TIME recreation

Inside the ‘Surprise House’ on Governors Island

Laura Parker

Something mysterious is happening inside an abandoned house a stone's throw from Manhattan

At first glance, the only way to distinguish the crumbling Governors Island residence from its colonial neighbors is a small sign on the front door bearing a bright orange question mark — but this is no ordinary house.

Free and open to the public every weekend during summer, the Surprise House is one of the latest projects to take advantage of the island’s growing public programs. An immersive, multi-sensory “experience,” each room has been designed to appeal to the viewer’s curiosity. It’d be cheating to reveal much more — just think of it like a haunted house without the haunted, where cheap tricks or tawdriness have been replaced with down-the-rabbit-hole delights. It’s the work of New York consulting company Surprise Industries, who took up residency inside House 7A last month.

“We want people to feel like children again, exploring and discovering every nook and cranny,” says Surprise Industries co-founder Tania Luna.

Although the concept is similar to other immersive theatrical experiences like Sleep No More and Then She Fell, there are no actors or behind-the-scenes goings-on in the house. People enter in groups of five or six and are left to explore at their own pace. Luna says she didn’t want the house to feel too exclusive. “A lot of similar experiences in New York are built up because they’re so hard to get into,” she says. “We wanted our house to be accessible.”

To achieve this, Luna enlisted the help of NYU grad school student Adrienne Carlile. Carlile is currently studying theatre costume and set design — unlike her previous projects, this one called for an environment people would feel comfortable touching. “On stage, you work with actors who are told very clearly, ‘Do not touch anything unless it is your prop,’” Carlile tells me on the day I visit the house. “This is the exact opposite. I had to find objects that appeared delicate without looking off-limits.”

It’s a testament to Carlile’s skill that it takes a while to for this to sink in. It took me five minutes to shake off my initial reverie, and another five before I found the courage to reach out and tentatively poke something. Curiosity and exploration is vital; sometimes, you can only leave a room once you’ve found the door to the next one. Celebrating this kind of ambiguity is one of the reasons Surprise Industries exists. “Adults can become too serious,” Luna says.

Luna founded the company in 2008 with her sister, Kat. They began curating surprises for small groups with varying budgets — everything from trapeze classes to musical saw lessons. When this became financially unsustainable, they switched to public surprises, charging $25 a head, and corporate team-building activities for private companies. Last year, they learned of plans to give abandoned houses on Governors Island — once officers’ homes during the island’s days as a military base — to different artistic and cultural organizations to create free public programs. They applied, and were granted a summer residency.

Although the houses are free, some have been abandoned for more than twenty years. Luna, Carlile and Surprise Industries director Carolyn McCandlish spent a week peeling crumbling plaster from the walls before they could officially move in. They used money raised during a Kickstarter campaign to buy furniture and props.

Luna is waiting for me on the porch when I finally wander out. She asks for my thoughts.

“I think I need some time to process everything,” I say, truthfully.

She smiles. “Everyone says that.”

Surprise House, located at Nolan Park, No. 7A on Governors Island, is open every weekend from August 16 to September 14 from 1pm-5pm. Cost: free.

MONEY home prices

America’s ‘Gayborhoods’ Are a Lot More Expensive, a Lot Less Gay

Castro Street in San Francisco is decorated in rainbow flags and balloons for Gay Pride month.
Castro Street in San Francisco. Cammie Toloui—Alamy

What becomes of a trendy gay neighborhood when housing prices soar and straight people move in?

As gay acceptance has risen over the years, gay people have increasingly moved away from historically gay neighborhoods, such as the Castro in San Francisco and Chicago’s Boystown. Simultaneously, more and more straight individuals and couples have felt comfortable enough to move into these neighborhoods. As a result, many gay neighborhoods—call them “gayborhoods”—aren’t nearly as gay as they used to be.

That’s the gist of a new book called There Goes the Gayborhood? by Amin Ghaziani, an associate professor of sociology at the University of British Columbia. His research traces the changing face of gay neighborhoods and explores the implications of these shifts in cities around the U.S.

For instance, from 2000 to 2012, the number of same-sex couple households increased in nearly every neighborhood in Seattle, with one glaring exception: Capitol Hill, described as the “center of the city’s gay and counterculture communities,” according to Wikipedia, experienced a 23% decrease in same-sex households over the same time span, the Seattle Times noted.

“This isn’t unique to Seattle,” Ghaziani explained. As gays have moved far beyond gayborhoods to other parts of cities and into small towns and the suburbs, a “straightening” has taken place in neighborhoods like Capitol Hill.

Much of Ghaziani’s research is based on Chicago’s Boystown, where he lived for nearly a decade, and where the idea for the book was born. “My friends and I began to notice changes in the character and composition of the neighborhood,” he said to the Chicago Tribune “We’d notice more straight couples holding hands and more baby strollers. That became a symbol. Oftentimes a sex store would close and a nail salon would open in its place.”

The shifting demographics must be viewed as a sign of growing acceptance—that of straight people in traditionally gay neighborhoods, and of gay people throughout the land. Still, many of the sources quoted in Ghaziani’s book worry that the blurred lines could mean that much of what makes a gayborhood special will disappear. In an op-ed he wrote recently, Ghaziani quoted Dick Dadey, who was the executive director of Empire State Pride Agenda in the 1990s, explaining, “there is a portion of our community that wants to be separatist, to have a queer culture.” Still, Dadey said, “most of us want to be treated like everyone is,” and, “we want to be the neighbors next door, not the lesbian or gay couple next door.”

Then there are the financial implications of all of these shifts. “It’s impossible to discuss gay neighborhoods without considering economic factors like rent and housing prices,” Ghaziani said in an email to MONEY. He pointed out some data from Trulia in the book showing that several traditionally gay neighborhoods, like West Hollywood and New York’s West Village, are extremely expensive places to live.

Meanwhile, according to 2013 report from Trulia, prices in urban U.S. neighborhoods have been increasing at a faster pace than the suburbs, and prices soared in gay-friendly city neighborhoods in particular:

Neighborhoods where same-sex male couples account for more than 1% of all households (that’s three times the national average) had price increases, on average, of 13.8%. In neighborhoods where same-sex female couples account for more than 1% of all households, prices increased by 16.5% – more than one-and-a-half times the national increase.

These numbers are backed up by other research, such as that highlighted earlier this year by Richard Florida, the celebrated urban theorist and author of The Rise of the Creative Class. In a City Lab post, Florida summed up recent research indicating “a connection between gay neighborhoods and some of the markers of gentrification,” and that “neighborhoods that began the decade with larger concentrations of gay men saw greater income growth, and, especially in the Northeast, greater population growth as well.”

Ghaziani writes, “I don’t think gayborhoods are dying.” But Florida doesn’t sound quite as convinced, writing, “As these areas of the city continue to change, potentially pricing out some of the gay couples who moved in decades ago, gayborhoods could just as easily become a thing of the past.”

MONEY Millennials

The 15 Most Affordable Cities for Millennials

Greeting Card from Augusta, Georgia. ca. 1943
Universal Images Group (Lake County Discovery Museum)—Alamy

Finding an affordable place to live is one of the biggest challenges for millennials. This list should make it easier.

Last week, we told you about the 15 most expensive cities for millennials to live in based on a recent study by RealtyTrac. This week, we bring you the other side of the story: the 15 areas that are the most affordable, and the most attractive, to young people.

To quickly review how this list came to be, RealtyTrac ranked counties with at least 100,000 people by the percentage of median income one needs to spend in order to make a median housing payment or pay an average rent bill on a three-bedroom property. To make sure these cities are actually places young people would want to live, the company only included areas where millennials make up at least 24% of the population, and where the percentage of millennials has increased over the past six years.

So which area wins the most-affordable crown? It depends if you’re renting or buying. As is often the case, renting is significantly more expensive than making payments on purchased property. The best county for buyers—Richmond County, Georgia, which includes the city of Augusta—will cost an owner 10% less of their median income than if they were renting in Bossier Parish, Louisiana, the most affordable area for leasing.

For renters, Bossier Parish, home to Bossier City, will cost about 20% of the area’s median income. Average rent on a three-bedroom is a paltry $943. There aren’t as many familiar names on this list as its less affordable cousin, but some relatively major cities do make an appearance. Dane County, ranked ninth, includes Madison, Wisconsin; a beautiful city that also houses one of the nation’s top universities. Franklin County, home to to Columbus, Ohio, also offers a great city for millennials to live. Minneapolis, Minnesota’s Hennepin County even squeaks in at number 14.

Those willing to purchase a home are going to see a very different ranking. While Baltimore and Philadelphia are some of the least affordable places to rent, they’re actually one of the more affordable cities for buyers. Philadelphia County and Baltimore City rank 5th and 6th respectively, and payments will cost buyers around 14% of their area’s median income. Other highlights are Milwaukee, Minnesota, which comes in 9th, and Columbus’s Franklin County, which makes another, more highly ranked appearance.

Want the whole list? Here it is:

TIME cities

The Rise of Suburban Poverty in America

Rooftops in suburban development in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
Rooftops in suburban development in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Blend Images/Spaces Images/Getty Images

The suburbs aren't the middle-class haven many imagine them to be as new numbers show 16.5 million suburban Americans are living beneath the poverty line

Colorado Springs is often included on lists of the best places to live in America thanks to its 250 days of sun a year, world-class ski resorts and relatively high home values. But over the last decade, its suburbs have attained a less honorable distinction: they’ve experienced some of the largest increases in suburban poverty rates.

The suburbs surrounding Colorado Springs now have seven Census tracts with 20% or more residents in poverty, according to a report released Thursday by the Brookings Institution. In 2000, it had none. In those neighborhoods, 35% of residents are now considered to be below the poverty line, defined as a family of four making $23,492 or less in 2012.

“We’ve seen this all over the state,” says Kathy Underhill of Hunger Free Colorado, a statewide anti-hunger organization, referring to the growth of suburban poverty. “But I think the American public has been slow to realize this transition from urban poverty to suburban poverty.”

Poverty in the U.S. has worsened in neighborhoods already considered to be poor, but it’s now becoming more prevalent in the nation’s suburbs, according to the Brookings report.

“Poverty has become more regional in scope,” says Elizabeth Kneebone of the Brookings Institution and a co-author of the report. “But at the same time, it’s more concentrated and it’s erased a lot of the progress that we made in the 1990s.”

In the last decade, the number of Census tracts considered “distressed” — in which at least 40% of residents live in poverty — has risen by almost 72%. The number of poor people living in those neighborhoods has grown by an even faster rate—78%—from 3 million to 5.3 million. In 2000, the percentage of poor people who live in economically distressed neighborhoods was 9.1%. Today, it’s 12.2%.

Those areas are leading to what Kneebone calls a “double burden” for impoverished residents—being poor while living in a low-income area that often has failing schools, inadequate healthcare systems and higher crime rates. And as those areas are increasingly located in suburban areas, low-income Americans don’t have the kind of social safety nets often found in urban centers.

The numbers of suburban poor are growing at a more rapid rate than those in urban areas. In 2012, there were 16.5 million Americans living below the poverty line in the suburbs compared with 13.5 million in cities. The number of suburban poor living in distressed neighborhoods grew by 139% since 2000, compared with a 50% jump in cities. Overall, the number of poor living in the suburbs has grown by 65% in the past 14 years—twice as much growth as in urban areas.

It’s easy to pin the growth of concentrated and suburban poverty on the recession, but the spread of poverty throughout the U.S. has broader and more varied explanations. The numbers of suburban poor have been swelled by low-income residents who might once have lived in urban cores, but have been priced out of gentrifying cities, and have moved into affordable housing more prevalent in the suburbs.

Suburban areas also tend to be centered around industries most affected by the economic downturn, like manufacturing and construction, and the jobs that have taken their place are often low-paying, like retail and service positions.

There are also few social programs to help the suburban poor ascend the economic ladder. In the counties surrounding the Denver and Colorado Springs area, for example, many charitable organizations and anti-poverty programs have historically been focused on urban cores and haven’t caught up to changing demographics.

“The charitable infrastructure over the decades have focused on the inner city,” says Underhill of Hunger Free Colorado. “They’ve traditionally not had big case loads and aren’t accustomed to the level of service that’s needed.”

The Brookings report highlights a few suburbs that have seen decreases in poverty, including those around El Paso, Texas; Baton Rouge, La.; and Jackson, Miss. But they were outliers. In North Carolina, three suburban areas—Winston-Salem, Greensboro-High Point, and Charlotte—saw significant increases in both the number of economically distressed neighborhoods and the percentage of poor in those areas. Atlanta now has 197 areas with poverty rates above 20%, up from 32 in 2000.

“Suburban areas are no longer just homes to middle- and upper-income households,” says University of New Hampshire demographer Ken Johnson. “There were always poor suburbs, but much of the outflow of population from urban cores to suburbs has historically been middle- and upper-income. That is less true now.”

Kneebone agrees, saying the perception that suburban areas were some sort of middle-class haven “was always a bit too simplistic.”

“Poverty is touching all kinds of communities,” Kneebone says. “It’s not just over there anymore.”

MONEY The Economy

For the Fed, There’s Only One Excuse Left to Keep Rates Low

Aerial view of housing development
David Zimmerman—Getty Images

The economy and inflation have now risen to levels where the Fed has to start thinking about raising rates. The only excuse left: the weaker-than-expected housing market.

The pressure is mounting on the Federal Reserve to start raising interest rates — and Fed chair Janet Yellen is running out of excuses.

On Wednesday, the Fed announced that it would keep short-term interest rates near zero and would continue to gradually taper its stimulative bond-buying program as the economy improves. No surprise there.

But the chatter for the Fed to stop coddling the economy really heated up Wednesday morning.

That was when a new government report showed that, after hitting a speed bump in the snowy first quarter, the economy really sped up between April and June. Gross domestic product grew at an annual rate of 4.0% in the second quarter.

What’s more, the government went back and revised some of its estimates for prior quarters. Uncle Sam now believes the economy grew well above the normal 3% rate in three out of the past four quarters.

“With this morning’s GDP release,” says James Paulsen, chief investment strategist and economist at Wells Capital Management, the “is-the-Fed-behind-the-curve fears among investors are increasingly evident.”

The GDP report included preliminary measures of inflation that might not sit well with Wall Street’s inflation hawks.

In the second quarter, the so-called personal consumption expenditure index, which is the Fed’s preferred measure of inflation, grew 2.3%. If you strip out volatile food and energy costs, core PCE still rose 2%. UBS economist Maury Harris notes that this represents a big jump from the 1.2% pace of core inflation in the first quarter. Plus, 2% is the target that the Fed has openly set for inflation.

While the actual level of inflation today may not be so worrisome, the ability to fight inflation after the fact is, says Guy LeBas, chief fixed-income strategist at Janney Montgomery Scott. “The challenge with inflation is that there’s a very long lag between policy and price pressures, so a Fed concerned with inflation 12 to 24 months down the road needs to start acting now to protect against the prospect.”

Three years ago, the Fed drew another line in the sand. The Fed back then said that it would not think about raising rates until the national unemployment rate fell to 6.5%. Back then, policy makers thought that this would not transpire until around 2015. However, the unemployment rate fell below this level in April and is threatening to fall below 6%.

US Unemployment Rate Chart

US Unemployment Rate data by YCharts

In recent months, as the Fed has tried to explain why it won’t hike rates soon despite rising inflation and falling unemployment, Yellen introduced a new reason altogether: housing.

In mid July, in a monetary policy report delivered to Congress, Yellen said:

The housing sector has shown little recent progress. While it has recovered notably from its earlier trough, activity in the sector leveled off in the wake of last year’s increase in mortgage rates, and readings this year have, overall, continued to be disappointing.

Later on in the report, Yellen noted that the lack of traction in the housing sector is probably preventing the labor market from reaching its full potential:

Even after rising noticeably in 2012 and the first half of 2013, real residential investment remains 45 percent below its pre-recession peak. The lack of a rapid housing recovery has also affected the labor market: Employment in the construction sector is still more than 1.6 million lower than the average level in 2006.

In announcing its rate decision on Wednesday, the Fed’s Federal Open Market Committee reiterated that while economic growth in general appears to be returning, “the recovery in the housing sector remains slow.”

The irony is that the two things that are likely to get the housing market on track are low mortgage rates and an improving job market.

To achieve the latter, the Fed is keeping rates low. Yet to achieve the former, the Fed needs to show the bond market that it is serious about combatting inflation. And the worst way to do that is keep rates low.

There, in a nutshell, is Janet Yellen’s conundrum.

MONEY home prices

Case-Shiller Index Shows Home Price Growth Slowing

Home prices increased at their slowest pace since February 2013, according to the latest report on the S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Index.

The index, which compiles a 10- and 20-city composite of home prices, showed the 10-city composite posted price gains of 9.4% year-over-year, while the 20-city group showed gains of 9.3%. Both results were significantly lower than the 10.9% and 10.8% year-over-year increases the respective composites showed last month, and much less than the 9.9% gains analysts expected from the 20-city index.

All 20 cities posted some month-to-month price gains before seasonal adjustment, but 14 of 20 saw prices decline once seasonal factors were taken into account.

This is the second bit of bad news for home-sellers this month. On Monday, the National Association of Realtors reported that pending home sales dropped 1.1% in June, and were down 7.3% since June of 2013. Lawrence Yun, the NAR’s chief economist, blamed tight credit, low inventory, and flat wages for the decline. However, Yun predicted sales would increase slightly in the second half of the year, partially because price appreciation has slowed.

“Housing has been turning in mixed economic numbers in the last few months,” said David M. Blitzer, chairman of the Index Committee at S&P Dow Jones Indices. “Prices and sales of existing homes have shown improvement while construction and sales of new homes continue to lag. At the same time, the broader economy and especially employment are showing larger improvements and substantial gains.”

Of the 20 cities measured by the Case-Shiller index, Charlotte was the only area to see its annual growth rate improve. Las Vegas experienced some slowdown in price appreciation, but remained the city with the fastest price growth (16.9% YOY), followed by San Francisco (15.4% YOY). Washington had the lowest year-over-year growth at 5.8%.

TIME Venezuela

Armed Forces Push Residents Out of ‘World’s Tallest Slum’

As part of a governmental initiative, squatters are being removed from their residences by armed forces.

+ READ ARTICLE

On Tuesday, Venezuelan armed forces began the process of forcing out residents at the Tower of David, the nation’s tallest slum, the government’s “Great Housing Mission.”

The 45-story building, originally built to be a high-rise bank, was never completed and abandoned, then taken over by people in need of shelter.

Prior to the start of the evacuation, the slum acted as home to over 3,000 squatters, many of whom have resisted their removal. The building is also home to businesses including a beauty salon, multiple bodegas, and an unlicensed dentist.

TIME housing

4 Charts That Will Totally Ruin Your Saturday

Housing development under construction on farmland, aerial view.
Housing development under construction on farmland, aerial view. Ryan McVay—Getty Images

If you’re waiting to sell your house because you think prices will continue to rise, don’t

fortunelogo-blue
This post is in partnership with Fortune, which offers the latest business and finance news. Read the article below originally published atFortune.com.

The housing recovery that began in 2012 came on almost as quickly and forcefully as the real estate crash that preceded it.

The combination of low interest rates, investor interest, and good, old-fashioned confidence conspired to cause a rapid and vigorous turnaround in home prices after years of tumbling or stagnant home values. But a number of key metrics suggest that the party is over, and any future home price appreciation will be slow and steady from here on out. Here are four charts showing why the housing recovery has ended:

1. Price-to-rent ratios are near their long-term average. Price-to-rent ratios are an important housing indicator that can tell you whether the housing market is overvalued. During the housing bubble, this metric skyrocketed, as speculative fever led people to believe that housing prices would always rise. But the fact that rent rates didn’t rise with purchase prices should have been a warning that the underlying demand for shelter hadn’t increased as much as the demand for owning property as an asset. As you can see, price-to-rent ratios have snuck up above their historical averages, meaning that home values are already a little pricey relative to rents in many markets.

Screen Shot 2014-07-18 at 11.51.55 AM

2. Homeownership rates are also near their long-term average.In the decades leading up to the housing bubble, politicians pushed policies that would increase the homeownership rate. The theory was that homeownership gave people a vested interest in the economy and in their neighborhoods, and that would lead to greater prosperity. But giving out credit to those who didn’t have the wherewithal to afford a home was one factor that led to the failure of the subprime mortgage market. It’s likely, now that policy makers are more aware of the dangers of pushing homeownership, that those rates will remain in the 64% or 65% historical average.

Screen Shot 2014-07-18 at 11.34.22 AM

For the rest of the story, go to Fortune.com.

MONEY The Economy

Think the Fed Should Raise Rates Quickly? Ask Sweden How That Worked Out

Raising interest rates brought the Swedish economy toward deflation Ewa Ahlin—Corbis

Some investors are impatient for the Fed to raise interest rates. They may want to be a little more patient after hearing what happened to Sweden.

If you’re a saver, or if bonds make up a sizable portion of your portfolio, chances are you’re not the biggest fan of the Federal Reserve these days.

That’s because ever since the financial crisis, the nation’s central bank has kept short-term interest rates at practically zero, meaning your savings accounts and bonds are yielding next to nothing. The Fed has also added trillions of dollars to its balance sheet by buying up longer-term bonds and other assets in an effort to lower long-term interest rates.

Thanks to some positive economic news — like the recent jobs report — lots of people (investors, not workers) think the Fed has done enough to get the economy on its feet and worry inflation could spike if monetary policy stays “loose,” as Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher recently put it.

If you want to know why the argument Fisher and other inflation hawks are pushing hasn’t carried the day, you may want to look to Sweden.

Like most developed nations, Sweden fell into a recession in the global financial crisis. But unlike its counterparts, it rebounded rather quickly. Or at least, that’s how it looked.

As Neil Irwin wrote in the Washington Post back in 2011, “unlike other countries, (Sweden) is bouncing back. Its 5.5 percent growth rate last year trounces the 2.8 percent expansion in the United States and was stronger than any other developed nation in Europe.”

Even though the Swedish economy showed few signs of inflation and still suffered from relatively high unemployment, central bankers in Stockholm worried that low interest rates over time would lead to a real estate bubble. So board members of the Riksbank, Sweden’s central bank, decided to raise interest rates (from 0.25% to eventually 2%) believing that the threat posed by asset bubbles (housing) inflated by easy money outweighed the negative side effects caused by tightening the spigot in a depressed economy.

What happened? Well…

Per Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman in the New York Times:

“Swedish unemployment stopped falling soon after the rate hikes began. Deflation took a little longer, but it eventually arrived. The rock star of the recovery has turned itself into Japan.”

And deflation is a particularly nasty sort of business. When deflation hits, the real amount of money that you owe increases since the value of that debt is now larger than it was when you incurred it.

It also takes time to wring deflation out of the economy. Indeed, Swedish prices have floated around 0% for a while now, despite the Riksbank’s inflation goal of 2%. Plus, as former Riksbank board member Lars E. O. Svensson notes, “Lower inflation than anticipated in wage negotiations leads to higher real wages than anticipated. This in turns leads to many people without safe jobs losing their jobs and becoming unemployed.” Svensson, it should be noted, opposed the rate hike.

image (8)
Sweden

Moreover, economic growth has stagnated. After growing so strongly in 2010, Sweden’s gross domestic product began expanding more slowly in recent years and contracted in the first quarter of 2014 by 0.1% thanks in large part to falling exports.

As a result, Sweden reversed policy at the end of 2011 and started to pare its interest rate. The central bank recently cut the so-called “repo” rate by half a percentage point to 0.25%, more than analysts estimated. The hope is that out-and-out deflation will be avoided.

So the next time you’re inclined to ask the heavens why rates in America are still so low, remember Sweden and the scourge of deflation. Ask yourself if you want to take the risk that your debts (think mortgage) will become even more onerous.

MONEY Aging

Americans Want to Age in Place, and Your Town Isn’t Ready

Households headed by 70-year-olds will surge 42% by 2025. Who will drive them to the store?

The graying of the American homeowner is upon us. The question is: Will communities be ready for the challenges that come with that?

The number of households headed by someone age 70 or older will surge by 42% from 2015 to 2025, according to a report on the state of housing released last month by the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, or JCHS.

The Harvard researchers note that a majority of those households will be aging in place, not downsizing or moving to retirement communities. That will have implications for an array of support services people will need as they age.

But the housing age wave comes at a time when federal programs that provide those supports are treading water in Washington. Consider the signature federal legislation that helps fund community planning and service programs for independent aging, the Older Americans Act. The OAA supports everything from home-delivered meals to transportation and caregiver support programs—and importantly, helps communities plan for future needs as their populations get older.

States and municipalities use the federal dollars they receive via the OAA to leverage local funding. The law requires reauthorization every five years, a step that has been on hold in Congress since 2011. Funding has continued during that time, with one exception: During sequestration in March 2013, OAA programs were cut by 5%; many have since been reversed, but other cuts now appear to be permanent.

A survey last year by the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging (NAAAA), which represents local government aging service providers, found that some states had reduced nutrition programs, transportation services and caregiver support programs.

Recovery since then has been uneven, according to Sandy Markwood, chief executive officer of the NAAAA. “In some cases, states made up the differences, but many programs still are not back to pre-sequestration levels.”

But here’s the more critical point: Even if all the cuts had been restored, treading water wouldn’t be good enough in light of the challenges communities will soon face.

“From a planning perspective, putting in place things like infrastructure and transportation services takes time,” Markwood says. “We don’t have the luxury of time here.”

Indeed, aging of communities is shaping up as a signature trend as the housing industry continues its slow recovery after the crash of 2008-2009.

Young people typically drive household formation, but the Harvard study notes that millennials haven’t shown up in big numbers because of the economic headwinds they face. Real median incomes fell 8% from 2007 to 2012 among 35- to 44-year-olds, JCHS notes, and the share of 25- to 34-year-old households carrying student loan debt soared from 26% to 39%. Meanwhile, home prices have been jumping, and qualifying for mortgage loans remains difficult.

Millennials eventually will account for a bigger share of households as more marry and start having families, according to the study. But for now, boomers are the story.

The oldest boomers start turning 70 after 2015, and the number of these households will jump by 8.3 million from 2014 to 2025. Most will be staying right where they are. Mobility rates (the share of people who move each year) typically fall with age: Less than 4% of people over age 65 moved in 2013, compared with 21% of 18- to 34-year-olds and 12% for those 35 to 45.

Mobility has been on a downward trend since the 1990s, and the housing crisis accelerated the trend, according to Daniel McCue, research manager at JCHS.

Aging in place could create problems in suburbs, which are designed around driving, McCue says. “People are going to need a more distributed network of services for transportation, healthcare and shopping in the suburbs. They’ll need some way to get to services or for the services to get to them.”

There is one possible silver lining in this story: The needs of aging-in-place seniors could spur better community planning. If so, the elderly won’t be the only group that benefits.

“When you do things to make roads safer or increase public transportation, or add volunteer driver programs, that’s good for everyone in the community,” Markwood says. “It’s not a zero-sum game.”

Related story: Why Most Seniors Can’t Afford to Pay More for Medicare

Related story: The State of Senior Health Depends on Your State

Your browser, Internet Explorer 8 or below, is out of date. It has known security flaws and may not display all features of this and other websites.

Learn how to update your browser
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 45,401 other followers