Summary · why it matters
The United States is facing rapidly rising demand for senior housing as the Baby Boomer generation ages, but efforts to increase supply are running into resistance from long-time older residents who do not want large projects to change their neighborhoods. Bloomberg Businessweek highlights the case of Rockridge, a residential district in Oakland, California, where homes sell for millions of dollars and many residents hold liberal political views. Yet when large senior housing projects were proposed for the area, strong opposition emerged. Around 300 Rockridge residents banded together to oppose two proposed senior housing developments that, if fully built, would add 618 units to a supply-constrained market. The first project is a seven-story building on the former site of a Red Cross blood donation center. The other proposal calls for towers of 31 and 25 stories on land currently occupied by Trader Joe's, and opponents have dubbed that project the Trader Joe's terrible towers. The problem is likely to intensify with demographic shifts. This year, the first Baby Boomers turn 80. A 2023 study published in JAMA found that the average age at which older adults move into senior housing is about 84. The number of Americans aged 80 and older is projected to double to 29.4 million by 2045. Demand for senior housing has remained at record highs since 2025, with average occupancy at 92.5 percent. NIC MAP estimates the United States needs about 582,000 additional senior housing units by 2030 to meet demand, but construction has been steadily declining, and most existing senior housing in the country was built before this century. Another obstacle is that many people in their 60s and 70s do not yet think they will need to move into senior housing. Rodney Harrell of the AARP Public Policy Institute calls this phenomenon Peter Pan Syndrome, the feeling that while other people may age and need help, we ourselves are likely to be the exception. The problem is that the need for this type of housing often arises suddenly, such as after a fall, after a hospital stay, after the death of a spouse, or after losing the ability to drive. At that point, some older adults find they can no longer stay in their own homes, but their communities offer no alternative other than large single-family houses. This situation is playing out across the United States, with senior housing developers facing opposition from the very demographic that is their target market, from Milwaukee and the Chicago suburbs to Stamford, Connecticut. Reasons range from loss of green space and fire safety concerns to density and changes to community character. In Rockridge, the key issues are affordability and neighborhood identity. Myrna Walton, 84, a member of Upper Broadway Advocates, insists her group is not opposed to building housing, but is opposed to high-rises. One of the contested projects proposes towers of 31 and 25 stories near the Rockridge BART station, with 371 independent living units, 18 assisted living units, and 26 memory care rooms, along with dining facilities, a swimming pool, and a fitness center, but no affordable housing. Walton argues the area's urgent need is not market-rate housing but affordable housing. However, building affordable housing in the Bay Area is extremely expensive, with construction costs for a single apartment potentially reaching 800,000 to 1 million dollars, making many projects unworkable without public subsidies. As a result, even some affordable housing activists support adding market-rate homes because they see every new unit as new housing supply. The Rockridge developer has not disclosed proposed rents, but points to a nearby senior living facility, Merrill Gardens, which charges about 6,000 dollars per month for a studio and up to 13,350 dollars for a two-bedroom unit, including meals, transportation, housekeeping, and 24-hour staffing. Walton acknowledges that she herself is in the project's target demographic and may eventually want to move into senior housing near her family, but she still believes the 31- and 25-story towers are too large and may not benefit the surrounding community much. On the other side, Lori Droste, director of housing and planning policy at SPUR, argues that building affordable housing is essential, but it should not be used as a reason to stop building other types of housing. If communities choose to build nothing and wait for a perfect project, the affordability crisis will worsen, especially as wealth from the AI industry may push up the purchasing power of high-income earners and crowd out other buyers. One idea supporters advance is moving chains, based on supply and demand. When more market-rate housing is built, people with purchasing power move in, freeing up their previous homes and creating a chain of supply that cascades to other groups. If both Rockridge projects, totaling 618 units, are built, and just one-third of residents move from nearby areas, hundreds of existing homes could be released back onto the market. Another paradox lies in the wealth of long-time homeowners in California. Many Rockridge homes are now worth more than 2 million dollars, but long-time owners may pay property taxes on assessed values below 500,000 dollars because California's Proposition 13 limits increases in assessed value for tax purposes. As a result, many older homeowners hold assets worth millions of dollars but face very low carrying costs, giving them little incentive to sell or downsize. At the same time, they may feel that senior housing at 10,000 dollars a month is too expensive. The problem also affects younger generations, because when older adults remain in large homes, those homes do not return to the market for younger families. Micki, 78, who still lives in a three-story house she bought 42 years ago, puts it bluntly: if a suitable condo or senior housing were built near her home, she and her husband would be interested in moving. Because we old people are still in our own homes, those homes are not being passed on to younger families, and I think that is bad for the whole community. Community resistance is beginning to lead to compromise. On August 19, the developer of the Trader Joe's site announced revised plans, reducing building heights from 31 and 25 stories to 26 and 23 stories, moving loading docks away from residential streets, adding retail space open to the general public, and setting aside space for a grocery store with the goal of keeping Trader Joe's in its current location. The Rockridge case reflects a conflict unfolding in many parts of the United States, as the country needs to build more housing to address both the housing crisis and an aging society, while existing residents must choose between preserving the familiar character of their neighborhoods and accepting greater density to create housing for the next generation, and for themselves in the future.
United States
