know how it can feel to be on the outside of a community, buffeted around by the visible and invisible forces that the rest of the world takes for granted and seems to navigate with ease. I imagine many older adults feel like this as well. Cities are too often no place for old men or women. This makes people unsure of how to engage in many of the everyday spaces and worlds that younger people inhabit. It can be frustrating to be on the outside, without a clear sense of belonging and mattering. American cultural anthropologist, Ruth Benedict famously remarked, "The purpose of anthropology is to make the world safe for human difference." This should include generational differences as well. Anthropologists have looked at relationships across the life cycle by starting with the idea that although each individual composes their own unique world of feelings, memories, and ideas, there are nonetheless ways in which we share in each other's worlds as well. Members of a speech community share a common tongue but do not (usually) speak wholly in unison. Other gestures, like the giving and receiving of gifts, feasting, and dancing are all ways humans have developed to cultivate sustainable connections between culturally distinct communities who might otherwise ignore each other, or even come into direct conflict. Another popular cultural anthropologist, Margaret Mead (1970), addressing the youth movements of the sixties, recognized the potential for older people to be pushed even further to the periphery; a reversal of what she termed "post-figurative cultures" where the honored elders passed on vital traditional skills and knowledge. She cautioned young and old to find ways to learn from and support each other without trying to return to the past or jump too quickly into the future. This process of intergenerational negotiation is echoed in contemporary policy thinking on adapting to aging societies (Biggs, 2014). ICZs must also supply a set of norms and conventions that utilize and enhance shared experiences while minimizing the disruptive effects of cultural barriers. But how does one do this without creating something constrictive or boring? Then it came to me: best to ask the experts. Which is why I asked my seven-year-old son, Auden, what he would do. The day after I attended the Oxford Institute of Population Ageing sponsored workshop on ICZs, I told Auden about this group of people I met who wanted to come up with all the ways for grannies and grandpas and little kids and everyone to do more things together.

The insight of the chess bus stop may be that ICZ is about play. As I was explaining this, we walked past a bus stop. I pointed to the stop; an older woman sat with some shopping at her feet, a teenager with leaning on the plexiglass thumbing her phone, some bored looking children waited slumped against their father. What about a bus stop? How could we redesign a bus stop to be an Intergenerational Contact Zone? Auden loved the idea. "I know what I would do" he said, building my curiosity like a good salesman. "I would make a chess set that could come out of the side, so you could just pull it out." "Oh, so then you could just start a game with whomever is there, right?" "You don't have to play, you could just watch too. That would be cool." I encouraged Auden to think about it more, and he decided that since pieces would get lost, you could have an electronic chess set. His imagination was fired up, and he was getting excited about all sorts of features like holograms and audio announcements of the moves. I suggested that he draw the idea up:

Figure 1: Auden's (age 7) proposal for converting a bus stop into an intergenerational contact zone.

Even in this plain pencil sketch, the scene is lively and people are engaged. There are things to occupy the time and more importantly, the imagination, which seeps out beyond the game itself and into the spaces and relationships all around it. For a child, the game is all-encompassing--it is not simply about completing some discrete task, but entering into a cultural world where anyone could join in. Older people and children could teach each other about new technology and ancient strategy, onlookers might become players as a bus arrives and disrupts a game. Some might appear even when they do not have a bus to catch. There are chances for encounters both subtle and dramatic. The idea that all of this could happen at the most mundane of public spaces didn't seem odd at all from the point of view of a seven-year-old. Now what if some seven-year-olds and some seventy-year-olds collaborated with designers and social scientists? The insight of the chess bus stop may be that ICZ is about play. It calls us out of our everyday age-segregated worlds and invites us to establish new relationships that unfold in unexpected ways but without any genuine risk. This is an insight found in the new field of gerontoludics, which explores the importance of play in old age. Gerontoludics brings together a growing body of literature that breaks down stereotypes of older people (yes, older people do play videogames) and calls our attention to new design principles, like "playfulness over usefulness" (De Shutter & Vanden Abeele 2015). From this initial state of play and collaborative brainstorming, an idea can progress to reach a state of 'flow,' where participants unlock deeper potentials for creativity within each other. This is a wonderful lesson to apply to an intergenerational/ life course rich environment. By transforming a utilitarian bus shelter into a setting of play, by subverting the default attitude of "killing time" with an activity that is both engrossing and spontaneous, different generations not only tolerate each other's differences, but thrive because of them.

Imagining a Bus Stop as an Intergenerational Contact Zone

References Andrews, G. J., Evans, J., & Wiles, J. L. (2013). Re-Spacing and re-placing gerontology: relationality and affect. Ageing & Society, 33, 1339-1373. Biggs, S. (2014). Adapting to an ageing society: The need for cultural change. Policy Quarterly 10 (3), 12-16. De Schutter, B. & Vanden, A.V. (2015). Towards a gerontoludic manifesto. Anthropology & Agin g, 36(2), 112-120. Hopkins, N. & Pain, R. (2007). Geographies of age: Thinking relationally. Area, 39 (3): 287-294. Hydén, L.C. (2014). Cutting brussels sprouts: Collaboration involving persons with dementia. Journal of Aging Studies, 29, 115-123. Mead, M. (1970). Culture and commitment. Garden City, NY: Natural History Press, Doubleday & Co. Inc. Portacolone, E. (2015). Older Americans living alone: The influence of resources and intergenerational integration on inequality. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 44 (3), 280-305.

Author Jason Danely, Ph.D. Senior Lecturer in Anthropology of Japan, Oxford Brookes University [email protected] www.jasondanely.com Editor-in-Chief, Anthropology & Aging

Imagining a Bus Stop as an Intergenerational Contact Zone

Beyond Contact-Intergenerational Living in Cohousing Communities A cohousing community combines private homes of different sizes and styles alongside shared facilities - gardens, playgrounds, workshops, gyms, and usually a common house enclosing a large kitchen and dining room that provide ample opportunity for intergenerational mingling.

Figure 1: A cohousing community gathering before dinnertime.

There is still time before the dinner bell rings but as usual neighbors have started to gather in front of the Common House in anticipation. A few older kids, apparently practicing their "outdoor voices," are racing each other up and down the play structure off to the side of the porch. The younger ones have (wisely) opted out of this relay and are playing among the scattered toys and tricycles on the courtyard in front. Their parents and neighbors loiter and banter on the porch as others stroll by or stop by on their way home from work. One neighbor, as often happens, has his guitar out and is strumming and chatting in between songs. A few others seem to have arrived earlier and have settled comfortably into the lounging chairs happily bantering with each other. Everyone is warming up and catching up before the common meal starts. (Fieldnotes from a cohousing community, 2014) Unlike most residential developments, cohousing communities are explicitly designed to support and encourage intergenerational living. A typical cohousing community combines private homes of different sizes and styles alongside shared facilities - gardens, playgrounds, workshops, gyms, and usually a common house enclosing a large kitchen and dining room - that provide ample opportunity for intergenerational mingling. Beyond the physical space, these communities often feature busy social rosters that include weekly (or more) community meals, retreats, movie nights, and other social gatherings. This is on top of the constant (and laborious) task of co-managing the community - Home Owners Association (HOA) meetings, committee meetings, "work parties," cleaning groups and so on - that further oblige interaction among residents. Within these communities, busy young families live alongside older neighbors who become "surrogate grandparents" while their own grown children and other relatives live far away. Especially among the bigger communities (usually no more than 30 to 40 households), there tend to be a wide range of professions, backgrounds, and skills. Neighbors eagerly contribute their skills to the

governing and upkeep of their communities and many delight in sharing their expertise and free time helping each other. One finds, in almost every community, generous physical, technological, and social infrastructure - gathering nodes, internal web servers, traditions and social routines - set up to support these neighborly interactions. Residents fondly liken their communities to a kind of "extended family" or "modern day village." There are differences and challenges of course, as in any living arrangement, and there are perhaps more responsibilities and higher expectations, but many, after years of sharing their lives, form deep attachments to their neighbors and to this intensely intergenerational way of life.

Figure 2: Porch around common house in one cohousing community.

Cohousing as Design Concept The idea behind cohousing comes from Denmark, where, in the 1960s, growing dissatisfaction with single-family housing inspired more collaborative experiments called bofllesskah (living-togetherness). 1 In the 1980s, a pair of American architects, Kathryn McCamant and Charles Durrett, visited these housing cooperatives and returned to the U.S. to adapted the idea in their first book Cohousing: A Contemporary Approach to Housing Ourselves (1988). The book came out two years before the term "McMansion" was coined. As American homes and American mortgages inflated across the country, a small number of people looking for something different found both inspiration and guidance in McCamant and Durrett's book. Cohousing communities started popping up across the country beginning with the first one, Muir Commons, in Davis, CA. Today, according to the Cohousing Association of America, there are more than 200 built communities in the US and more than 50 in some stage of construction. Cohousing is also found in other countries including Australia, England, Japan, and of course Denmark where it is estimated that nearly 10% of households live in such communities. Depending on where it is located, one cohousing community can look very different from the next. There are thriving cohousing developments throughout every state, from urban condominium-like buildings to suburban clusters of townhouses or detached homes, to rural developments with generous open space. Some are retrofitted old buildings, some are simply single-family homes which have torn down their abutting backyard fences, while others are completely new developments designed and built upon previously undeveloped properties. Whatever the form, most cohousing communities share a few general characteristics: participatory planning, community-oriented design, shared common facilities, resident self-management, nonhierarchical organization, and separate household incomes (McCamant & Durrett, 1994, p. 38). By design and in practice, cohousing communities also share a vigorous commitment to intergenerational living. 2 Many feature a variety of household structures - young couples with children, older as well as retired couples, single parent and even single person households. This diverse composition, according to many residents, is what makes possible well-functioning and well-managed cohousing communities. Residents with more free or flexible time contribute to the organizing of events and meetings; younger residents contribute labor; and everyone puts in whatever skills and expertise they have towards the community "brain trust." The mixture and mingling of such age-diverse neighbors - of young and old, working and retired, and those with needs and those with skills - generate vibrant and engaged communities. It's easy to see the appeal of this housing option. But how does it feel to actually live in cohousing? How does daily life look and feel in such communities? As an anthropologist, I conducted fieldwork on cohousing for nearly three years and visited more than 20 communities on both coasts, including one community in MA that we came to call home. For over a year, my family, with two young children, lived and worked and played (and sometimes argued) alongside our fellow neighbors in our lively intergenerational community. Among the 32 households in our community, there were five of us with young children, many Beyond Contact-Intergenerational Living in Cohousing Communities

professionals without kids, several single senior residents, and many "surrogate grandparent" households. Our lives in this setting were rich, and busy, and sometimes challenging. It was a little like stepping into a modern day village with its own distinct spatial, social, and cultural configurations.

Cohousing as Intergenerational Contact Zones Cohousing communities tend to be as diverse and varied as their inhabitants. While each community has its own norms and rules and routines, there is generally some set of spatial features, regular gatherings, and tools and resources that form the core infrastructure of all well-functioning, intergenerational communities. The following section offers some examples of these attributes.

Spaces Places Cars are generally left in the parking area near the entrance of the community, next to the common house. Inside the common house, a brightly lit hallway lined with mailboxes and bulletin boards led past a laundry room and a children's art room (currently unoccupied but bore telling signs of recent activity). The hallway opens up to a bright, expansive kitchen and an even larger dining room (currently set up with chairs for an upcoming meeting). A grandmother and a toddler played nearby (and said hello). In one corner of the dining room was a piano and along one wall, a fireplace that looked as if it had just been used. Off to the side of the dining room was a cozy room with a television and bookshelves and inviting couches and chairs - the TV/small meeting room which is remarkably quiet, I'm told, when the glass doors are closed. The common house is large and features a second floor with guest rooms (occupied as usual), a rather sequestered "teen room" (momentarily empty), and the soon-to-be community office space by the balcony windows in the back. Outside the common house was a large brick patio that led to a sand box and the community pool (encircled in locked metal fence to protect young children and animals, I'm told). Elsewhere and dotted throughout the community were shared vegetable gardens, bike sheds, a tool shop (to which neighbors donated their own collections), a potters studio (where an elderly resident sat glazing tiles), and play areas with various play structures (some for younger and some for older kids). Each home had a front as well as more private (and sometimes fenced) backyard. Most homes are not large by design, one resident explained, but there is ample community space to socialize and "store their stuff." They also don't need as much stuff, many claim, as neighbors frequently borrow and share with each other. (Fieldnotes from a community tour, 2011) I remember the first time I visited a cohousing community. On a warm Sunday afternoon, I arrived at my prescheduled tour of one community in a suburb of California and was immediately taken by the scene of cheerful houses and gardens with friendly neighbors and kids milling about. In the years since that first encounter, I've visited communities of many different sizes and designs but all featured a similar general layout and facilities. The common house in our MA community was generously sized and enclosed a mail room (a daily meeting place for neighbors), a kids playroom (separate but visible through a window from the dining room), a laundry room (plus space for indoor laundry racks), a pair of guestrooms (managed through an online signup sheet), a "library"/pool lounge, a basement with an exercise room and bike storage, and most importantly for a cohousing community, a large kitchen that opened onto several connected dining rooms and lounge areas. As in every other cohousing community, our common house was rarely unoccupied. Even outside formal meal times and events, neighbors used the space for social gatherings, held meetings in the various lounge areas, worked in the dining rooms or library, and popped in and out for one reason or another. On the weekends and at the end of workdays, neighbors converged and lingered around the mailroom and porch and, if the weather was nice, the brick-paved courtyard surrounding the porch. At these times, it was nearly impossible to have a quick visit to the common house and not get embroiled in whatever conversations or activities were taking place. Even outside of shared meals and activities, the common house was the central meeting place for the community. Like many other cohousing communities, ours also featured gardens, a workshop, and various meeting nodes--a bench here and picnic table there--throughout the rest of the community. It is easy, and often nearly impossible not to, encounter and linger and chat with neighbors out and about. One can imagine how these spaces enliven and intensify the social atmosphere in the community.

Beyond Contact-Intergenerational Living in Cohousing Communities

Routines and Rituals On meal days, the community kitchen would be abuzz with activity - often frantic in the hour leading up to the meal. The head cook and two assistant cooks would chat and banter as dishes bubbled in the pots and vegetables roasted in the ovens. Depending on the menu - and the inclination and commitment of the cooks - preparation often started the day before with shopping and precooking. Around 6:00pm - delays and/or undercooked dishes were not uncommon - someone rings the meal bell outside the common house to announce the beginning of the meal. This is more performative than practical as the size of the community means the bell is rarely heard by most of the houses located at a distance from the common house, especially during cooler months when windows are shut. Nonetheless, the children would often jostle each other for a chance at this privilege and those who do hear the ring immediately scurry to the common house if they haven't already. Inside the common house dining room - the Great Room as it's called here--neighbors gather in a circle while the menu is described (although most diners already know this when signed up for the meal) and cooks and assistants are acknowledged. Hosts introduced any visiting family or friends, and other neighbors with important announcements take their turns. This is often the time when neighbors remind each other of upcoming events - both in the community and beyond, when birthdays, anniversaries or other significant family dates are announced, and when teenagers in the community unveil yet another school fundraiser - for track or band or the library--and promise to "come around the tables" later to collect donations. (Not surprisingly, the children of the community are champion fundraisers among their peers at school.) With this quick round of announcements over, everyone scatters to their tables, already set up with "family style" dishes and platters. Each table seats six to eight and there is always a rush to reserve seats at desired tables in the minutes preceding a meal. The dining room hums with chatter as the dishes and platters are passed around. Everyone quickly settles down to eat, and the food goes quickly. There are usually seconds available but popular tables - some accommodating an extra friend or family member often run short and have to send out "scavengers" who circulate among others tables looking to appropriate leftovers. The whole affair lasts no more than 30 minutes before the kitchen is bustling again with cleanup activities. Diners clear their own plates and help wipe down their tables. Cleared plates and utensils are passed to the dish crew in the kitchen and the dining room is quickly swept and restored to order. (Fieldnotes from common meal, 2013) Communities are often defined by the routines and rhythms of their social life. For cohousers, eating together - whether casual meals with one or few neighbors, regular potlucks, or more formal "common meals" - is the "glue" that holds the community together. So much more happened at these meals than the mere sharing of food. Many residents remarked that cohousing would not be possible without these routines and rituals around food. In most cohousing communities there are also a myriad of other regular social gatherings such as retreats, festivals, group activities, holiday celebrations, "work parties," and, always, meetings of one kind or another. Our community in MA also held frequent music concerts that often drew not only community members but also neighbors from further afield together for lively Friday evenings. The occasions made interaction among neighbors easy, sometimes necessary, and almost habitual. After living in cohousing for a period of time, one gets accustomed to, and hopefully more skilled at, interacting and engaging with one's neighbors on a daily basis.

Figure 3: Spring Festival with puppets and music.

Beyond Contact-Intergenerational Living in Cohousing Communities

Tools and Resources It's easy to get cohousers to start talking about all the ways they share with neighbors - sharing resources, ideas, and time. A lot of the sharing appears to be arranged online or over email. Many communities have long-established internal list serves or online portals. Among my neighbors in MA, technology-facilitated sharing was commonplace. All residents had access to an internal database of information and resources as well as various list serves that dished out announcements, requests and general information. Our emails were perpetually abuzz with neighbors making requests for rides or seeking favors or offering (or requesting) news and advice. Many emails circulate daily asking if "someone out there" might have an extra something or another - a stick of butter, a particular kind of spice, a Philips wrench, a cardboard box of a certain dimension for shipping something. Almost always, a follow-up email with a quick "all set" and acknowledgement of the benefactor pops up within hours of the request. Alongside favors arranged online, similar exchanges take place offline just as often. Every resident expects and is expected to participate and partake of this circulation of support. As expected, communities often feature varied talents and skills. This is something many cohousers like to point out about their community - the "deep pool" of expertise. Many are happy and eager to contribute what they can towards the betterment of their community and their neighbors, and they in turn benefit from whatever expertise their neighbors might have. These resources, facilitated by technology, naturally feed into the cycle of interaction and mutual support among neighbors.

Lessons for Creating and Sustaining Residential Intergenerational Contact Zones Living in cohousing offers a variety of benefits - material as well as social. Many of these come from its commitment to bringing together residents of different ages. As such, cohousing offers valuable lessons in building as well as sustaining intergenerational living zones.

Participatory design: The involvement of future residents in every stage of the design process is believed to lead to stronger, more cohesive communities. The experience of discussing, debating, negotiating and finally deciding together the features and layout of their future community not only makes for a better, more suitably customized design but also builds relationships and communications skills that will figure critically in community life after move-in.

Communal spaces: Generous shared spaces and facilities make possible frequent and easy socialization among neighbors. Importantly, these spaces are intentionally intergenerational. A "common house," for example, typically includes a multipurpose dinning room, a TV room or lounge, a playroom or studio, and various other mixed-use and mixed-age spaces. These spaces both combine and, at times when necessary, serve separately the needs of different age groups (such as locating a playroom off the dinning room). They also, by design and in practice, serve multiple purposes and evolve over time as community members themselves age and change. Elsewhere in the community, especially in larger, less urban communities, gardens, gathering nodes, and playgrounds abound. The addition of benches and tables, plus their typically central locations, ensure that such play areas and gardens become meeting places for neighbors of all ages. Even the areas between houses - the pedestrian pathways - allow for, and indeed encourage, spontaneous gatherings.

Privacy and choice: Cohesive community life of course benefits from cozy neighborhood design and cozy neighborly relations. The quality of life in these communities also depends on maintaining privacy and choice (and choice in privacy). Cohousing design often emphasize access to shared spaces as much as to private and secluded spaces. For example, individual homes in larger cohousing communities often feature "private" backyard spaces (fenced or not) alongside more "public" front yards. Many common houses offer quiet or adult-only areas where residents can seek refuge from the bustle (and mess) of community life even outside their private homes. While homes tend to include such community-friendly features such as glassed entry doors (often leading directly into kitchens where, it is assumed, we spend most of our time), as well as patios and "lounge" areas in front of each house, the norm in many communities tend to be well-shaded doors (and windows) and patios that are landscaped or otherwise marked off as extensions of private homes. This (built-in) versatility makes community life much happier (and sometimes quieter) for residents of all ages.

Beyond Contact-Intergenerational Living in Cohousing Communities

Rituals and routines: Cohousing design certainly makes more likely and possible spontaneous neighborly engagements but it is the regular, routine social events that predictably strengthen and sustain community life. Almost all cohousing communities make efforts to regularly hold "common meals," potlucks, holiday celebrations, festivals and retreats. These frequent gatherings, often elaborately planned and meticulously managed, help nurture and reinforce the neighborly relationships that underlie all community life. They are also, always, opportunities for residents of all ages to mingle and mix.

Technology and the social: Cohousing communities, thanks to their demographic diversity, often feature enviable technological infrastructure and in-house IT support. Resources such as community-maintained servers and internal websites (for circulating news or signing up for common meals or guestrooms) effectively create virtual community spaces alongside the concrete physical ones. These realms offer additional (and even more convenient and inclusive) opportunities for neighbors to interact. They supplement and bolster real world interactions and even, sometimes, make possible and manageable elaborate systems of sharing and communication (such as reserving popular guestrooms or shared equipment, or signing up for meals and community jobs). For residents of all ages, these parallel environments make for a more expansive community space as well as experience.

References Christensen, K. & Levinson, D. (Eds.). (2003). Encyclopedia of community: From the village to the virtual world. New York, NY: Sage. Durrett, C. (2009). The senior cohousing handbook. Gabriola Islands, BC: New Society Publishers. Gudmand-Hoyer, J. (1964). The missing link between utopia and the dated one-family house. Information, 26. McCamant, K. & Durrett, C. (1988). Cohousing: A contemporary approach to housing ourselves. Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press.

Author Lisia Zheng, PhD Candidate Department of Anthropology, UC Berkeley and Visiting Scholar Department of Agricultural Economics, Sociology, and Education, Penn State University _______________________________________________________________________ 1 The idea was first introduced in Denmark by a young architect named Jan Gudmand-Hoyer who drew inspiration from his studies of American utopias while a student at Harvard. His article based on his studies, “The Missing Link Between Utopia and the Dated One-Family House” (1964), drew over 100 interested families eager to try out his proposed housing alternative. This was the beginning of cohousing in Denmark. Two decades later, McCamant and Durrett studied these Danish communities and brought the idea (back) to the U.S. (Christensen and Levinson eds., 2003. Encyclopedia of Community: From the Village to the Virtual World. ) 2 While most existing cohousing communities are still intergenerational, there has been increasing interest in 2adapting While most existing cohousing communities arecohousing.” still intergenerational, there addresses has been increasing in in adapting cohousing cohousing principles to building “senior Durrett himself this marketinterest demand his recent book, principles to building “senior cohousing.” Durrett himself addresses this market demand in his recent book, The Senior Cohousing The Senior Cohousing Handbook (2009). Handbook (2009).

Beyond Contact-Intergenerational Living in Cohousing Communities

Online Gaming Platforms as Intergenerational Contact Zones This chapter attempts to build upon the current literature on digital gaming and provide background and justification for the construction of a comprehensive set of intergenerational game design principles for future applications.

Introduction Following the digitization of societies, social interaction environments have increasingly extended beyond physical spaces to digital realms. Research progress in the area of digital inclusion has contributed to an understanding of how it facilitates social inclusion of older adults and contributes to their overall well-being (Bailey & Ngwenyama, 2011; Kaletka, Pelka, Diaz, Rissola, & Rastrelli, 2012; Kaplan, Sánchez, & Bradley, 2015; Smith & Chilcott, 2013) Digital inclusion benefits the young as well, with research indicating an impact on youth academic performance, employability, and social integration (Kaletka et al., 2012; Loos, 2014; ter Vrugte & de Jong, 2012). Digital platforms have further demonstrated capabilities for bridging various generations, often on the basis of equitable participation, with goals of promoting the exchange of ideas or knowledge, greater family cohesion, and joint participation in community study and improvement endeavors (Sánchez, Kaplan, & Bradley, 2015). In proposing that the virtual environment is a pertinent dimension to be recognized as a source of Intergenerational Contact Zones (ICZs), we contend that it is important to consider ways to design and facilitate virtual platforms for intergenerational contact and relationship building. In the broader virtual environment, digital gaming as part of the discourse cannot be neglected, though traditionally, it is seen as the domain of the young, particularly male users. In recent years, the gaming industries and researchers have increasingly branched out to target other user groups such as females and the elderly. There has also been an increase in attention to gameplay designs that have a substantial IG interaction component, although in general, digital games for intergenerational (IG) play and bonding remain a novel idea.

Digital Game Design Principles for ICZs The remainder of this chapter puts forth a series of design principles with relevant examples that we believe to be critical for inclusion in digital gaming platforms intended to serve as ICZs.

Pre-Stage: Participatory Design Process and Preparation Prior to game designing, involving the intended target users during the pre-stage development through participatory design is a viable strategy for addressing different age groups' socio-psychological preferences and needs. This can come in forms of both passive and active involvement ranging from surveys and interviews to focus group discussions, co-designing sessions and prototypical testing. For example, Blast from the Past, 1 a digital game specifically designed for gameplay between grandparents and grandchildren, employed player-centered design methodologies. Other than ethnographic inquiries, the team involved seniors and children from the very start through sessions of brainstorming, co-design, focus group discussions and finally prototypical testing. Through iterative developments, the target audiences contributed recommendations for game design adjustments at each stage. A more passive pre-stage game design process was adopted in developing the Distributed Hide and Seek game. 2 Building upon observations of playgroups between grandparents and preschool grandchildren, as well as cultural probe analysis of IG activities, the team explored how the nature of interaction (episodic and open-ended creative play) and diverse IG roles (with seniors as "Organiser, Instructor, Carer, Co-player, Entertainer or Observer," and kids as "Accomplice, Apprentice, the Cared-for, Co-player or Audience") can be translated into technological form (Vetere, Nolan & Raman, 2006).

Gameplay Design Content: Social Dynamics Designing to leverage on the different generational skillsets IG gameplay builds upon or caters to the differing experiences and capabilities of each age group. This can happen through: 1. designing games that are easy for generations to utilize their respective skillsets to collaborate for a common goal, or 2. game designs that allow generations to compete on a more equitable ground, considering their technological and knowledge competencies. These themes are evident in the design of the game Age Invaders for which grandchildren, parents, and grandparents are identified as the target group users. Whereas the game element of avoiding laser beams and rockets favors younger participants, the feature which draws on players' acquired knowledge (which involves detection and use of visual cues for solving cognitive problems) favors the older participants. Also, the laser beam speed is an adjustable game parameter to help leverage the playing field. Furthermore, the game's "hyperspace mode" with combined quiz and movement gameplay makes it more effective for both generations to adopt collaborative play strategies that draw upon the strengths of each generation (Figure 1) (Khoo, Cheok, Nguyen, & Pan, 2008).

Figure 1: An illustration of the Hyperspace mode whereby gameplay taps on the different strengths of generations to make meaningful collaborative play. (Source: Khoo et al., 2008)

It is also recommended to consider designing for "vicarious play," referring to co-located gameplay whereby only one party is actively in control of the gaming console/controls, with other parties participating mentally and verbally at the side. Such role separations are mainly observable when there is a disparity in skillsets due to age differences. As noted by De Schutter and Abeele (2010), vicarious play is one of the most common styles of IG gameplay, but rarely is it an intentional design feature or characteristic. De Schutter and Abeele have suggested a few possible features for better integrating less active participation into gameplay, for example "by having them solve puzzles, keep an eye out for hints on the corners of the screen, or even search the Internet for more information while the other player is controlling the game". Designing for larger breadth of generational involvement Another recommendation is to pay more attention to intermediary age groups that are commonly neglected in IG gameplays. According to our understanding of the concept of ICZs, they are age inclusive, and this goes beyond simply engaging older adults, children and youths. Furthermore, from Voida and Greenberg's (2012) study, it is emphasized that there is advantage in incorporating the intermediary age groups as they can assume facilitator roles in ensuring positive gaming experiences between the young and the aged, which can be tricky and conflict-ridden given the different capabilities and familiarity with gaming. For example in Age Invaders, parents can assume a mediator role and participate through operating the computer from a distance in real time (catering to parents who are often absent from home due to work). Seniors and youths play against each other in physical spaces, whereas parents are connected through the virtual world and can add a layer of complexity to the gameplay by choosing to help either team (Figures 2 and 3).

Online Gaming Platforms as Intergenerational Contact Zones

Figure 2 (top): Illustration of how parents can introduce new elements into the game through remote controls. Figure 3 (bottom): Figure (bottom): Parents can participate by placing barriers and dropping for the players,gameplay with the Parents3 can participate by placing virtual barriers andvirtual dropping bonus items for thebonus gameitems players, withgame the physical physical gameplay represented in a virtual space on the parent's computer screen. (Source: Khoo et al., 2008) represented in a virtual space on the parent's computer screen. (Source: Khoo et al., 2008)

Gameplay Supporting Features Multigenerational design considerations As a basis to effective IG gameplay, gaming equipment and technological features should be conducive for multigenerational usage. This includes ensuring larger visual interfaces, such as on-screen texts and graphics for the ease of seniors' reading, and the provision of gaming equipment that incorporates lightweight and ergonomic designs that are suitable for both senior and children usage. For example, gaming tools can be made adjustable so as to fit children's smaller build. Gameplay configuration processes that facilitate IG role switching Through legible configuration processes that can be picked up through simple observation, transitions between IG gameplay roles can be facilitated, and vicarious players can easily transit to an active decision maker/game controller. For example, Voida and Greenberg (2012) recommended in their paper that strategies to make configuration processes more visible across the whole group would be to take advantage of "large, shared display, or providing audio feedback so the configurer could more publicly model configuration skills." They further suggest how it would be helpful to incorporate both options of gameplay inputs on a single device as well as distributed/ multiple devices. For example one gaming console could control all players' inputs if desired, or all consoles used for the game can be individually controlled to enter separate players' inputs. This allows for the initial situation of a single configurer as a model for others to learn from, before transiting to all parties taking control of their own input choices (Voida & Greenberg, 2012).

Online Gaming Platforms as Intergenerational Contact Zones

Language considerations For IG digital gaming that transcends geographical boundaries, language proficiency might become a barrier to effective interaction. In that respect, language translation functions, or pre-set gaming comments and phrases are recommended. For example, De Schutter and Abeele (2010) suggested automated translation tools in gaming chats. Pre-set gaming comments and phrases could also be crafted by game designers such that in order to communicate, players can choose from a list of responses in their native language with corresponding translations. It is also prudent to introduce relevant digital gaming terminologies with brief explanations alongside chat functions to facilitate effective assimilation of newcomers to the online gaming community. Online or offline community/Administrative support It should also be considered to establish an IG online discussion platform/forum, or an IG gaming community circle online that serves as support to the actual IG gameplay. This is firstly to allow the ease of identifying suitable gaming partners with similar interests/skillsets, which will be useful if the IG gameplay designed is not tailored to any specific target groups. Typically, a programming function can be used to organize players' profile information, whereby players can be sorted into categories like age, interests, skills and language, and the system can make autosuggestions and pairings to suitable players. Otherwise, a manual search system could be designed for players to build up their own friend lists. This supporting gameplay feature could also be incorporated into the digital game itself in the event that a separate online portal is not feasible. Online communities also serve to facilitate discussions of the gameplay between generations, whereby players can actively share and contribute information regarding the IG gameplay, empowering themselves in the process. Other than online support, offline support in the form of physical places offering access and training to digital games are recommended as well. Such support could also be intergenerational in nature, thereby proffering opportunities for integrated gameplay experiences that are reinforced by both physical and virtual IG interaction. A plausible reference can be telecenters, which are places whereby digital services are embedded and typically managed by community-based organizations, serving as easy access points that allow for community-wide participation in ICT (Bailey & Ngwenyama, 2011; Kaletka et al., 2012).

Physical and Virtual Space Interplay Through virtual gameplay, players' attributed meanings and attachment to physical spaces can potentially be influenced. Similarly, gameplay elements in physical spaces can facilitate the meanings and values constructed for virtual gaming environments. This is a compelling relationship which digital game designers can try to design for. For example, when playing Distributed Hide and Seek, new memories and meanings can be formed in the players' houses (the physical playing medium) (Figure 4), whereby players can now relate certain areas of the house to memorable IG interactions from the game. Although this is not intended by the game designers, it shows the potential of utilizing digital games to connect to the physical dimension in order to enhance meaningful connections between players, in this case across different generations. Referencing an IG collaborative project (not a digital game), Historypin 3 is an example whereby through online and offline IG collaborations and documentation, collective new meanings have been constructed for old public places. The IG interactions were also more meaningful and longer lasting as they were anchored in these physical spaces. Expanding this idea, there is also a developmental potential for games like the Distributed Hide and Seek: by extending the gameplay site from homes into public spaces with internet connection, exploration of different places ascertains interest in continuous play, which allows for meaningful development and anchoring of IG relationships over time and place despite limited physical contact.

Figure 4: Gameplay mechanism for Distributed Hide and Seek (Source: Vetere, Nolan & Raman, 2006)

Online Gaming Platforms as Intergenerational Contact Zones

Conclusion Virtual environments as ICZs can serve as enticing and meaningful meeting places for different generations. As this chapter shows, designing digital games as ICZs include the need to consider factors related to both the hardware and software. In the least, gameplay processes, supporting features and equipment should not just be designed to accommodate and cater to the differing needs and skillsets of multi-generational groups but to also facilitate inter-player sharing of gameplay/game scenario-related knowledge, skills, and perspectives. Furthermore, as a review of the literature shows, objectives and opportunities for IG contact and collaboration tend to vary in large part as a function of specific IG gameplay typologies (e.g., co-located or distributed gameplay, educational PC or recreational console gaming). Further developments in IG digital gameplay can also include establishing an online resource and learning hub in order to better integrate educational learning alongside recreational play. As mentioned previously, online communities facilitate collaborative sharing and contribution of information and knowledge, and a formalized learning network and system can greatly benefit IG digital gameplay that allows its users to devise creative learning content themselves. An example of a learning network, Ulm's IG learning network KOJALA, 4 demonstrates its power as a virtual place of exchange by allowing different age groups to connect with each other on projects of mutual interests. Through this platform, generations learn from each other regardless of time and place, and the ease of IG collaboration both online and offline is achieved. Tapping into the idea of the KOJALA learning network system and referring back to the Distributed Hide and Seek - if the hide-and-seek game site does extend into various public spaces, it becomes feasible to envision the creation of an online resource hub whereby players can upload and share information regarding potential or popular game sites, such as providing maps, photos and digital plans. This is also similar to the Historypin online archive that can be jointly updated by users. By using the online platform to access these data, educational learning can also be integrated more easily as users can update each other on sites with educational value (e.g., historical or nature), supplemented with information that the grandparents can pick up on to share as do-you-know facts with their grandchildren during the game. Such content could be determined by and shared amongst users and integrated into educational hide and seek trails. This combination of online learning hubs and digital gameplay offers excellent insights to help game designers integrate learning objectives in their game design, as well as merge virtual and physical spaces in ways that build more meaningful and lasting intergenerational relationships.

References Armstrong, N. (2012). Historypin: Bringing generations together around a communal history of time and place. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 10 (3), 294-298. doi:10.1080/15350770.2012.697412 Bailey, A., & Ngwenyama, O. (2011). The challenge of e-participation in the digital city: Exploring generational influences among community telecentre users. Telematics and Informatics, 28, 204-214. doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2010.09.004. De Schutter, B., & vanden Abeele, V. (2010, September). Designing meaningful play within the psycho-social context of older adults. Paper presented at the Fun and Games 2010 conference, Leuven, Belgium. De Schutter, B., & vanden Abeele, V. (2014). Blast from the past: Applying the P-III framework to facilitate intergenerational play between grandparents and grandchildren. Gerontechnology, 13 (2), 163. doi:/10.4017/gt.2014.13.02.129.00 De Schutter, B. (2015). Blast from the Past. Retrieved November 1, 2015, from Bob De Schutter's website. Kaletka, C., Pelka, B., Diaz, A., Rissola, G., & Rastrelli, M. (2012, June). Escouts: Intergenerational Learning in Blended Environments and Spaces (Ilbes) For Social Inclusion. Paper presented at the EDEN 2012 Annual Conference: Open Learning Generations - Closing the gap from "Generation Y" to the mature Lifelong Learners, Porto, Portugal. Kaplan, M., Sánchez, M., & Bradley, L. (2015). Conceptual frameworks and practical applications to connect generations in the technoscape. Anthropology and Aging, 36 (2), Nov., 182-205. Khoo, E. T., Cheok, A. D., Nguyen, T. H. D., & Pan, Z. (2008). Age invaders: social and physical intergenerational mixed reality family entertainment. Virtual Reality, 12(1), 3-16. doi:10.1007/s10055-008-0083-0. Loos, E. (2014, April). Designing Meaningful Intergenerational Digital Games. Paper presented at the International Conference on Communication, Media, Technology and Design, Istanbul, Turkey. Sánchez, M., Kaplan, M., & Bradley, L. (2015). Using technology to connect generations: Some considerations of form and function. Comunicar, 45. doi: 10.3916/C45-2015-10 Smith, A., & Chilcott, M. (2013). An analysis of the potential to utilize virtual worlds to enhance edutainment and improve the wellbeing of the ageing population. In Z. Pan, A. D. Cheok, W. Müller, & F. Liarokapis (Eds.) Transactions on Edutainment IX, Online Gaming Platforms as Intergenerational Contact Zones

(pp. 65-80). Springer: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Vetere, F., Nolan, M., & Raman, R. A. (2006, November). Distributed Hide-and-Seek. Paper presented at the OZCHI 2006 Proceedings, Sydney, Australia. Voida, A., & Greenberg, S. (2011). Console gaming across generations: exploring intergenerational interactions in collocated console gaming. Universal Access in the Information Society, 11, 45-56. doi: 10.1007/s10209-011-0232-1. ter Vrugte, J., & de Jong, T. (2012). How to adapt games for learning: The potential role of instructional support. In S. De Wannemacker, S. Vandercruysse, & G. Clarebout (Eds.) Serious Games: The Challenge, (pp. 1-5). London: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.

Authors Eyu Zang, M.Arch graduate student, National University of Singapore Leng Leng Thang, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of Japanese Studies, National University of Singapore 1_________________________________________________________________________ Blast from the Past is “a Nintendo Wii game that combines a variety of quiz mechanics and two mini-games (i.e., a digital version of a folklore game and a building game in which a monument from the 1950’s is constructed within a time travelling 1 Blast from the Past is “a Nintendo Wii game that combines a variety of quiz mechanics and two mini-games (i.e., a digital narrative)” (De Schutter & Abeele, 2014). version of a folklore game and a building game in which a monument from the 1950’s is constructed within a time travelling 2 Distributed Hide and Seek is designed to specifically target grandparents and grandchildren who stay apart, with objectives to narrative)” (De Schutter & Abeele, 2014). 2 Distributed Hide and Seek is designed to specifically target grandparents and facilitate open-ended play as opposed to prescriptive play. The hider allocates virtual gifts in the seeker’s house using a grandchildren who stay apart, with objectives to facilitate open-ended play as opposed to prescriptive play. The hider allocates touchscreen (pre-installed maps), and the seeker seeks by moving around the house with a “magic wand” (Bluetooth PDA) that virtual gifts in the seeker’s house using a touchscreen (pre-installed maps), and the seeker seeks by moving around the house with tracks his movements. Vocal communication happens throughout the game. a “magic wand” (Bluetooth PDA) that tracks his movements. Vocal communication happens throughout the game. 3 3 “Historypin.com is an online, global archive to which people can add photos, audio, video, stories, and memories by pinning “Historypin.com is an online, global archive to which people can add photos, audio, video, stories, and memories by pinning them them to a particular place and time on the Historypin map. The Historypin app also lets people add and explore content while to a particular place and time on the Historypin map. The Historypin app also lets people add and explore content while walking walking around their local areas. Since its launch, Historypin has been a catalyst for numerous online and offline collaborations around their local areas. Since its launch, Historypin has been a catalyst for numerous online and offline collaborations between between older and younger people” (Armstrong, 2012). older and younger people” (Armstrong, 2012) 4 KOJALA is an Internet-based competence platform by ZAWiW, whereby 4 KOJALA is an Internet-based competence platform by ZAWiW, whereby through a virtual market place, users can place and through a virtual market place, users can place and browse offers for collaborative projects. This is supported by the users’ browse offers for collaborative projects. This is supported by the users’ visiting cards (similar to profiling), and KOJALA hosts visiting cards (similar to profiling), and KOJALA hosts the formation of working groups for users who have connected and the formation of working groups for users who have connected and agreed to embark on collaborative work. agreed to embark on collaborative work.

Online Gaming Platforms as Intergenerational Contact Zones

Let's Go Shopping Together: Supermarkets as Intergenerational Contact Zones For many families, supermarket shopping is an intergenerational experience. The Intergenerational Contact Zone (ICZ) dimension of supermarkets can be enhanced through onsite cooking activities, family celebration events, and family food conversation hubs.

Introduction Shopping at supermarkets has become an experience common for people living in urban settings, where very few could maintain self-sustenance such as through farming and cattle raising in their own backyard possible for those living in rural, farm settings. The growing presence and importance of supermarkets in the lives of an individual has led to the development of focus studies on supermarkets, such as supermarket psychology (Harrison, 2008) which entails studying consumer behavior in supermarkets and its impact on supermarket design which in turn affects and influences the process of shopping. While supermarket psychology tends to provide detailed analysis on how consumers may be affected by the layout and positioning of products, it has ignored the likelihood that consumers of different generations may gain different experiences and challenges when shopping at supermarkets. In the recent years, with the advent of an aging population and considerations for creating "age-friendly environments" especially in developed societies, there is a heightened awareness of age-friendly concepts in retail stores and supermarkets (Clark, 2007; Sim, 2008; and Thang, 2010). Taking the age-friendliness concept a step further, in this paper, we would like to consider the age-integration potential of supermarkets. More specifically, we draw upon a series of structured observations and interviews conducted by the second to fifth authors as part of their capstone project (College of Alice and Peter Tan, within the National University of Singapore) aimed at studying the potential of supermarkets in Singapore to function as effective Intergenerational Contact Zones (ICZ). Questions that helped guide our exploration include:

• How can the young and older consumers complement each other in their strengths when frequenting a supermarket? • How can supermarkets better function as spaces where social connectedness is potentially strengthened as the young and the old go shopping together? Results from our observations and interviews suggest that more needs to be done not only in terms of ensuring an age-friendly environment for older consumers, but also for improving the shopping experience for multigenerational families. Our study has led us to consider the potential for modifying spaces within supermarkets to further enhance and support family conversations and cooperation in making food purchases.

Supermarkets in Singapore As an urbanized country where a total population of 5.53 million is packed onto a mere 719.1 sq. km of land size, a density of 7697 persons per sq. km means that supermarkets as provision of daily food and household needs are also an increasingly ubiquitous presence dotting the island. The supermarket retail industry in Singapore is dominated by four main companies, namely NTUC Fairprice, Sheng Siong, Cold Storage and Giant Hypermarket. In our interest to understand how age-friendly local supermarkets are in Singapore, which is fast becoming an aged society, we have chosen to conduct fieldwork in 4 NTUC Fairprice supermarkets in various locations.

Supermarkets as Intergenerational Contact Zones During fieldwork at the supermarkets, we observed differences between weekdays and weekends. During the weekends, supermarkets tend to be frequented more multi-generational members of families. This is expected as most adult children would be working and grandchildren would be at school during weekdays. On weekdays, it was noted that most older people who came to shop purchase not as many items so that they can manage to carry them back on their own. They tend to leave the purchase of bulkier items to the weekends when they are accompanied by their younger family members. When both old and young shop together during the weekends, their family members also assist them with the reading of labels that may be too small or written in English which some older people may not understand. In Singapore, where it is common for older people living at home to be cared for by younger foreign stay-in domestic helpers, it is also not uncommon to observe that they are accompanied by their helpers who assist significantly in their purchases. The form of intergenerational interaction has been observed to vary according to sectional location in the supermarket. At the fresh produce zone, older customers have shown to be more proactive, offering more useful advice to the young who accompanied them. For example, they were able to show their experience with advice on how to choose the freshest products and what are some of the important characteristics to look out for in fresh products. On the other hand, the young are much more confident than some older persons in navigating parts of the supermarkets which sell packaged products such as snacks and drinks. Below are some excerpts from fieldnotes by one of the authors conducted around 4pm at a supermarket during a weekday, showing the intergenerational interaction and different functions of mutual support between the old and young. With the norm for working couples in Singapore, it is not uncommon for grandparents to be taking care of grandchildren during the weekdays, hence the instances of a grandmother doing shopping with her granddaughter here. "I saw a young girl (around 12 years old) with an elderly woman who was presumably her grandmother (in her 60s). The girl was wearing her school uniform so she could be shopping with her grandmother after school. The girl helped to push their own home's trolley for her grandmother throughout and seemed to enjoy pushing it. Sometimes, they will be looking at different products. For example, on one occasion, the grandmother was looking at shampoos while the girl was looking at the Nutella jam. The grandmother told her granddaughter that she could not see the words on the shampoo and did not know how to look and differentiate between the shampoo brands. The girl explained to her grandmother which products are shampoo or hair softeners. At one point, the grandmother said she has made a blunder last time and bought the wrong brand after hearing the girl's description. At the dishwasher section, the auntie [a term commonly used to refer to older woman as a show of respect in Singapore] asked if the products are on offer. The girl helped to check the prices and together they discussed how many products they should buy. They made a few suggestions to each other on the products to by. For example, the auntie asked if they need to buy mineral water and the girl said they can buy apple cordial/ juice. The grandmother usually asked generic questions like how much the products cost, and whether the things being bought are good or nice to eat and drink. Some of the more specific advice given includes teaching the girl to look out for the expiry date of products and telling her that they can buy more of them if the expiry date is far into the future. After they are done shopping at the second level, the girl offered to help calculate the total price of all the goods chosen. She looked at the products in the trolley and ran back to the shelves from which they were taken to check the prices and calculate them on her phone. The girl continued to be helpful even at the cashier, helping to place the bags of goods into their house trolley as the grandmother made payment. " (From fieldnotes: Oct. 5, 2015, 1535 to 1610) Examples such as the fieldnote observations above help illustrate the potential of supermarket to function as ICZs (intergenerational contact zones). Certainly, going shopping with the young helps improve the experience of shopping and solve challenges of inconvenience faced by older persons - such as carrying heavy shopping merchandise, reading labels with small letters on the packaging and so on. However, there are constraints in shopping together with the young, such as difficulty fitting in with each other's time schedules, particularly when they don't live together or close to each other. The increasing norm for older people to live separately from their children may reduce the opportunity to shop together.

Promoting ICZ in Supermarkets Although we have seen that the opportunity for the young and old to shop together as a family justifies consideration of the supermarket as a distinct ICZ, we are encouraged to explore ways to modify certain spaces within the overall supermarket setting to elicit additional intergenerational interaction, learning, and cooperation centered around food and family bonding. We can also envision ways to move beyond generating familial groupings to extra-familial encounters. In the following we suggest several ideas that could serve to bring the generations together and enhance exchanges promoting supermarkets as ICZ for both families and communities: 1. In situ cooking studio: Older persons in the community could offer cooking lessons inside the supermarket with readily available ingredients. Intergenerational interaction can be promoted with classes especially for children and young adults, to Let's Go Shopping Together: Supermarkets as Intergenerational Contact Zones

be taught and supervised by older adults. 2. Intergenerational Day (period): This could be a fun-filled day offering a range of intergenerational activities, promotion specials which bundle items that traditionally appeal to generation-specific groups of shoppers, special discounts for intergenerational pairs, etc. 3. Age-friendly and generations-friendly design in supermarkets: An age-friendly supermarkets would contribute to easier access by older persons and enable more opportunities for shopping alone or together with younger family members. Instead of trying to enhance the generations-friendliness for the entire space, pockets of generations-friendly zone spaces could be created within the supermarket, such as rest spaces with benches for older persons and mothers with babies and stations where merchandize popular for both the old and young are placed side by side. 4. Food conversation hubs: Strategically placed mini-clusters of benches, chairs, and small tables could serve to extend family conversations about which foods to purchase and how to prepare them. Family food conversation cues, with questions such as "Is it healthier to fry or bake?" printed on the tables and signage, could help stimulate such conversations. Seating areas might also be designed to provide families with access to online family-play games with nutrition education themes. Since there are many aspects of food purchasing and preparation that have a family component, supermarket-based interventions that facilitate family learning and cooperation around matters related to food could have a positive ripple effect on family eating practices and overall health.

References Clark, A. (2007, April 28). German Supermarkets Become Senior-Friendly. CBS News (Columbia Broadcasting System News). Harrison, P. (2008). Supermarket Psychology. Retrieved September 6, 2015. Sims, P. (2008, August 29). Tesco reveals Britain's first 'pensioner-friendly' supermarket - with magnifying glasses and seats on trolleys. Daily Mail. Thang, L. L. (March 21, 2010.). A Ray of Hope for Japan's Retail Industry (in Chinese). Lianhe Zaobao. Section 1, p.19.

Authors Leng Leng THANG, William Henry TASLIM, Zheng Hao TAN, Zi Heng WONG, Li Wee HONG National University of Singapore (College of Alice and Peter Tan (CAPT) Capstone project team on "Promoting age-friendly supermarkets")

Let's Go Shopping Together: Supermarkets as Intergenerational Contact Zones

Some Lessons Learned about the Design and Functioning of ICZs In this chapter, we draw from the previous 13 chapters to coalesce some themes in terms of how the concept of Intergenerational Contact Zones (ICZs) can be used to: aid in the study of complex, multi-generational community settings; broaden the range of intergenerational activity possibilities in diverse community settings; and generate innovative ideas for developing intergenerational meeting "spaces" which may be converted into socially meaningful "places."

Overview We began our work on this publication with the primary goal of increasing our understanding of the design and functioning of settings and spaces able to facilitate and promote intergenerational engagement. The primary focus is on Intergenerational Contact Zones (ICZs), spatial focal points for different generations to meet, interact, build shared meaning and relationships (e.g., trust and friendships), and, if desired, work together to address issues of common concern. We aim to highlight some of the main principles and lessons learned with regard to developing effective and innovative ICZs. These preliminary principles are presented not as a rigid set of rules or guidelines, but rather as part of a broader effort to crystallize our understanding of the overall ICZ concept and lay the foundations for exploring new applications for intergenerational living and learning.

Design Principles The following principles include environmental design features, aspects of the design process, and other factors to take into account when designing ICZ spaces. 1. Provide Choice: The inhabitants of ICZ spaces typically appreciate "choice" and the freedom to exercise this choice on their own terms. This includes choice in terms of how much and how to interact with others in ICZs. The emphasis here is that interaction should not be forced. In a park setting, for example, some older adult park users may prefer their intergenerational interactions to be "passive," like sitting and watching children play. 2. Flexibility: ICZ spaces should be flexible enough to accommodate various types of use. Community spaces that tend to function well as intergenerational places tend to be open, welcoming, and evolving rather than static, defensive, and rigid. Flexibility is one of the primary design considerations emphasized by Hatton-Yeo and Melville (2016) in their chapter, Community Centers as ICZs: "Flexibility in the space is crucial in the design of an intergenerational environment that allows for planned and unplanned activity and different levels and types of interaction between the generations." 3. Visibility: Even before entering an ICZ setting, people like to have a sense through visual contact of their intergenerational interaction options upon entry to that particular setting. 4. Activity Layering: In the context of working to improve existing ICZs, this principle refers to layering additional activity options that might broaden or otherwise enhance the intergenerational experience in these settings. 5. Meaningfulness: One way to buttress the social dimension of ICZ settings is to plan activities that help participants to unearth and share their personal experiences, understanding, narratives and the various meanings they ascribe to intergenerational engagement. 6. Tradition and modernity can coexist: There are benefits to designing ICZs that include conventional elements of environmental design and high-tech elements which can generate additional modes of interaction. For example, in the chapter on "Supermarkets as Intergenerational Contact Zones," Thang, Taslim, Tan, Wong, & Hong (2016) describe a hybrid environmental strategy for creating "food conversation hubs" that serve to extend family conversations about which foods to

Some Lessons Learned about the Design and Functioning of ICZs

purchase and how to prepare them. They propose designing these spaces to include physical environmental features, such as mini-clusters of benches, chairs, and small tables, as well as a virtual environmental feature (in the form of online family-play games with nutrition education themes) to facilitate family-based learning and conversations about food and nutrition. 7. Consistency with the goals and objectives of the overall setting: The design of ICZ spaces should reflect the primary objectives of the overall settings in which they exist. For example, the "Intergenerational Reading Rooms" spaces in The Intergenerational Schools in Cleveland, Ohio (noted in the chapter by Whitehouse, Whitehouse, & Sanchez) were designed to provide a welcoming, engaging, reasonably quiet, and semi-private reading and conversation space where students and their adult mentors could learn and grow together in the framework of a school approached as a community of lifelong learners. 8. Plan and organize space in such a way as to facilitate interaction without violating people's need for privacy: For example, Zheng (2016), in her chapter on intergenerational relations and the quest for developing cohesive community lifestyles in co-housing communities, emphasizes how quality of life in these communities also depends on maintaining privacy (and the choice of when and how to find privacy). 9. Planning process matters: Engaging participants in the (design) process was a theme presented in several chapters of this ICZs - Compendium of Applications publication (e.g., Zheng's chapter on co-housing and Azevedo's chapter on a large urban park in Portugal). It is a way to elicit community interest, promote a shared sense of place, and establish a sense of local support in favor of maintaining ICZ spaces as valued components of communal settings. Furthermore, as noted in Hatton-Yeo and Melville's chapter on age-integrated community centers, collaborative approaches to the delivery of services and programming become particularly important during times of shrinking public resources.

Beyond Design Welcoming spontaneity: The challenge of creating communal spaces that function as meaningful, lively, and popular ICZs is not entirely a matter of rational design. In fact, sometimes the appeal of an intergenerational setting has nothing to do with the preliminary design process. For example, the inhabitants of a setting might spontaneously come up with new ideas for how to use the space in intergenerational relationship-enhancing ways. Such occurrences of serendipitous initiation or modification of ICZ spaces are consistent with the principles of "choice" and "flexibility" noted above, and should be seen as a positive complement to intentional planning. It is also a prompt to approach the design of ICZs with an open mindset. In the least, members of the environmental design and development team should consider the question: Does the ICZ design scheme provide "opportunities" and prompts for spontaneous (unanticipated) meetings, informal interaction, and new ideas for developing and using the ICZ space? Another thread of the argument in support of approaching ICZs with an open mindset was underscored in the Introduction (Chapter 1), where it was noted that the inhabitants of ICZ spaces are not passive recipients of environmental influence. As an illustration of this point, consider O'Neill's description of the social ecology of West Lake, a heavily utilized ICZ in Hangzhou, China. She identifies several factors that contribute to the site's success and popularity, such as the inclusion of great amenities that are "age neutral" and then leaving it to park visitors to "follow their own interests" in making choices about which activities to engage in and with whom. "Provide 'amenities' that are age neutral. Beautiful walkways, parks, and gardens provide people with a focal point or means to follow their own interests. Not only can they walk, bike or boat, they can, for example, bird watch or enjoy the ornamental gardens" (O'Neill, 2016).

Transforming mono- and multi-generational spaces into intergenerational spaces: There are many community spaces designed with mono-generational and multi-generational objectives in mind. In this section we share some strategies for weaving an intergenerational component into such spaces. First, we provide brief definitions and examples of each type of space:

• Mono-generational spaces: Refers to community spaces that are designed from a single generation-specific perspective, such as to be "elder-friendly" or "youth-friendly." Emphasis is placed on meeting the needs and interests of a single age group.

• Multi-generational: Refers to designs aimed at enabling and even encouraging the simultaneous presence of people from more than one generation. Tends to include special measures to attract and ensure enhanced accessibility for diverse generations (e.g., public parks playgrounds and fitness areas allowing coexistence of older adults and children within the same space).

Page 2

Some Lessons Learned about the Design and Functioning of ICZs

• Intergenerational: An intergenerational framework for developing communal spaces includes, but goes beyond, multi-generational objectives. Intended emphasis is placed on promoting intergenerational awareness, understanding, interaction, and perhaps even collaborative/joint action: in this case, emphasis is addressed not only to "being together" (i.e., in physical co-location) but also to "interacting together" (i.e., in relationships). Several chapters illustrate efforts to converting mono- and multi-generational spaces into intergenerational spaces. For example, Spencer and Jones (2016), in their chapter, "Can Urban Streets and Spaces be Intergenerational Cycling Zones," describe a number of measures that are taken in some cities to reallocate and redesign road space, solely from motor vehicle use to create space for cycling and walking. Traffic engineering actions such as the widening of lanes, and policies such as inserting slower speed zones in local communities, provide for a more diverse landscape for cycling, one which embraces all ages and abilities. This also makes it possible for residents to use streets as social spaces. For example, the wider streets allow for side-by-side cycling, which makes possible the growth of cycling as a family-oriented recreational activity while maintaining the option of cycling as an efficient, environment-friendly means of practical transportation. It is also relevant to consider the bridging function of ICZs, i.e., how ICZs can provide space and opportunity for the inhabitants of two adjacent mono-generational spaces to meet and engage one another in joint activity. Thang (2015) provides two examples of how ICZ spaces can soften the social and behavioral boundaries between adjacent mono-generational spaces. One is a playground in Singapore which has exercise stations for older persons located on the outskirts of the playground. The other example is a "community café" in Japan (Fukuoka) which draws older people meeting for tea as well as young children and their mothers who spend time in an adjacent play area. Although both sites still accommodate mono-generational activity the ICZs at the spatial intersections of these mono-generational activity nodes add intergenerational socializing options to these settings.

The role of creativity and imagination in creating ICZs: In Bob McNulty's (2016) chapter on arts and cultural institutions ("Culture as Animator of Intergenerational Gathering Places"), he notes that creating great intergenerational gathering places depends not only on their specific design, but also on "how they 'animate' diverse gatherings of young and old to associate and mingle. Through this programming, they become 'civic glue' and reward any location." The challenge of "animating" an intergenerational space is a hard thing to operationalize, particularly since it is not always known when, where, or from whom the creative "spark" will materialize. How about from a 7-year old boy's imagination? Jason Danely (2016), in his chapter entitled, " Imagining a Bus Stop as an Intergenerational Contact Zone," shared his 7-year old son's ideas for redesigning a bus stop so it would be a better place "for grannies and grandpas and little kids and everyone to do more things together." One of his son's provocative, "out of the box" ideas for spicing up the experience of waiting at bus stops is to build giant electronic chess sets into the physical infrastructure of bus stop stands. These sets would have the capacity to generate holograms and audio announcements of the moves.

Paying attention to routines, rituals, and socio-cultural norms: In Zheng's chapter ("Beyond Contact - Intergenerational Living in Cohousing Communities"), she notes that what makes many cohousing communities in the U.S. function so well as intergenerational living environments is not only the ample provision of communal spaces that are (all) age-inclusive and support a wide variety of intergenerational activities (e.g., "common houses," dining rooms, lounge areas, playgrounds and other communal spaces), but also the evolution of social norms, routines, and rituals in influencing how residents perceive and use these communal spaces in relationship-enhancing ways. In O'Neill's chapter ("Intergenerational Gatherings among the Water and Willows"), she notes how West Lake, a large natural park in Hangzhou, China, functions as sort of an epicenter of local music, dance, tai chi, Chinese chess, and other activities that reflect the shared cultural heritage and sense of cultural identity that attract people of all generations, and that invite them to interact.

ICZ as a sensitizing concept: For those who plan and operate intergenerational programs, the topic of intergenerational contact zones provides a reminder to pay attention to the role of the physical environment (natural and built) in influencing how participants - across generations meet, feel about, and find opportunity to get to know one another. It's a conceptual vehicle for thinking spatially about intergenerational engagement. For those who operate in the arenas of environmental design and community planning and development, an incisive look into how ICZs function provides a reminder as well as a trigger to consider psychological, social, institutional, and other factors that affect what takes place in intergenerational settings.

Page 3

Some Lessons Learned about the Design and Functioning of ICZs

Final thoughts The idea of demarcating a set physical space or time for meaningful intergenerational engagement is, in many ways, a complex undertaking. As noted in the "Multiple dimensions of ICZs" summary chart (see Appendix 1), beyond looking at physical characteristics of an ICZ space, such as spatial configuration and functionality, there are many other factors to consider when trying to plan or understand ICZs. Here we are referring to psychological, social, economic, political, institutional (including for site management practices), historical, and a host of other cultural factors that affect what takes place in intergenerational settings. On the psychological or perceptual side, it is reasonable to expect that many people who arrive at an ICZ will have distinct notions about age and intergenerational communication, some of which might entail negative age-related stereotypical thinking. This undoubtedly has an impact on how ICZ inhabitants perceive and feel about one another - Is there (interpersonal and/or generational) interest? Trust? Curiosity? Respect? Patience? The sociocultural context also has a powerful influence on how ICZ spaces may become meaningful places. Socially (and culturally) defined norms, traditions, and values (especially those concerning the understanding and use of public places) affect how inhabitants view and behave within any given ICZ setting. There is also the temporal dimension to consider. The use of a great ICZ space might change over time, with shifting meanings and uses of that particular space. For example, a park space with an amphitheater that is heavily utilized by intergenerational music and dance groups during the day might be seen as a place to avoid during the evening due to safety concerns. Typically, labelling a space as ICZ is something which comes after a sense of place has already been achieved. In principle, any space might be transformed into an ICZ place insofar as intergenerational awareness and practices are infused in meaningful ways. ICZ spaces serve many functions, depending on the setting, the participants, and community and cultural context. For example, ICZs could generate opportunities for: play, exercise, environmental education, community activism, cultural arts education, local history study, caregiving, etc. Therefore, the ultimate challenge is not as much with setting up ICZ places from scratch as it is with transforming already existing spaces into spatial focal points for different generations to relate meaningfully. In large part, transforming and creating successful ICZs is a question of process: we'll need intentionality, know-how and time to make it happen. Like any other intergenerational process, the making of ICZs is a complex endeavor; therefore we should not rely on simplistic notions about the all-good nature of intergenerational encounters. The fact that we intend a harmonious contact to happen in spaces denoted as sites for intergenerational engagement should not overshadow another important fact: there is always a degree of contingency and uncertainty when different generations approach to interact. Nevertheless, as illustrated in the chapters of this Compendium, it is possible to take a balanced approach to creating intergenerational places, recognizing the potential for intergenerational misunderstanding and tension, yet working proactively to establish programs, policies, and environmental design strategies that encourage people to challenge negative age-related stereotypes, learn about one another, communicate in open, relationship-enhancing ways, and act together for the common good.

References Azevedo, C. (2016). A Portuguese city park as a potential intergenerational contact zone. In M. Kaplan, L.L. Thang, M. Sanchez, & J. Hoffman (Eds.), Intergenerational Contact Zones - A Compendium of Applications. University Park, PA: Penn State Extension. Available online. Danely, J. (2016). Imagining a bus stop as an intergenerational contact zone: Enlivening everyday spaces and playing with perspective. In M. Kaplan, L.L. Thang, M. Sanchez, & J. Hoffman (Eds.). Ibid. Hatton-Yeo, A. & Melville, J. (2016). Community centers as intergenerational contact zones. In M. Kaplan, L.L. Thang, M. Sanchez, & J. Hoffman (Eds.). Ibid. McNulty, R. (2016). Culture as animator of intergenerational gathering places. In M. Kaplan, L.L. Thang, M. Sanchez, & J. Hoffman (Eds.). Ibid. O'Neill, P. (2016). Intergenerational gatherings among the water and willows. In M. Kaplan, L.L. Thang, M. Sanchez, & J. Hoffman (Eds.). Ibid. Spencer, B. & Jones, T. (2016). Can urban streets and spaces be intergenerational cycling zones? In M. Kaplan, L.L. Thang, M. Sanchez, & J. Hoffman (Eds.). Ibid. Thang, L.L. (2015). Creating an intergenerational contact zone: Encounters in public spaces within Singapore's public housing neighborhoods. In R. Vanderbeck & N. Worth (Eds.). Intergenerational spaces (pp. 17-32). London, UK: Routledge. Thang, L.L., Taslim, W.H., Tan, Z.H., Wong, Z.H., & Hong, L.W. (2016). Let's go shopping together: Supermarkets as intergenerational contact zones. In M. Kaplan, L.L. Thang, M. Sanchez, & J. Hoffman (Eds.). Page 4

Some Lessons Learned about the Design and Functioning of ICZs

Whitehouse, C., Whitehouse, P., & Sanchez, M. (2016). Intergenerational Reading Rooms: Lessons Learned from The Intergenerational School. In M. Kaplan, L.L. Thang, M. Sanchez, & J. Hoffman (Eds.). Ibid. Zheng, L. (2016). Beyond contact - Intergenerational Living in Cohousing Communities. In M. Kaplan, L.L. Thang, M. Sanchez, & J. Hoffman (Eds.). Ibid.

Authors Matthew Kaplan, Leng Leng Thang, Mariano Sanchez, and Jaco Hoffman

Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences research and extension programs are funded in part by Pennsylvania counties, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Where trade names appear, no discrimination is intended, and no endorsement by Penn State Extension is implied. This publication is available in alternative media on request. Penn State is an equal opportunity, affirmative action employer, and is committed to providing employment opportunities to all qualified applicants without regard to race, color, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, disability or protected veteran status. © The Pennsylvania State University 2018

Page 5

Some Lessons Learned about the Design and Functioning of ICZs

Appendix 1

The Many Dimensions of “Intergenerational Contact Zones” [Revised Jan. 12, 2016]

ICZ (Intergenerational Contact Zone) DIMENSIONS Physical

Temporal

Psychological Perceptual

Cognitive Psychosocial

Features and Examples  Spatial configuration: Includes the creation of intentional focus points or nodes for IG (intergenerational) interaction (as well as pathways for comfortable exit from such interaction).  Spatial features (e.g., artwork, photos and other artifacts) that serve as catalysts for IG understanding and engagement.  Questions to consider: o Functionality of space: Accessibility (incorporation of universal design principles)? Safety? Comfort? Convenience? o Flexibility of design: Can the design accommodate changes over time in user needs, abilities, interests, concerns, etc.? o Is space designed to foster/accommodate unstructured as well as structured IG encounters?  Temporal patterns in how space is used (daily, weekly, yearly patterns of use)  Issues to consider: o Generational differences in daily schedules and usage can pose as potential IG distancing factors. (For example, students are in school during the day, while many older adults tend to engage in senior center and other activities in the morning, lunch time, and early afternoon.) o Older and younger users may also have different weekly and yearly schedules as dictated by school, work or vacation calendars.  Transformation of a space over time (consider relevant socio-historical factors).  Space comes to be perceived as place—experienced, remembered, and conceived place.  Dimensions of place: o Place identity—where personal meaning and memory comes to be associated with places. o Intergenerational place—perceptual shift from my space/place to our space/place. Shared places can be negotiated and designed to encompass multiple layers of shared meaning and experience.  Cognitive understanding of age diversity and place-based possibilities for IG engagement.  Emotional appreciation of age diversity and place-based possibilities for IG engagement.  Patterns of social inclusion/exclusion with regard to generational position.

Appendix 1: The Many Dimensions of ICZs

Sociocultural

Political

Institutional Virtual

Ethical

 Ability to use the environment to pursue desired social contact, relationships, and affiliation within and between generations.  Ability to use the environment to practice and maintain activities consistent with cultural traditions and local heritage.  Sources of potential intergenerational tension might include exclusionary pressures and when places become contested (e.g., changing socioeconomic make-up of a neighborhood might pit new, younger residents against long-time, older residents).  Who is “in charge”? – Social and institutional power structures for making decisions about how a space is developed and sustained/modified over time.  Pathways for participation – Do participants have choice regarding activities?  Policies, regulations, legal issues, etc.  Institutional norms around ages and access (e.g., age requirements for entrance or for seeing certain films/shows).  Online meeting places that provide opportunities for sharing information and experiences.  Cyber ICZs that link to physical ICZs can: o increase the popularity of physical ICZs. o enable and facilitate the use of physical ICZs.  An empowerment orientation: o Provide people with opportunities for contributing meaningful input into the design, development, and evaluation of ICZs. o Provide people with choice with regard to how they utilize ICZ spaces and engage others in these settings. (In a park, for example, some people may prefer their interaction to be “passive,” like sitting and watching children play.) o Interaction should not be “forced.” Communication should be a fluid process, where the dynamics evolve as participants negotiate their respective needs, interests, and perceptions of the setting and of one another.  An intergenerational justice orientation – Access and usage should be attentive to issues of generational equity and fairness.

This was first produced as a handout to support the efforts of the Intergenerational Contact Zone (ICZ) Working Group, a group convened by the Oxford Institute of Population Ageing on June 26, 2015. This resource aims to draw attention to the many factors (e.g., sociocultural, psychological, institutional, economic) that affect how ICZ spaces develop over time, how they function, and how they are perceived by the inhabitants of such spaces. This handout is part of the ICZ working group’s overall effort to crystalize our understanding of the overall ICZ concept and lay the foundations for exploring new applications for intergenerational living and learning. ICZ coordination team: Matt Kaplan (Penn State University, U.S.), Mariano Sanchez (University of Granada, Spain), Leng Leng Thang (National University of Singapore), and Jaco Hoffman (Oxford University, UK and North-West University/Vaal Triangle Campus, South Africa). For more information, contact Matt Kaplan ([email protected]).

Appendix 1: The Many Dimensions of ICZs

Sociocultural

Ability to use the environment to pursue desired social contact, relationships, and affiliation within and between generations Ability to use the environment to practice and maintain activities consistent with cultural traditions and local heritage Sources of potential intergenerational tension might include exclusionary pressures and when places become contested (e.g., changing socio e conomic make-up of a neighborhood might pit new, younger residents against long-time, older residents)

Political

Who is "in charge"? - Social and institutional power structures for making decisions about how a space is developed and sustained/modified over time Pathways for participation - Do participants have choice regarding activities?

Institutional

Policies, regulations, legal issues, etc. Institutional norms around ages and access (e.g., age requirements for entrance or for seeing certain films/shows)

Virtual

Online meeting places that provide opportunities for sharing information and experiences Cyber ICZs that link to physical ICZs can: increase the popularity of physical ICZs enable and facilitate the use of physical ICZs

Ethical

An empowerment orientation: Provide people with opportunities for contributing meaningful input into the design, development, and evaluation of ICZs Provide people with choice with regard to how they utilize ICZ spaces and engage others in these settings. ( In a park, for example, some people may prefer their interaction to be "passive," like sitting and watching children play.) Interaction should not be "forced." Communication should be a fluid process, where the dynamics evolve as participants negotiate their respective needs, interests, and perceptions of the setting and of one another. An intergenerational justice orientation - Access and usage should be attentive to issues of generational equity and fairness.

This was first produced as a handout to support the efforts of the Intergenerational Contact Zone (ICZ) Working Group, a group convened by the Oxford Institute of Population Ageing on June 26, 2015. This resource aims to draw attention to the many factors (e.g., sociocultural, psychological, institutional, economic) that affect how ICZ spaces develop over time, how they function, and how they are perceived by the inhabitants of such spaces. This handout is part of the ICZ working group's overall effort to crystalize our understanding of the overall ICZ concept and lay the foundations for exploring new applications for intergenerational living and learning. ICZ coordination team: Matt Kaplan (Penn State University, U.S.), Mariano Sanchez (University of Granada, Spain), Leng Leng Thang (National University of Singapore), and Jaco Hoffman (Oxford University, UK and North-West University/Vaal Triangle Campus, South Africa). For more information, contact Matt Kaplan ( [email protected] ).

Appendix 1: The Many Dimensions of ICZs

Suzanne Hammad

Research fellow and author [ "Senses of place in flux: a generational approach," International Jl. of Sociology and Social Policy, 31 (9/10), 555-568]

Affiliated with INTRAC (International NGO Training and Research Centre at Oxford) and Sch. of Sociology, Social Policy and Social Work, Queen's Univ. Belfast, UK [email protected]

Atulya Saxena

M.D., Doctoral student [Thesis: Globalization, Health and Ageing]

Oxford Institute of Population Ageing

[email protected]

Paul Ayernor

AFRAN Research Officer and Doctoral student

Oxford Institute of Population Ageing

[email protected]

Leng Leng Thang [participated via Skype]

Associate Professor, Japanese Studies. [Emphasis areas: cultural anthropology, intergenerational relationships, social gerontology, migration]

Department of Japanese Studies, National University of Singapore

[email protected]

Individuals joining the ICZ workgroup/listserve after the June 2015, Oxford Inst. of Population Ageing meeting. Name

Current position

Affiliation

E-mail

Emanuela Bianchera

Knowledge Management Specialist

United Nations Children's Fund, Office of Research Innocenti (UNICEF)

[email protected]

Tim Jones

Senior Research Fellow, Department of Planning, Oxford Institute for Sustainable Development

Oxford Brookes University

[email protected]

George Leeson

Co-Director of the Oxford Institute of Population Ageing, and Fellow of the Galton Institute, Senior Research Fellow, Kellogg College

Oxford Institute of Population Ageing

[email protected]

Bob McNulty

President, Partners for Livable Communities (PLC)

PLC (Washington, D.C.)

[email protected]

Julie Melville

TREC Research Manager (University of Alberta), and European Projects Manager/Associate (Beth Johnson Foundation)

University of Alberta and Beth Johnson Foundation

[email protected]; [email protected]

Tom Quinlan

[works on castle restoration and repurposing projects]

Projects in Traskernagh and Loughrea (county of Galway, Ireland). Also works with Suzuki/Morgan Architects, Ltd. (Honolulu, HI) [email protected]

Tom Scharf

Professor of Social Gerontology, Institute of Health Society, and Newcastle University Institute for Aging

Newcastle University (Newcastle upon Tyne, UK)

Page 2

[email protected]

Appendix 2: ICZ Workgroup Participants

Ben Spencer

Urban Design Researcher, School of the Built Environment

Catherine Whitehouse

Chief Educator and Founder, The Intergenerational Schools (TIS) TIS

cwhitehouse@ tisonline. org

Peter Whitehouse

President, Intergenerational Schools International (ISI)

ISI

[email protected]; [email protected]

Eyu Zang

M.Arch graduate student [Thesis: Challenging Age-Segregated Spaces: Designing Schools to Foster Intergenerational Living ]

National University of Singapore

[email protected]

Lisia Zheng

Doctoral student, Anthropology (UC Berkeley) [Thesis: Community, Design the Anthropology of Sharing: A Study of American Cohousing], and Visiting Scholar, Penn State (2015-16)

UC Berkely. Also affiliated with Penn State University (Department of Agricultural, Economics, Sociology, and Education)

[email protected]

Oxford Brookes University

[email protected]

Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences research and extension programs are funded in part by Pennsylvania counties, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Where trade names appear, no discrimination is intended, and no endorsement by Penn State Extension is implied. This publication is available in alternative media on request. The University is committed to equal access to programs, facilities, admission, and employment for all persons. It is the policy of the University to maintain an environment free of harassment and free of discrimination against any person because of age, race, color, ancestry, national origin, religion, creed, service in the uniformed services (as defined in state and federal law), veteran status, sex, sexual orientation, marital or family status, pregnancy, pregnancy-related conditions, physical or mental disability, gender, perceived gender, gender identity, genetic information, or political ideas. Discriminatory conduct and harassment, as well as sexual misconduct and relationship violence, violates the dignity of individuals, impedes the realization of the University’s educational mission, and will not be tolerated. Direct all inquiries regarding the nondiscrimination policy to Dr. Kenneth Lehrman III, Vice Provost for Affirmative Action, Affirmative Action Office, The Pennsylvania State University, 328 Boucke Building, University Park, PA 16802-5901; Email: [email protected]; Tel 814-863-0471. © The Pennsylvania State University 2016

Appendix 2: ICZ Workgroup Participants