(Re)-Learning the City for Intergenerational Exchange

  • Helen ManchesterEmail author
  • Keri Facer
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Education book series (BRIEFSEDUCAT)


Two major international agendas are currently working to realign social, material and representational elements of the city in ways that are helpful for both children and older adults. The Age Friendly City movement (AFC) (led by the World Health Organisation) and the Child Friendly Cities (CFC) movement (led by UNICEF) aim to ensure that planners, policy makers and developers design cities that take account of the interests of age groups who are too often marginalised in current policy and design processes. These movements are valuable and important in themselves, however they also have significant implications for the future of a learning city in which intergenerational exchange is valued. In this chapter, in order to understand better how the city might (re) learn to become intergenerational, we explore different intergenerational assemblages, looking at what is being aligned, and connected in the AFC and CFC movements. We then describe a performative, experimental project that sought to enable different alignments between these movements. A key element of this involved building new imaginative ideas about what might be possible in order to realign these generational assemblages for intergenerational, civic learning. Finally we explore what worked and didn’t work, what resisted enrolment, what was easily aligned and what routines were disrupted.


Intergenerational Civic learning All-age friendly city Child friendly Age friendly 


  1. Amin, A. (2015). Animated space. Public Culture, 27(2), 239–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkinson, R., & Flint, J. (2004). Fortress UK? Gated communities, the spatial revolt of the elites and time-space trajectories of segregation. Housing Studies, 19(6), 875–892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennett, P., Hinder, H., Kozar, S., Bowdler, C., Massung, M., & Cole, T. (2015) TopoTiles: Storytelling in care homes with topographic tangibles. CHI EA 15: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 911–916Google Scholar
  4. Biggs, S., Bernard, M., Nettleton, H., & Kingston, P. (2001). Lifestyles of belief: narrative and culture in a retirement community. Ageing and Society, 20, 649–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Biggs, S., & Carr, A. (2015). Age- and child-friendly cities and the promise of intergenerational space. Journal of Social Work Practice, 29(1), 99–112. doi: 10.1080/02650533.2014.993942 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bragg, S., & Manchester, H. (2011). Creativity, school ethos and the creative partnerships programme. London: Creativity, Culture and Education. Retrieved from
  7. Buffel, T., Mcgarry, P., Phillipson, C., De Donder, L., Dury, S., De Witte, N., et al. (2014). Developing age-friendly cities: Case studies from Brussels and Manchester and implications for policy and practice. Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 26, 52–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Callon, M (1986) Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay in J. Law, power, action and belief: a new sociology of knowledge? (pp. 196–223). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. de Sousa Santos, B. (2001). Nuestra America: Reinventing a subaltern paradigm of recognition and redistribution. Theory Culture and Society, 18(2–3), 185–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Facer, K., Horner, L., & Manchester, H. (2014). Towards the all-age friendly city: Working paper 1 of the Bristol all-age friendly city group. London: Future Cities Catapult.Google Scholar
  11. Facer, K., & Thomas, R. (2012). Towards an area-based curriculum. International Journal of Education Research, 55, 16–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gibson Graham, J. K. (2008) Diverse economies: performative practices for ‘other worlds’. Progress in Human Geography, 1–20. doi: 10.1177/0309132508090821
  13. Handler, S. (2014). A Research and evaluation framework for age-friendly cities. Manchester: UK Urban Ageing Consortium.Google Scholar
  14. Holloway, S. L. (2014). Changing children’s geographies. Children’s Geographies, 12(4), 377–392. doi: 10.1080/14733285.2014.930414 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hopkins, P., & Pain, R. (2005). Geographies of age: Thinking relationally. Area, 39(3), 287–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Manchester, H., & Pett, E. (2015). Teenage kicks: Exploring cultural value from a youth perspective. Cultural Trends, 24(3), 223–231. doi: 10.1080/09548963.2015.1066078 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McFarlane, C. (2011). Learning the city: Knowledge and translocal assemblage. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Thrift, N. (2014). The ‘sentient’ city and what it may portend, Big Data & Society, 1–24. April–June 2014Google Scholar
  19. Vanderbeck, R., & Worth, N. (2015). Intergenerational space. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Walkerdine, V., & Studdert, D. (2015). Performing Abergavenny: Creating a connected community beyond divisions of class, locality and history. Available at

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of EducationUniversity of BristolBristolUK

Personalised recommendations