Having recently visited two sheltered housing schemes, one new, purpose built part extra-care scheme and one much more established, charity run sheltered housing scheme, there were some marked differences apart from just the age of the two complexes.
Both schemes were in very good locations, the former being a stone's throw from the Thames and the latter in a quiet, leafy, affluent London suburb.
Whilst one of the advantages of the newer scheme was that the overall appearance was bright and clean, what the older one lacked in this respect, it made up for in character and ambience.
To be more specific, the new scheme had an impersonal, clinical feel to it, I'd go so far as to say 'institutional', partly due to the neutral walls and carpeting in most areas and its 'compact' design. The older scheme, on the other hand, looked and felt much more like private accommodation. For example, whilst the newer scheme had a bright feel in some areas - the pastel decorated lounge with large windows was very light and airy, the corridors to the flats themselves were very poorly lit and some had no natural light at all, making them seem quite 'dingy', and on a more practical level, possibly hazardous. The front doors to the flats in the older scheme had a recess on either side, setting them back a little from the wide corridors, providing a small area mostly used for jardinières, small pieces of occasional furniture etc. This, together with the windows on either side of each door at which residents had hung their own curtains, gave an individual and personal feel to the exterior of each flat and the living accommodation overall. Luxury, deep coloured carpeting throughout added to the homely feel.
The newer scheme had the advantage of a wonderful roof terrace with views overlooking a park with a stunning water feature and, of course, Old Father Thames. Well, one would think it would be an advantage - if it wasn't for the fact that it was kept locked ! What a waste of such a facility. The older scheme had a large, very well maintained landscaped quadrangle with a pond, and as each flat had its own terrace or balcony, thanks to the green fingered residents, there was an abundance of flowers around for everyone to enjoy.
A restaurant in the newer scheme provided a reputedly very good lunch for the residents, but again it seemed a pity that its adjoining terrace was not put to full use - there were no tables & chairs for residents to sit outside and enjoy their afternoon cuppa on a summer's afternoon. The kitchens in the flats were small and open plan, adjoining the living room. The lack of a restaurant in the older scheme did not appear to be a problem as the self-contained kitchens in the flats were very spacious and well fitted out with high end equipment, and there were regular organised trips to the main site for lunch in its restaurant, and pub lunch outings to boot.
So given the choice, where would I rather live ? Despite being a person who errs on the side of modern contemporary design as opposed to the more traditional, I don't think it would be too hard a decision to make....
