Environments for Aging - Spring 2018 - 47

To that end, some interiors showcased a bold
mix of patterns and colors, finishes, and textures,
occasionally even reading as what Maddalena
dubbed "glam" that was sometimes successful
and other times didn't feel at home in a project's
geographic context. Additionally, high-design
hospitality elements were more welcomed in
common areas.
"Many felt hospitality worked best with shorterterm programs such as rehab and hospice," says
Tom Gears, president of SWBR (Rochester, N.Y.).
"Hospitality-themed common areas in independent living, assisted living, skilled nursing, and
memory care that promoted intergenerational and
community engagement seem appropriate. But
many felt hospitality responses within the residential zones of communities were at the expense of
comfort, familiarity, and warmth."

Coming together
As for those common areas, projects this year
showed owners and their design teams dialing up
amenities spaces in a major way. There were coffee shops and bistros, fitness centers and game
rooms, salons and spas, wine rooms and pubs.
But was it too much? The jurors think so.
"This year's entries seemed to be all about
more amenity and larger common areas rather
than opportunities for more intimate spaces or
spaces that can flex and share program elements.
There were examples of large bistros filled with
tables and chairs across the way from a large pub
with almost the same tables and chairs. One can
imagine looking across at empty spaces, when
they could have been combined to serve coffee
during the day and cocktails at night," Billig says.
In addition to possibly detracting from
the vitality of a community,
jurors also noted that

over-building amenity space also translates to too
much non-revenue-generating square footage
and more expensive projects. "I'm a firm believer
that commons areas should be smaller and
multifunctional, so there's activity seen and felt
all day. I see some of that, but there are still a lot
of dedicated rooms for your typical senior living
programming. What was refreshing was seeing
commons spaces developed for internal and external uses involving the surrounding community,"
Maddalena says.
In fact, those efforts were visible throughout projects. Communities frequently included
spaces such as theaters and event pavilions that
could host activities for residents as well as the
greater community, from staging theatrical performances to inviting in the local high school band.
"What excited me most was the recognition that
this can add such a life-giving element to the
campus," Lindsey says. "That said, I'm not sure
we're quite there in terms of execution. We saw
designs that included theaters for the community
to use, but they only seated 20 people. We saw
others that were sized appropriately but didn't
have access to parking."
Tammy Sealer, chief administrative officer at
Immanuel (Omaha, Neb.), agrees, further noting
that there were few details offered on whether
the efforts were successful or planned appropriately. "There were certainly efforts in this area on
the architectural and design side. However, very
few applications shared how they were actually
used. Most projects seemed to employ the
philosophy 'If we build it, they will come'
versus strategically or operationally building programs and then
designing spaces to enhance or
grow those programs."

Forward thinking
Several jurors remarked
that this year's submissions,
overall, exhibited incremental
changes-no radical innovation but progress nonetheless.
However, there were some
misses. "There

wasn't much innovation in unit design," Sealer
says. "This is especially true of bathrooms at all
levels of care. Additionally, there were very few
mentions of technology innovations in apartments or common areas." And while aesthetics were dialed up, Maddalena says he wasn't
seeing enough about how those spaces actually
work. "The space might be beautiful, but how is
it functional for the daily activities of the users?"
he says.
Also worth noting, Lopez says, is a project's
starting point-for example, a long-term care
project that renovated an institutional space into a
household model, although with some shortcomings remaining in the end. "That is a tremendous
change and very innovative for that community.
The innovation is the ability to move from where
you are to the best that you can become given
your project parameters," she says.
There were some, though, that truly pushed
the needle forward. The Rooster Woodshop,
an Award of Merit winner submitted by RLPS
Architects and RLPS Interiors, delivered a unique
and next-level hobby space for the woodworking
residents of Masonic Village in Elizabethtown, Pa.
Another was Village Point Commons, a finalist
submitted by AG Architecture, which delivered
what jurors saw as a sort of co-housing experiment. The project offers IL residents a "casetta"
option: a four-cottage home with a connected
shared communal area in the center, where
residents can gather collectively or use the space
for private events.
Additional concepts applauded
by jurors include the overall interiors, especially the agelessness
presented across care levels, as
well as elements of sustainable,
biophilic, and wellness-oriented
design and design solutions that
were truly of the greater community-both aesthetically and
programmatically. "These were all
evidence of real innovations that
will continue to keep us moving
forward," Lindsey says. EFA

This year
design teams
dialed up amenity
spaces in a major way.

Jennifer Kovacs Silvis is editor-inchief of Environments for Aging. She
can be reached at jennifer.silvis@
emeraldexpo.com.

Spring 2018 * EFAmagazine.com 47

http://www.EFAmagazine.com

Environments for Aging - Spring 2018

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Environments for Aging - Spring 2018