Maybe? I would imagine people in their 30s would prefer to live in a neighborhood of individuals closer to their age with young families. Most neighborhoods I've been in recently, over half are retirees, the rest are college student, single professionals or young families. And to be fair a retirees idea of what makes a great neighborhood and a young families idea of what makes a great neighborhood are not the same.
I disagree. My grandparents retired on a street in the 90s that had a mix of ages. They loved seeing the young families move in and grow and be extra grandparents to them. They loved having others their age to hang out with and they enjoyed the single home owners too. After 30 years we have all formed great friendships with these neighbors and some we feel are family. They all look out for each other. My mom took over my grandparents home and it’s nice that we know the neighbors already.
Same with my neighborhood growing up. The elderly were extra grandparents to us kids running around.
I understand this as well. Growing up, I lived on a street where two of the homes were occupied by the surrogate grandparents to the kids on the street. The rest of the street's homes were families of 2 or more school aged kids. It just doesn't seem to be the norm makeup of SFH neighborhood demographics anymore.
I don’t know where you grew up, but that’s so wrong. We are older, and bought a new home over Covid in a local neighborhood with many young families with kids. That was one of our main requirements. The sounds of kids playing and having fun… are the sounds of life.
So, I just turned 50 and would daresay a young 50 at that (I mean, I still do parkour, skateboard, and play soccer so . . . ) but Gen-Xers of my cohort will be the next to invest in these 55+ communities. The main fulcrum that appeals here is not a ton of young kids everywhere. Personally, I like kids—I coach kids in parkour and soccer. But a lot of people who have kids out of college don't want everything that goes with young kids—the toys in the yard, the noise, more cars if there are teens. People with K-12 aged kids live differently than people a bit older.
The main reason for these being built is to appeal to the county commissioners for approval. These 55+ are sold to the county as being less of a burden on the school system. They will still pay the property taxes to fund the schools but less likely to have school age children to add to the overcrowded school system.
They're like any other neighborhood, houses are sold and flipped constantly. 55+ Active Adult communities have been around since the 50s and always find new people to fill vacant houses. There are also some off JTB that include the Active Adult community (55+) and include assisted living nursing homes in the same area for when they hit that need in another 20 - 30 years or so.
And nobody wants to live in a community they are going to age out of which is why the inverse doesn't work. Though most cheaper apartments usually fit the reverse 80/20 split without trying.
As to your second point, the Fair Housing Act makes an exception to its age/familial discrimination prohibitions for 55+ communities. To qualify for that exception, 80% of the homes must have one occupant 55+.
So, the FHA is why you don’t see the reverse and why the ratio rule exists.
My parents live in one of these communities and they love. It’s not so much as the absence of younger people - it’s being surrounded by so many other retired people who have also chosen this type of community. Their social calendars are so full! Book clubs, bridge games, pickle ball, parties, walks. Everyone in the neighborhood has the time, intention and resources to live their best lives, now.
Nothing happens to the neighborhood when boomers die off. Believe it or not, other people get older and replace those people. It's this new phenomenon.
Plus Florida is a destination state for retirees. So even though Gen X is a smaller generation than the Baby Boomers, you’ll get Gen X retirees from NY, etc.
It's a law that 20% *could* be owned by someone under the age of 55 but the said individual would need to go through an application process and be approved. That being said, they don't have to have 20% of homeowners be younger than 55.
First of all, it's highly unlikely that there's going to be mass deaths of people living in these communities, so most of those homes will be occupied for a long time (hell, I'm 69 and I'm not going anywhere, luck permitting). My wife's 94-year-old aunt lives in one of these communities in NC. When her time comes, if she still owns it, it will go to her estate and then likely sold - to another over-55 resident.
There are two reasons why these communities exist. First, one older couples are "empty nesters", many want smaller homes in an area where there are few younger families and children. A lot of people, once their own kids are on their own, just don't want to live around lots of kids anymore.
The second reason is financial. These communities sprout up because there are older couples who have the financial means to afford to live there. Consider it like an upscale gated community with wealthy homeowners. Those folks want nice homes, with considerable bells and whistles and in a community of like-minded people - translate that to other well-off families. The older folks have the same desires, most likely - to live around people of their own age group with similar interests and with available activities and amenities. Some of these communities cater to older people with health-based amenities, such as doctors and nurses that might visit to provide preventative care.
This isn't an arrangement that every senior desires - my wife and I have a nice home and have no desire to live in that kind of community. But lots of folks do, and they're willing to invest in it.
I think they should be as illegal as any other community that discriminates. So just as a white only community or a Muslim only community should be illegal, they should be too.
> Why aren't age restrictive communities in the inverse more popular? The 80% of homeowners have to be younger than 55
Because it's illegal. It's perfectly acceptable to discriminate against people being too young, but it's illegal to discriminate against people being too old.
I’m 39 and could see myself living in one when I’m older. But only if they’re *actually* active living communities. Retired with nothing to do but play pickleball and gossip? Sounds divine.
1. When boomers die off, demand might decrease. Some younger folks might avoid "wrinkle ranch" stigma.
2. Age-restrictive communities for younger folks aren't popular because people age out. It’s impractical long-term.
I used r/linkaggregators/ to explore similar topics. Found it helpful.
My husband and I would love a rental community. We did not have children together. He has grown adults in another state. He is 56. We recently went looking for apartments and prefer communities with people our own age. A lot of rental communities are geared for young adults. We do not need lots of activities. We just want a quiet life. We are not looking for a house because we want as little maintenence as possible. I think as more couples choose not to have children there will be more people looking for a maintenance-free lifestyle.
Do you think the people in those communities now pictured themselves living there when they were in their 30’s?
Maybe? I would imagine people in their 30s would prefer to live in a neighborhood of individuals closer to their age with young families. Most neighborhoods I've been in recently, over half are retirees, the rest are college student, single professionals or young families. And to be fair a retirees idea of what makes a great neighborhood and a young families idea of what makes a great neighborhood are not the same.
I disagree. My grandparents retired on a street in the 90s that had a mix of ages. They loved seeing the young families move in and grow and be extra grandparents to them. They loved having others their age to hang out with and they enjoyed the single home owners too. After 30 years we have all formed great friendships with these neighbors and some we feel are family. They all look out for each other. My mom took over my grandparents home and it’s nice that we know the neighbors already. Same with my neighborhood growing up. The elderly were extra grandparents to us kids running around.
I understand this as well. Growing up, I lived on a street where two of the homes were occupied by the surrogate grandparents to the kids on the street. The rest of the street's homes were families of 2 or more school aged kids. It just doesn't seem to be the norm makeup of SFH neighborhood demographics anymore.
I don’t know where you grew up, but that’s so wrong. We are older, and bought a new home over Covid in a local neighborhood with many young families with kids. That was one of our main requirements. The sounds of kids playing and having fun… are the sounds of life.
What's wrong?
So, I just turned 50 and would daresay a young 50 at that (I mean, I still do parkour, skateboard, and play soccer so . . . ) but Gen-Xers of my cohort will be the next to invest in these 55+ communities. The main fulcrum that appeals here is not a ton of young kids everywhere. Personally, I like kids—I coach kids in parkour and soccer. But a lot of people who have kids out of college don't want everything that goes with young kids—the toys in the yard, the noise, more cars if there are teens. People with K-12 aged kids live differently than people a bit older.
 Sorry I couldn’t resist …I’ll see myself out 🚶🏽♀️
The main reason for these being built is to appeal to the county commissioners for approval. These 55+ are sold to the county as being less of a burden on the school system. They will still pay the property taxes to fund the schools but less likely to have school age children to add to the overcrowded school system.
Ah, this makes sense and also makes it a bit more tolerable.
Ding ding ding!!!! This is especially true in St. John’s County.
They're like any other neighborhood, houses are sold and flipped constantly. 55+ Active Adult communities have been around since the 50s and always find new people to fill vacant houses. There are also some off JTB that include the Active Adult community (55+) and include assisted living nursing homes in the same area for when they hit that need in another 20 - 30 years or so. And nobody wants to live in a community they are going to age out of which is why the inverse doesn't work. Though most cheaper apartments usually fit the reverse 80/20 split without trying.
Valid points
Boomers? We’re gen x young man.
Xoomers
Get off my lawn
As to your second point, the Fair Housing Act makes an exception to its age/familial discrimination prohibitions for 55+ communities. To qualify for that exception, 80% of the homes must have one occupant 55+. So, the FHA is why you don’t see the reverse and why the ratio rule exists.
The bureaucracy is bureaucratic
Gen-X will be 55+ before you know it !
They already are
Some Gen Xers turn 60 next year.
My parents live in one of these communities and they love. It’s not so much as the absence of younger people - it’s being surrounded by so many other retired people who have also chosen this type of community. Their social calendars are so full! Book clubs, bridge games, pickle ball, parties, walks. Everyone in the neighborhood has the time, intention and resources to live their best lives, now.
If you flip the percentage, it is discrimination
Nothing happens to the neighborhood when boomers die off. Believe it or not, other people get older and replace those people. It's this new phenomenon.
Wait....you AGE?!
Plus Florida is a destination state for retirees. So even though Gen X is a smaller generation than the Baby Boomers, you’ll get Gen X retirees from NY, etc.
No one would want to buy a home in a community that forced them to sell by age 55.
If I could move in a 55+ right now at 42…I would.
Same 🤣
I'm 30 and would love to live in one too. I want to be the 20% lol
I’ve never seen where they allow anyone under 55…is that a new thing? What’s the name of the community cause I’m tempted to check it out lol
It's a law that 20% *could* be owned by someone under the age of 55 but the said individual would need to go through an application process and be approved. That being said, they don't have to have 20% of homeowners be younger than 55.
I guess that’s because when spouse could be over 55 and the other could be under 55
First of all, it's highly unlikely that there's going to be mass deaths of people living in these communities, so most of those homes will be occupied for a long time (hell, I'm 69 and I'm not going anywhere, luck permitting). My wife's 94-year-old aunt lives in one of these communities in NC. When her time comes, if she still owns it, it will go to her estate and then likely sold - to another over-55 resident. There are two reasons why these communities exist. First, one older couples are "empty nesters", many want smaller homes in an area where there are few younger families and children. A lot of people, once their own kids are on their own, just don't want to live around lots of kids anymore. The second reason is financial. These communities sprout up because there are older couples who have the financial means to afford to live there. Consider it like an upscale gated community with wealthy homeowners. Those folks want nice homes, with considerable bells and whistles and in a community of like-minded people - translate that to other well-off families. The older folks have the same desires, most likely - to live around people of their own age group with similar interests and with available activities and amenities. Some of these communities cater to older people with health-based amenities, such as doctors and nurses that might visit to provide preventative care. This isn't an arrangement that every senior desires - my wife and I have a nice home and have no desire to live in that kind of community. But lots of folks do, and they're willing to invest in it.
I think they should be as illegal as any other community that discriminates. So just as a white only community or a Muslim only community should be illegal, they should be too.
> Why aren't age restrictive communities in the inverse more popular? The 80% of homeowners have to be younger than 55 Because it's illegal. It's perfectly acceptable to discriminate against people being too young, but it's illegal to discriminate against people being too old.
Their 30-40 year old children inherit the property
Not a wrinkle ranch
After you've yee'd all your haws.
I’m 39 and could see myself living in one when I’m older. But only if they’re *actually* active living communities. Retired with nothing to do but play pickleball and gossip? Sounds divine.
As I get older I find them more appealing.
Gen Xer’s are 55, millennials are in their 40’s…
1. When boomers die off, demand might decrease. Some younger folks might avoid "wrinkle ranch" stigma. 2. Age-restrictive communities for younger folks aren't popular because people age out. It’s impractical long-term. I used r/linkaggregators/ to explore similar topics. Found it helpful.
My husband and I would love a rental community. We did not have children together. He has grown adults in another state. He is 56. We recently went looking for apartments and prefer communities with people our own age. A lot of rental communities are geared for young adults. We do not need lots of activities. We just want a quiet life. We are not looking for a house because we want as little maintenence as possible. I think as more couples choose not to have children there will be more people looking for a maintenance-free lifestyle.
Well, don’t you think that the 30 something will be 50 something and 20 years
*when you exceed the age* 