Best place for healthy 73-year-old, active dad who wants more socialization and meals?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the first step is to find a local senior center that he can go to during the day. They offer companionship and a free or greatly reduced noon meal. I'm in the Pittsburgh area but I think they operate pretty much the same nationwide. They sent a van to pick my Dad up each day. They operated from Monday to Friday and were run through the county. We lived in a more affluent area, so most of the seniors there were more affluent. Though I noticed this really wasn't a concern of anyone. They were just happy to have friends period, to share their war stories with.

A bus? Why?

Listen everyone, let's not dump everyone over 60 into CCRCs, assisted living, and buses that go to senior daycare. Come on, there's a big difference between 55 to 70, 70 to 80, and 80 to 90, and 90 +

There's a lot of nuance in terms of what is appropriate, and at a healthy 72, he doesn't need a structure CCRC or a damn bus chauffeuring him around to prescribed things.

Would Hilary Clinton be on that bus? Chuck Schumer? Bruce Springsteen? Steven Speilberg? Merle Streep? All in their 70s.

This post has the worst ageist responses I've seen, and the information that no one gets what 72 is. This man needs grief support and peers. Please don't send him to places that have nothing to do with his needs because everyone has just decided that he's old. Stop it.

I am 54. I would 100% join a CCRC at age 70 or before, after I toured some with my parents.

My parents (in their 80s) hated them and I loved them: so many social activities, and on site restaurant, you can have your own house in the independent part, without the maintenance hassles. It wasn't a place to "store old people" it was a place you could go socialize and live your life, even if you were working and still living there. Heck, I had more fun meeting people there than I have in the DC metro.

Really sounds like you haven't been to one of the nice communities pp. All those people you mentioned have $$$$$ and can do anything they want; they can afford to hire people to help them stay home if they get sick, and get a limo anytime they want. If you are rich, it doesn't matter. I'm not and I also (unfortunately) don't have kids. The best I can do is save enough money to buy into a good place.

And, I found out with my parents, if you are too old and too sick, you will not be admitted to the CCRCs anyhow if you can't live independently without help. They ended up in a crappy nursing home because they were too frail and sick to go to independent living.

If OP's dad is in the 1% he can afford to stay in his house, hire help to clean or whatever he needs, and Uber where ever he wants to go.

[Anonymous]

Asbury Methodist

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the first step is to find a local senior center that he can go to during the day. They offer companionship and a free or greatly reduced noon meal. I'm in the Pittsburgh area but I think they operate pretty much the same nationwide. They sent a van to pick my Dad up each day. They operated from Monday to Friday and were run through the county. We lived in a more affluent area, so most of the seniors there were more affluent. Though I noticed this really wasn't a concern of anyone. They were just happy to have friends period, to share their war stories with.

A bus? Why?

Listen everyone, let's not dump everyone over 60 into CCRCs, assisted living, and buses that go to senior daycare. Come on, there's a big difference between 55 to 70, 70 to 80, and 80 to 90, and 90 +

There's a lot of nuance in terms of what is appropriate, and at a healthy 72, he doesn't need a structure CCRC or a damn bus chauffeuring him around to prescribed things.

Would Hilary Clinton be on that bus? Chuck Schumer? Bruce Springsteen? Steven Speilberg? Merle Streep? All in their 70s.

This post has the worst ageist responses I've seen, and the information that no one gets what 72 is. This man needs grief support and peers. Please don't send him to places that have nothing to do with his needs because everyone has just decided that he's old. Stop it.

But not all CCRCs are the same either. There's a lot of nuance on that side as well. For some 72-year-olds, continuing to live in their home, while taking part in new activities is the right way to go. Other folks will be better off downsizing, but still living completely independently (this is also true for many people who are younger than 72 and who want to travel). And for still others, even if they are relatively healthy and vigorous, living in a CCRC can offer activities and social opportunities while relieving them of the burdens of home maintenance. For single people, CCRCs can be especially appealing.

Agree. I don't think the CCRC suggestion was ageism at all. The OP was the one who listed 5 criteria plus care for Alzheimer's, etc., if needed later. A CCRC meets all of those, and he can be as independent as he wants to be there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the first step is to find a local senior center that he can go to during the day. They offer companionship and a free or greatly reduced noon meal. I'm in the Pittsburgh area but I think they operate pretty much the same nationwide. They sent a van to pick my Dad up each day. They operated from Monday to Friday and were run through the county. We lived in a more affluent area, so most of the seniors there were more affluent. Though I noticed this really wasn't a concern of anyone. They were just happy to have friends period, to share their war stories with.

A bus? Why?

Listen everyone, let's not dump everyone over 60 into CCRCs, assisted living, and buses that go to senior daycare. Come on, there's a big difference between 55 to 70, 70 to 80, and 80 to 90, and 90 +

There's a lot of nuance in terms of what is appropriate, and at a healthy 72, he doesn't need a structure CCRC or a damn bus chauffeuring him around to prescribed things.

Would Hilary Clinton be on that bus? Chuck Schumer? Bruce Springsteen? Steven Speilberg? Merle Streep? All in their 70s.

This post has the worst ageist responses I've seen, and the information that no one gets what 72 is. This man needs grief support and peers. Please don't send him to places that have nothing to do with his needs because everyone has just decided that he's old. Stop it.

I am 54. I would 100% join a CCRC at age 70 or before, after I toured some with my parents.

My parents (in their 80s) hated them and I loved them: so many social activities, and on site restaurant, you can have your own house in the independent part, without the maintenance hassles. It wasn't a place to "store old people" it was a place you could go socialize and live your life, even if you were working and still living there. Heck, I had more fun meeting people there than I have in the DC metro.

Really sounds like you haven't been to one of the nice communities pp. All those people you mentioned have $$$$$ and can do anything they want; they can afford to hire people to help them stay home if they get sick, and get a limo anytime they want. If you are rich, it doesn't matter. I'm not and I also (unfortunately) don't have kids. The best I can do is save enough money to buy into a good place.

And, I found out with my parents, if you are too old and too sick, you will not be admitted to the CCRCs anyhow if you can't live independently without help. They ended up in a crappy nursing home because they were too frail and sick to go to independent living.

If OP's dad is in the 1% he can afford to stay in his house, hire help to clean or whatever he needs, and Uber where ever he wants to go.

You are 54 and live in a CCRC? Come on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You are 54 and live in a CCRC? Come on.

No, she's 54 and *would* live in one. As would I, if I were single and had the funds.

I don't understand the logic that makes people think they should hold off until they're in their 80s because how could you make friends among the ancient residents? Is that how you see your future? That you will become someone no one wants to befriend except people who are even older than you and are therefore willing to settle for your company, which is not good but is better than nothing?

My mother lives in a Kendal and has had Nobel laureates among her neighbors. You should be so lucky as to have people that smart wanting to eat with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You are 54 and live in a CCRC? Come on.

No, she's 54 and *would* live in one. As would I, if I were single and had the funds.

I don't understand the logic that makes people think they should hold off until they're in their 80s because how could you make friends among the ancient residents? Is that how you see your future? That you will become someone no one wants to befriend except people who are even older than you and are therefore willing to settle for your company, which is not good but is better than nothing?

My mother lives in a Kendal and has had Nobel laureates among her neighbors. You should be so lucky as to have people that smart wanting to eat with you.

It's not about "smart." It's about generation, interests, and socializing. Truly, independent livings ( and CCRCs) are seriously designed for 80s. Over 55s are really 70s, with some 60s. I'm sure there are outliers in all, but for the most part, not really. If one is healthy, independent, and under 78, it's not time to pack it all in with scheduled activities,busses, trips. It really would not be helpful to suddenly be in a social milieu that's inappropriate. It's not all about everyone is old, etc., there's a HUGE difference between 60 and 80, and I think that's the problem with understanding here.

I'm in my mid 60s. My parents live in a CCRC, as do their friends. I am absolutely telling everyone here, no, it's not appropriate for a younger crowd. I have never seen a 54 year old or 64 year old in this vast system unless they were working there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You are 54 and live in a CCRC? Come on.

No, she's 54 and *would* live in one. As would I, if I were single and had the funds.

I don't understand the logic that makes people think they should hold off until they're in their 80s because how could you make friends among the ancient residents? Is that how you see your future? That you will become someone no one wants to befriend except people who are even older than you and are therefore willing to settle for your company, which is not good but is better than nothing?

My mother lives in a Kendal and has had Nobel laureates among her neighbors. You should be so lucky as to have people that smart wanting to eat with you.

I do not get the logic as to WHY someone in their 50s or 60s would want to live among with people that were literally as old or older than their parents? Why would they need to? Most are probably working! If they aren't working , they are free to go anywhere.

And what does being a Nobel Laureate have to do with this?

People are amazingly ageist here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You are 54 and live in a CCRC? Come on.

No, she's 54 and *would* live in one. As would I, if I were single and had the funds.

I don't understand the logic that makes people think they should hold off until they're in their 80s because how could you make friends among the ancient residents? Is that how you see your future? That you will become someone no one wants to befriend except people who are even older than you and are therefore willing to settle for your company, which is not good but is better than nothing?

My mother lives in a Kendal and has had Nobel laureates among her neighbors. You should be so lucky as to have people that smart wanting to eat with you.

I do not get the logic as to WHY someone in their 50s or 60s would want to live among with people that were literally as old or older than their parents? Why would they need to? Most are probably working! If they aren't working , they are free to go anywhere.

And what does being a Nobel Laureate have to do with this?

People are amazingly ageist here.

Isn't it ageist in the opposite direction to say someone is too young for something that meets their needs? Besides, the 54 year old said she'd be willing to move in at or before 70, not right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's true that 73-year-olds can be very independent. But of my eight close relatives between 72 and 80, all previously healthy, I am seeing lots of health issues. Two have moved to independent living already, and two are moving soon.

What if you were 57 and were not healthy- maybe you could have a cancer or a mobility issue from years of sports (getting to be common!). Does that mean you would need to live in an independent living? Hopefully you will have found a way to adapt in lifestyle or physical space like you always have. It's the same with a 72 year old man.
One time someone asked me if I was going to leave my house soon for a place without steps. I'm in my mid 60s. My answer was "Why?"She explained that maybe I might break my legs, or have to recover from an operation.

Well, I did break my leg when I was 47, and have recovered from 3 operations up to now. I guess I'll do what I did, but there's nothing going on with me that is really any different than then. I'm not more frail, less adaptable, not able to cope. Why would I consider moving in with older people now? When I'm ready, I'll be ready, but an 83 year old is not a 72 year old, who is not a 62 year old. Not everyone will have chronic life limiting issues all at once. Not all people need to be corralled. I'm all for CCRCs...they are great systems, BUT, it is for older people. "Independent living" is the same.

Needs are different for everyone, but it really is a shame to assign a special living arrangement to this man who has no need for it now. His age is not the determinate.

For good or for ill, I think that specific age becomes much less important later in life than overall health, mental acuity, ability to plan and make decisions, etc. An "old" 60-year-old might seem older than a "young" 80-year-old. My grandmother lived past 100 and ALL of her friends were younger than her at the end, some by a couple of decades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You are 54 and live in a CCRC? Come on.

No, she's 54 and *would* live in one. As would I, if I were single and had the funds.

I don't understand the logic that makes people think they should hold off until they're in their 80s because how could you make friends among the ancient residents? Is that how you see your future? That you will become someone no one wants to befriend except people who are even older than you and are therefore willing to settle for your company, which is not good but is better than nothing?

My mother lives in a Kendal and has had Nobel laureates among her neighbors. You should be so lucky as to have people that smart wanting to eat with you.

I do not get the logic as to WHY someone in their 50s or 60s would want to live among with people that were literally as old or older than their parents? Why would they need to? Most are probably working! If they aren't working , they are free to go anywhere.

And what does being a Nobel Laureate have to do with this?

People are amazingly ageist here.

Isn't it ageist in the opposite direction to say someone is too young for something that meets their needs? Besides, the 54 year old said she'd be willing to move in at or before 70, not right now.

No...because the places are geared for the sociological and physical development of the age that is appropriate.
If you would like to take this out of context, a 62 year old isnt going on girl's trips, dinners, etc., with 42 year olds. Their experience, lifestyles, development are in 2 different orbits. Can they be friends? Sure! Do they want to live only among millennials or Gen xers to socialize? No.
This is ageist because anyone older is lopped in the category of need and lifestyle of all that's elderly, with a one size fits all. "Elderly people need this, do that, require this...." 70 is ALSO too young for for an independent living...and yes it is absolutely ageist to neglect to understand the very different developmental, physical, and social needs of older people. It is not one group. This the definition of ageism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's true that 73-year-olds can be very independent. But of my eight close relatives between 72 and 80, all previously healthy, I am seeing lots of health issues. Two have moved to independent living already, and two are moving soon.

What if you were 57 and were not healthy- maybe you could have a cancer or a mobility issue from years of sports (getting to be common!). Does that mean you would need to live in an independent living? Hopefully you will have found a way to adapt in lifestyle or physical space like you always have. It's the same with a 72 year old man.
One time someone asked me if I was going to leave my house soon for a place without steps. I'm in my mid 60s. My answer was "Why?"She explained that maybe I might break my legs, or have to recover from an operation.

Well, I did break my leg when I was 47, and have recovered from 3 operations up to now. I guess I'll do what I did, but there's nothing going on with me that is really any different than then. I'm not more frail, less adaptable, not able to cope. Why would I consider moving in with older people now? When I'm ready, I'll be ready, but an 83 year old is not a 72 year old, who is not a 62 year old. Not everyone will have chronic life limiting issues all at once. Not all people need to be corralled. I'm all for CCRCs...they are great systems, BUT, it is for older people. "Independent living" is the same.

Needs are different for everyone, but it really is a shame to assign a special living arrangement to this man who has no need for it now. His age is not the determinate.

For good or for ill, I think that specific age becomes much less important later in life than overall health, mental acuity, ability to plan and make decisions, etc. An "old" 60-year-old might seem older than a "young" 80-year-old. My grandmother lived past 100 and ALL of her friends were younger than her at the end, some by a couple of decades.

Of course they were as most of her contemporaries were deceased. And anyone can be friends.

But here we go with 60 year olds and being considered "old." If a person at 60 has poor mental acuity, cannot plan, cannot make decisions, there's definitely a specific medical issue that absolutely does not apply to that age. That person requires extr help just as a 45 year old would if something was that wrong. Someone who is 60 isn't expected to have those issues. And the point above being made is that if people assume that, they've got a preconceived notion that anyone older might have this. They do not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Isn't it ageist in the opposite direction to say someone is too young for something that meets their needs? Besides, the 54 year old said she'd be willing to move in at or before 70, not right now.

No...because the places are geared for the sociological and physical development of the age that is appropriate.
If you would like to take this out of context, a 62 year old isnt going on girl's trips, dinners, etc., with 42 year olds. Their experience, lifestyles, development are in 2 different orbits. Can they be friends? Sure! Do they want to live only among millennials or Gen xers to socialize? No.
This is ageist because anyone older is lopped in the category of need and lifestyle of all that's elderly, with a one size fits all. "Elderly people need this, do that, require this...." 70 is ALSO too young for for an independent living...and yes it is absolutely ageist to neglect to understand the very different developmental, physical, and social needs of older people. It is not one group. This the definition of ageism.

If by "girls trip" you mean bachelorette weekend only without a wedding associated with it, I guess not. I don't know -- I've never been into the girly-girly stuff, so I'd never want to do that. But if you say that women outgrow a certain sort of "girls trip," I believe you. A friend and I were once taking the train to New York for the weekend, and there was a group of women who were about our age and who were also on their way for their kind of weekend. Theirs involved shopping and day drinking, ours involved walking tours and plays.

But trips that involve theater, museums, hiking, interesting food, and used bookstores? There's no specific age limit for that, and it is very much the sort of thing people at a friend's mom's independent living neighborhood do. Sometimes together, sometimes with friends who aren't in the CCRC. It's really nice to be able to take off whenever they want and not worry about finding a house sitter.

I don't know how many CCRCs you've looked at, but there are plenty that are suitable for people under 80. It's not just about marching unburdened toward death with your age cohort.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Isn't it ageist in the opposite direction to say someone is too young for something that meets their needs? Besides, the 54 year old said she'd be willing to move in at or before 70, not right now.

No...because the places are geared for the sociological and physical development of the age that is appropriate.
If you would like to take this out of context, a 62 year old isnt going on girl's trips, dinners, etc., with 42 year olds. Their experience, lifestyles, development are in 2 different orbits. Can they be friends? Sure! Do they want to live only among millennials or Gen xers to socialize? No.
This is ageist because anyone older is lopped in the category of need and lifestyle of all that's elderly, with a one size fits all. "Elderly people need this, do that, require this...." 70 is ALSO too young for for an independent living...and yes it is absolutely ageist to neglect to understand the very different developmental, physical, and social needs of older people. It is not one group. This the definition of ageism.

If by "girls trip" you mean bachelorette weekend only without a wedding associated with it, I guess not. I don't know -- I've never been into the girly-girly stuff, so I'd never want to do that. But if you say that women outgrow a certain sort of "girls trip," I believe you. A friend and I were once taking the train to New York for the weekend, and there was a group of women who were about our age and who were also on their way for their kind of weekend. Theirs involved shopping and day drinking, ours involved walking tours and plays.

But trips that involve theater, museums, hiking, interesting food, and used bookstores? There's no specific age limit for that, and it is very much the sort of thing people at a friend's mom's independent living neighborhood do. Sometimes together, sometimes with friends who aren't in the CCRC. It's really nice to be able to take off whenever they want and not worry about finding a house sitter.

I don't know how many CCRCs you've looked at, but there are plenty that are suitable for people under 80. It's not just about marching unburdened toward death with your age cohort.

My parents live in one. I've been to many, not just here in the DMV, but in Pa, NY, abd Florida. Again, no. Not suitable for under 80. The entire CCRC is designed for that age group.

Continually providing examples of activities that everyone enjoys is not the point. There are very different expectations, experiences, needs and wants in different age bands. If we begin to look at seniors as people, and not ages, this will become apparent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are very different expectations, experiences, needs and wants in different age bands. If we begin to look at seniors as people, and not ages, this will become apparent.

My hat is off to anyone who can explain how the first sentence and the second are not contradictory.

I get it. You don't want to live in a CCRC. But independent living at the right one could really work out well for OP's father -- he could get what he wants and not bother with the rest of the services unless he needs them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are very different expectations, experiences, needs and wants in different age bands. If we begin to look at seniors as people, and not ages, this will become apparent.

My hat is off to anyone who can explain how the first sentence and the second are not contradictory.

I get it. You don't want to live in a CCRC. But independent living at the right one could really work out well for OP's father -- he could get what he wants and not bother with the rest of the services unless he needs them.

Because you have serious problems in understanding.
Repeat, and slowly for you...

All people over 55 are not.in.the.same.demographic. Seniors do not all fall in one group and have different needs. They fall into different generations, depending upon age and context. The demographic of 55 to 65 and 65 to 75 and 75 to 85 are ALL different demographics. You are twisting this around, the way people think BLM is racist agsinst white people. Try to understand, just

You continually have issues with this concept. Let it go, dear.