A new report has revealed that retirement villages are more affordable than residential homes when you factor in the living costs for older Aussies.
Author Lois Towart from the University of Technology Sydney compared nine villages across Australia with residential properties of a similar age, style and level of accommodation, looking at the entry price, ongoing costs, facilities and services, exit price and other factors that couldn’t be repeated in the general community.
She found that while the ownership costs of a house may be lower, the real savings come from the health and lifestyle services included in village life.
Value for money
It makes sense. Most villages offer an array of facilities and services “on tap” for residents including swimming pools, gyms, libraries, GP clinics, emergency call system and social outings and activities.
If you were living in the community and paying for these separately, you’d likely be shelling out more than you would living in a village.
The recent media spotlight on retirement villages has focused attention on the costs of leaving a village, but it’s a good reminder that the cost of living can be measured by more than just fees.
Previous research has also proven village residents also enjoy better health and social connectedness than their similarly-aged peers living at home.
Can you really put a price tag on that?
Discussion2 Comments
Living in a retirement is not a bad idea as they are specially made for retired persons. These villages are created to serve a good quality life to retirees. That’s why there are many senior citizens that prefer living in retirement villages.
Clear and comprehensive report. Aside from the value for money, retired persons prefer to live in retirement villages because it’s closer to nature and more socially active than people living in a home.