Last week I completed my training to become an Eden Alternative Associate, and I could not have predicted the immense value of this course! The principles of the Eden Alternative are sound, humanitarian principles that we should all be striving to follow, but Eden goes much further than just a declaration of values!

What I truly respect about my Eden Alternative training is it’s focus on implementation. The course used effective, interactive, confidence building exercises to teach the Eden principles and empower the attending service management to use these same techniques to educate their own staff teams. The Eden Alternative is being visionary in its focus on action as opposed to just philosophy.

I recently began reading this study called Insights and Innovations done by the American Institute of Architects Design for Aging Advisory Group. It is a summary of all the projects that were entered in the yearly AIA DFA design competition.

The executive summary is just four pages and definitely worth a read as it outlines some of the themes on the cutting edge of design for aging.

For me the big take-away was that design for aging is moving in the direction of the principals of smart growth. This includes design elements such as: connecting facilities to the local neighborhood, intergenerational developments that are not JUST for seniors and access to public transportation.

There was also an emphasis on holistic health in the new facilities designs. This would include building features like cross ventilation, physical connections to nature and rooms for a variety of daily activity choices.

This news segment is a great example of the how one senior care facility is preparing for the boom of baby boomers into senior care. They are using the principals of The Eden Alternative, which basically maintains that “the three plagues of loneliness, helplessness, and boredom” are as important to address as illness and disease.

The report goes on to discuss architectural changes that are being made to the facility to better reflect the Eden Alternative philosophy. In this case the changes are layout changes that involve organizing the rooms of individuals into nine-unit “homes.”

There are of course many ways to support the principals of the Eden Alternative architecturally. Here are five that come to mind:

1. Give living units a “front door.” The front door can open onto a common space or habitable hallway that sees a high amount of activity coming and going. Ideally the living unit would have a personal space outside the front door large enough for a holiday display or a rocker.
2. Give living units a “back door.” A unit’s back door should open to the outside (and we should come up with ways to achieve this even in memory units) to give each resident a personal outdoor space. Again ideally, this personal outdoor space could have a gate allowing for personal control but also allowing access to a larger common outdoor space.
3. At least one amenity such as the dining area, activity room, game room etc. could be split in to pods so as to make that activity available in EACH “neighborhood” of living units. This helps residents develop a smaller more intimate sense of community around a daily activity.
4. There could be a place for visiting children to play in each neighborhood of living units. This would mean that a child’s visit would benefit more residents than just the one being visited.
5. Just as architects are charged with hiding the workings of computers and AV equipment, we should also do our best to conceal the necessary technologies used for healthcare. These tools, while necessary, can make a place feel like a hospital and not like a home.

I can thank my mother for sending me the link about The Eden Alternative. It’s a great example of how senior care and senior housing is important to ALL of us. My mom started reading about the Eden Alternative after a senior housing conversation that we had together.

I was recently given a tour of an assisted living facility that one of my family members is staying in. The design of the the facility was done with comfort and familiarity in mind, which might lead some architects to call the design “quaint.”

The label of “quaint” misses the point however. The facility is very attractive and comfortable to the generation who will be using it. The facility is relatively new and a far cry above many older facilities in that it does not feel institutional, foreboding, or sterile. The arrival sequence is very welcoming and the common and private facilities all feel “homey” or comfortable. These traits are obviously very important when someone my grandparents’ age makes the decision to move out of their own house (of over sixty years) and into a new environment.

The organization of the facility was quite thoughtful, and I enjoyed learning my way around. The building plan hinges around a central double height public dining room. The major circulation for the building passes within the same open space as the dining room, giving residents the option to pass by and watch, or participate. The front entrance, library, salon, activity rooms, community living room, and main offices all also open into the dining space. With this plan arrangement, there always seems to be activity to observe from the central area.

The building layout also encloses a courtyard for the residents that surely must be a flurry of activity during warmer weather.

I am still trying to understand how facilities like this are regulated. The facility that I toured was private, and thus, I believe the facility didn’t need to adhere to the different “level of care” standards that state funded facilities adhere to. I need to study this more to make sure I understand it properly.