Conferences & Events
Competitions + Grants
Career Center
Conferences & Events
Competitions + Grants + Awards
Membership
© 2024 Interior Design Educators Council
In today’s rapidly evolving society, the importance of multigenerational communication cannot be overstated. As technological advancements reshape the way we interact and communities become increasingly diverse, bridging the gap between different age groups becomes paramount.
Each generation brings with it a unique set of experiences, perspectives, and values. The exchange of ideas and knowledge across generations not only enriches individual lives but also strengthens the fabric of society as a whole.
Multigenerational communication fosters understanding, empathy, and mutual respect. It enables younger generations to learn from the wisdom and lessons of their elders, while older generations gain fresh insights and perspectives from the youthful energy and innovation of the
younger ones.
Moreover, intergenerational connections serve as a source of support, companionship, and solidarity. They break down barriers, combat ageism, and promote inclusivity, creating cohesive communities where everyone feels valued and heard.
In a world that often emphasizes differences, multigenerational communication serves as a powerful reminder of our shared humanity and interconnectedness. It is through these meaningful exchanges that we can build a brighter, more inclusive future for generations to come.
“The built environment of intergenerational facilities, where both youth and elders receive services, can either foster or discourage social interaction; it influences children’s development as well as elders’ health and well-being. The spatial design of these facilities further impacts the quality of the social interactions that take place there, as well as the associated outcomes.” (Norouzi et al., 2019)
The challenge of creating spatial designs that foster “children’s development” as well as “elders’ health and well-being. “… the physical environment is designed to accommodate the physical and psychological needs of people across the age and ability spectrum, there has been less consideration of ways to create environments that afford opportunities for meaningful engagement…” (see Kaplan et al., 2007). However, many focused on the activities not the spatial elements of the venues which can impede the development and well-being aforementioned (for example, obstructed sight lines, see Norouzi et al., 2019).
A place of intergenerational communities and activities. This sheltered interior space, either indoor or outdoor, should support the development of children and young adults, as well as the health and well-being of elders. The design must address people’s physical and psychological needs across the age and ability spectrum while providing opportunities for meaningful engagement. Key requirements include a gathering space that can comfortably accommodate up to 15 people for communal activities such as workshops, social gatherings, and group exercises, and a small gathering space for more intimate interactions, promoting deeper connections. Adequate storage is essential to keep the area organized and accessible, along with a designated space for an under-counter refrigerator to support food-related activities.
A fully accessible bathroom must cater to the needs of all users, including those with mobility challenges. A flex room should also be included, adaptable for various purposes such as a quiet reading area, playroom, or private meeting space. Design considerations should ensure the space is easily navigable for individuals with varying levels of mobility, featuring wide doorways, ramps, and non-slip flooring. Clear sight lines are crucial for supervision and interaction, creating a sense of safety and connectedness. Comfort should be prioritized with appropriate lighting, acoustics, and ventilation. The space should also incorporate elements that encourage interaction and engagement, such as shared activity stations, interactive displays, and flexible seating arrangements. Finally, foster an inclusive atmosphere where everyone feels welcome and valued, with design elements that reflect the diverse needs and preferences of
different age groups.
Location: A place in your existing community
Time: Current Day or near future
Scope: Maximum 70 square meters
The competition is open to interpretations of community space. You can either choose an existing indoor or outdoor venue, or you can propose a temporary installation that can be relocatable or reproducible in other locations.
Users: Children and young adults (K-12 to college students) interacting with elders (ages 55 and older)
Create a permanent or temporary sheltered interior “environment” for intergenerational connection.
Research topics relevant to intergenerational design, wellness, and inclusion as related to the
narrative that your team creates. The following areas should be explored:
Research should be evident in the narratives, conceptual description, and design outcomes, ensuring that the final design promotes wellness and inclusion for all generations.
Within the poster your submission must include:
Each project must adhere to these requirements:
To be considered for judging in the IDEC Student Design Competition, all entries must abide by all the competition rules.
All drawings, diagrams, and other visual items are expected to be executed to the highest level of craft. All writing must be free of spelling and grammar errors. Quotations or support images must be properly cited.
Due to the variety of studio schedules, the overall timeline for this competition is two full weeks, regardless of times or length of classes. It is suggested students work both inside and outside of the studio as they so need or desire to accomplish the goals of the competition, with the first part of the competition devoted to research and the second for design and execution; however that is divided up to studio teachers. Feedback should be given after the first part to ensure the student is on track, and the final poster should be submitted to the instructor in PDF format at the end of 14 days. Students are encouraged to read the referenced articles noted but should also do first person research on this via observation, interviews, or other inquiry.
There will be 3 categories for winning entries, for a total of 9 teams recognized.
COMMUNITY/2-YEAR PROGRAM
4-YEAR PROGRAM
GRADUATE PROGRAM
In the case of a tie or limited entries in any categories, the final jury reserves the right to adjust awards accordingly.
Question: Is a canopy that is affixed to the structure and overhangs deep enough to provide for a few outdoor chairs be considered within the “envelope”? Similarly, if the student had a cantilever beam or pergola off the structure with seating underneath, would this count in the SF?
Question: Are there any parameters on wall widths? Are they included in the 70 square meter limit?
Literature for Intergenerational Design:
Campbell, N. M. (2014). Designing Retirement Community Third Places: Attributes Impacting how Well Social Spaces are Liked and Used. Journal of Interior Design, 39(4), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1111/joid.12035
Kaplan M, Haider J, Cohen U, Turner D (2007) Environmental design perspectives on intergenerational programs and practices. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships 5(2): 81-110. https://doi.org/10.1300/J194v05n02_06
Kopec, D. (2018). Environmental Psychology for Design:-with STUDIO. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/environmental-psychology-for-design-9781501316838/
Nelischer, C., & Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (2023). Intergenerational public space design and policy:
A review of the literature. Journal of Planning Literature, 38(1), 19-32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412222109217
Norouzi N, Chen J-C, Ja rrott S, Satari A. Designing Intergenerational Spaces: What to Learn From Children. HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal. 2023;16(2):174-188. doi:10.1177/19375867221138929
Norouzi, N., Jarrott, S., & Chaudhury, H. (2019). Designing Intergenerational Space through a Human-development Lens. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 36(1), 35–51. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26949372
Rogers A, Taylor A (1997) Intergenerational mentoring: A viable strategy for meeting the needs of vulnerable youth. Journal of Gerontological Social Work 28(1-2):125-140. https://doi.org/10.1300/J083v28n01_15
Lyndon, S., Moss, H. Creating Meaningful Interactions for Young Children, Older Friends, and Nursery School Practitioners within an Intergenerational Project. Early Childhood Educ J 51, 755–764 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-022-01330-5
Literature for designing for the Elderly:
Balcerzak, B., Kopeć, W., Nielek, R., Warpechowski, K., & Czajka, A. (2017). From close the door to do not click and back. Security by design for older adults. arXiv (Cornell University). https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.1708.07752
Bianco, L. (2020). Universal design: from design philosophy to applied science. Journal of Accessibility and Design for All, 10(1), 70–97. https://doi.org/10.17411/jacces.v10i1.249
Cevallos, N., Ramadhani, W., Lindgren, J. U., Bell, B. M., Martinez‐Cosio, M., Harvey, T., Nanda, U., & Wilson, G. M. (2023). (St)aging in place: Information and communication technologies for a health-centered agile dwelling unit. Frontiers in Public Health, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1057689
Crews, D. E. (2022). Aging, frailty, and design of built environments. Journal of Physiological Anthropology, 41(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40101-021-00274-w
Eckstein, S. M. (2020). Elderly care: current issues and challenges. Nova Science Publishers.
Gomes, G. P. R., Rubin, S., Duker, L. I. S., Benton, D., Kratky, A., Chen, S. Y. A., Jordan‐Marsh, M., & Gotsis, M. (2020). Healing spaces: feasibility of a multisensory experience for older adults with advanced dementia and their caregivers. arXiv (Cornell University). http://arxiv.org/abs/2007.02083
Joshi, S., Stavrianakis, K., & Das, S. (2020). Substituting Restorative Benefits of Being Outdoors through Interactive Augmented Spatial Soundscapes. arXiv (Cornell University). https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2007.13188
Kopeć, W., Skorupska, K., Jaskulska, A., Abramczuk, K., Nielek, R., & Wierzbicki, A. (2017). LivingLab PJAIT: Towards Better Urban Participation of Seniors. arXiv (Cornell University). https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.1707.00030
Ling, T., Lu, H., Kao, Y., Chien, S., Chen, H., & Lin, L. (2023). Understanding the Meaningful Places for Aging-in-Place: A Human-Centric Approach toward Inter-Domain Design Criteria Consideration in Taiwan. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health/International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(2), 1373. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20021373
Mauri, D., Kampletsas, Ε., Smyris, G., Tsali, L., Tsekeris, P., Harissis, H. V., Kamposioras, K., Tolia, M., Hyphantis, T., Ntellas, P., Gazouli, I., Zarkavelis, G., Mavroeidis, L., Amylidi, A., Torounidou, N., Gogadis, A., & Nixon, J. (2021). Interior Design: A New Perspective in Supportive Care of Patients with Acute Onset of Debilitating Diseases. Palliative Medicine Reports, 2(1), 365–368. https://doi.org/10.1089/pmr.2021.0031
Najafi, P., & Mohammadi, M. (2024). Redefining Age-Friendly neighbourhoods: Translating the promises of blue zones for contemporary urban environments. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health/International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 21(3), 365. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph21030365
Schiavo, G., Mich, O., Ferron, M., & Mana, N. (2020). Trade-offs in the design of multimodal interaction for older adults. Behaviour & Information Technology, 41(5), 1035–1051. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929x.2020.1851768
Singh, D., Kropf, J., Hanke, S., & Holzinger, A. (2017). Ambient Assisted Living Technologies from the Perspectives of Older People and Professionals. In Lecture notes in computer science (pp. 255–266). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66808-6_17
Thakur, N., & Han. (n.d.). A REVIEW OF ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING OF ELDERLY. In Elderly care: current issues and challenges.
Tually, S., Coram, V., Faulkner, D., Barrie, H., Sharam, A., James, A., Lowies, B., Bevin, K., Webb, E., Hodgson, H., & Cebulla, A. (2022). Alternative housing models for precariously housed older Australians. AHURI Final Report, 378. https://doi.org/10.18408/ahuri3225201
While, Z., Crouser, R. J., & Sarvghad, A. (2024). GerontoVis: Data Visualization at the Confluence of Aging. arXiv (Cornell University). https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2403.13173
Zanella, A., Mason, F., Pluchino, P., Cisotto, G., Orso, V., & Gamberini, L. (2020). Internet of things for elderly and fragile people. arXiv (Cornell University). https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2006.05709
The Hogeweyk is a neighborhood with 27 houses, each accommodating 6-7 residents with advanced dementia. It provides a home-like environment rather than a traditional nursing home setting. Dementia is a growing problem, and the traditional nursing home approach often adds confusion to the already confused state of residents. The Hogeweyk aims to create a normalized environment that caters to the needs and preferences of the residents. The Hogeweyk organizes residents into “lifestyle groups” based on their backgrounds, interests, and daily routines, allowing them to live with like-minded individuals and maintain a sense of familiarity and community. Residents are encouraged to engage in social activities, go shopping, visit the pub, and interact with each other and the community, fostering a sense of belonging and purpose.