Introduction

Intergenerational Public Space Design and Policy: A Review of the Literature

“…While interest in intergenerational practice has grown, research on the role of the physical environment in promoting or inhibiting intergenerational interaction has been lacking (Kaplan et al 2007;Cushing and van Vliet 2016). Where studies have focused on physical environments, they have tended to prioritize meeting various age-related needs rather than fostering engagement across age groups (Kaplan et al 2007(Kaplan et al , 2020b. Additionally, intergenerational practitioners tend not to be design professionals, while design professionals tend not to focus on intergenerational interaction (Kaplan et al 2007).…”

“…Building upon this work, Kaplan et al (2020b, 3) offer a definition of intergenerational contact zones 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." The authors clarify that such zones are not deterministic environments; users play an active role in producing these spaces and shaping their capacity to support intergenerational engagement (Kaplan et al 2016(Kaplan et al , 2020b. Others emphasize that intergenerational contact zones are not simply the product of environmental design, but of the social processes and practices of different users that embed these spaces with meaning (Sanchez and Stafford 2020; Tham, Jones, and Quinlan 2020).…”

“…Despite acknowledgement that the spatial segregation of generations into same-age environments hinders their ability to interact, understand, and learn from one another (Cortellesi and Kernan 2016;Puhakka, Poikolainen, and Karisto 2015), some scholars have argued that, within intergenerational practice, the built environment has generally not been the focus of scholarly attention (Kaplan et al 2020b). When research has focused on the built environment from an intergenerational perspective, it has examined primarily institutional settings and formal, indoor environments and activities, rather than shared, outdoor public spaces (Cushing and van Vliet 2016;Kaplan et al 2020b;Kaplan and Haider 2015;Washington et al 2019). Thus, there is a need to better understand how to develop, design, and program outdoor public spaces for intergenerational interaction (Washington et al 2019).…”

“We should all feel welcome to the park”

“…City Space Architecture / UN-Habitat IPS approaches bridge age-and child-friendly cities approaches to produce public spaces that support the needs of and foster relationships among different age groups (Biggs and Carr, 2015;Kaplan et al, 2020). They are distinct from monogenerational and multigenerational approaches as they seek to create shared spaces that address agebased needs, but also support meaningful interaction among different age groups (Kaplan et al, 2007;Thang and Kaplan, 2012).…”

“…Scholars studying IPS caution that success requires more than co-located community and recreational facilities and programs for youth and older adults. The framework of "intergenerational contact zones" has emerged as a means of translating the goals of IPS into practice, moving beyond co-location to creating interactive environments for youth and older adults (Thang, 2015;Kaplan et al, 2020). The literature presents design, procedural, and policy approaches to support generational interaction in public space.…”