Australia’s housing system is at a crossroads. As pressure mounts to deliver more homes to a growing and ageing population, it’s time we challenge some deeply ingrained ideas, particularly the notion of the ‘forever home’ and the way we interpret ‘ageing in place’. These concepts, while emotionally comforting and culturally familiar, are increasingly at odds with the urgent need to make better use of the land we have.

The ‘forever home’ is a romantic ideal that has long shaped the Australian dream: a detached house on a large block where one settles down for life. This vision was attainable in the mid-20th century, when land was cheap, cities were smaller, and the population was less mobile. But the world has changed. Cities are growing, housing is scarce, and demand for well-located homes far exceeds supply. Holding on to the idea that homes should last forever – and that people should stay in them forever – is creating a bottleneck in our housing market.

Instead, we should see housing as part of a lifecycle, not a destination. Land use must evolve in response to the needs of communities. Just as neighbourhoods grow, shrink and change over time, so too should the buildings and types of homes that occupy them. A street once filled with detached homes on quarter-acre blocks may need to transition to a mix of townhouses, low-rise apartments, or seniors housing. But this evolution is frequently stymied by rigid zoning, community resistance to density, and policy frameworks that favour preservation over adaptation.

Nowhere is this more evident than in the way we talk about ‘ageing in place’. Originally coined as a positive concept, ageing in place refers to enabling older people to remain in their own homes and communities as they age, with access to the services and support they need. But in practice, it has often come to mean something far more literal and less helpful: staying in the same house, regardless of whether it still meets a person’s needs.

This static view of ageing is problematic. A large home with stairs, poor insulation, and an inaccessible bathroom is not a safe or supportive environment for someone in their 80s. Yet many older Australians remain in such homes, even as they become difficult to maintain or navigate, partly because there's nowhere else in their neighbourhood to go. This is not ageing in place – it’s ageing in isolation.

To fix this, we must untether ‘ageing in place’ from the specific home someone happens to live in now, and instead make it about ageing in a suitable place. That means creating a wider range of housing options within existing communities: smaller, accessible homes; medium-density dwellings with good amenities; and integrated aged care for those who need it. Importantly, these homes must be located where people already have roots – near family, doctors, shops and community groups.

This will mean normalising the idea that homes don’t last forever. Buildings, like infrastructure and technology, should be allowed to evolve. A house that served a family well for 40 years might no longer be fit for purpose. Repurposing that site for more homes or different types of housing isn’t a loss – it’s an opportunity to meet new needs and revitalise neighborhoods. In this sense, planning policy should see redevelopment as a tool for renewal, not destruction.

But change won’t come easily. Many Australians are emotionally invested in the idea of the forever home, and local opposition to increased density is often fierce. Terms like ‘neighborhoods character’ are used to defend the status quo, even as younger generations are priced out of the market. Meanwhile, governments have struggled to articulate a coherent vision for urban renewal that brings communities along for the ride.

This is where leadership matters. Governments at all levels must clearly communicate the benefits of better land use – more affordable housing, more inclusive communities, and better outcomes for all age groups. They must also tackle the policy barriers that discourage downsizing or redevelopment, such as stamp duty and zoning rules which inhibit urban renewal.

Encouragingly, some jurisdictions are beginning to embrace change, but far more is needed to align housing policy with demographic reality.

Ultimately, the question is not whether the built environment should change – it must. The real challenge is whether we can shift our mindset to support that change in a way that is equitable, sustainable, and forward-looking.

Let’s move past the myth of the forever home and build a housing system that reflects the dynamism of modern life. Let’s redefine ageing in place so it truly supports independence and wellbeing. And let’s use land in a way that meets today’s needs while making room for tomorrow’s generations. Because no home should last forever but the communities they support absolutely should.

First published on 13 May 2025.