Ideal communal living in later life

The announcement this week that a ‘reimagined Almshouse’ has won the the Stirling Prize for Architecture, is great news. It shows that architects are focusing on the challenge of offering better designed communal living for a better life experience. The judges declared it was ‘a provision of pure delight’.

By chance, I happened to have booked a visit to Charterhouse in the City of London this week, which included not only an inside look at the Great Hall and ancient monastic cloister, but also a glimpse of the outside of the almshouses and inside the communal dining room. 

Charterhouse almshouses and school were founded and funded in 1611 using a legacy provided by Thomas Sutton, once reckoned to be England’s richest lay person. He made his money in coal, property, money lending and arms sales, but was a very pious man, who dedicated himself to good deeds in later life.

The almshouses were available for up to 80 single men (no women until 2017!) who were eligible as ‘poor brothers’ if they could demonstrate they were ‘either decrepit or old captaynes either at sea or at land, maimed or disabled soldiers, merchants fallen on hard times, those ruined by shipwreck or other calamity’. These ‘poor brothers’ were often second or third children of the gentry who would not inherit, so not what we would call poor today.

Today there are 40 ‘brothers’, consisting 11 women and 29 men presently; all single and all in need of social and financial help. Anyone can apply, not just local borough residents, and those selected are chosen due to ‘need and ability to fit in’, according to our guide.

The interesting thing about the accommodation is that it is quite spacious by today’s co-living standards, consisting of a small apartment for each person. To this day, the accommodation, now consisting of more modern blocks as well as earlier houses, is generous and well designed. Apparently the newer accommodation is preferred by the residents, as it’s better planned.

An Ideal Model for Later Living?

Alms houses appeared in many parishes, funded by local benefactors and charitable organisations, and it seems today, that the model is still favoured.

Times may have changed, with lots of talk about co-living and house sharing, but when philanthropic funds are available, and social rather than financial needs of a project are to the fore, then an alms house type of building and community emerges it seems.

It is a shame that charities and philanthropic donations are still required to change the project priorities, rather than commercial developers seeing the opportunity. 

If this type of communal housing has stood the test of time and provides both social well-being and longer, happier life (research suggests), then isn’t it worth the investment? People will pay for a ‘good’ place to live and cost/benefit to wider society would be a good bargain too.

Part of the community?

Two things that differ between the Charterhouse vision for alms houses and todays reimagined alms house stand out for me.

Firstly is the eligibility terms. Charterhouse was for a select few who had ‘fallen on hard times’ but could come from anywhere in England, whereas the Appleby Blue Almshouse is for people who have lived in the Bermondsey area for more than 3 years. No question either, that women and couples are included these days.

Secondly, the Appleby Blue Almshouse consciously invites the outer world into it’s space; a shared space. The Charterhouse alms houses grew out of a monastic location, where monks stayed in their cells most of the time – also generously housed in small apartments, rather than one room.

Both of these develops are to be welcomed. It’s just a shame there are not many more examples of this, as it seems like a good model for later living.