If We're Designing for Longevity, Why Aren't We Designing for the Long Haul?

I recently read about the 2026 Northwest Idea House in Clyde Hill, built by Azori, formerly MN Custom Homes. It is an impressive project. The home brings together wellness, smart-home technology, sustainability, flexible spaces, luxury finishes and a floor plan designed to support multigenerational living. Azori describes the project as a showcase of "modern living" and "everyday livability." There is a lot to admire. But one question kept nagging at me: what problems is the luxury home of 2026 actually solving? Because if we are talking about the future of luxury homebuilding, I think we are missing one of the biggest issues coming straight at us. Longevity.

The demographic problem hiding in plain sight. According to the City of Clyde Hill's Housing Needs Assessment, the city's median age is approximately 48, compared with 37 for King County. More than 47% of Clyde Hill residents are over 50. The city also has a notably smaller share of residents between 19 and 40 than King County overall. That matters. Someone building a luxury home at 50 could reasonably expect to live in that home for another 30, 40 or even 50 years. So why isn't Universal Design a more prominent part of the luxury home conversation?

I'm not talking about "senior housing." I'm not talking about making a beautiful home look institutional. I'm talking about Universal Design: designing environments so people can use them safely and comfortably across different ages and abilities. That might mean a zero-step entry, wider doorways, a primary bedroom and full bathroom on the main level, thoughtfully designed bathrooms, excellent lighting, safer transitions between surfaces, lever handles instead of knobs, reinforced bathroom walls for future grab bars, and flexible rooms that can change function as life changes. None of those features prevents a home from being spectacular. In fact, done well, you should barely notice them.

The longevity paradox. We are designing homes around longevity. Circadian lighting. Air purification. Water filtration. Fitness spaces. Saunas. Wellness showers. Smart climate systems. Biophilic design. The 2026 Northwest Idea House itself incorporates several of these concepts. We are investing in environments intended to help people live healthier, more comfortable lives. That's a good thing. But what happens if it works?

What happens if the homeowner lives another 30 years? The person who loved the stairs at 52 may not love them at 82. The beautiful soaking tub may become difficult to enter. A second-floor bedroom may become impractical. A narrow doorway may become an obstacle. A fall may temporarily change how someone moves through the house. At that point, the home may require significant modifications. Or the homeowner may decide they can no longer live there. That is the longevity paradox: we are designing homes to help people live longer without necessarily designing them to live longer with us.

The market is telling us what it wants. AARP's 2024 Home and Community Preferences Survey found that 75% of adults 50 and older want to remain in their current homes as they age, while 73% want to remain in their current communities. Yet 44% expect they will eventually have to move. Many don't believe their homes will support them. AARP found that 43% of older adults who plan to remain in their homes expect they will need to make their homes more accessible as they age. Only about 1% of U.S. homes currently have five key accessibility features identified by AARP: a zero-step entrance, single-story living, wide doorways and halls, lever-style handles, and accessible electrical controls. That's an enormous mismatch between what people want and what the housing stock provides.

And this is where the cost argument gets interesting. One of the objections I hear around Universal Design is cost. It's a reasonable question. But we need to distinguish between designing for adaptability from the beginning and retrofitting a finished home after a need arises. A housing design guide published by the Center for Inclusive Design and Environmental Access reported that Universal Design features could add roughly 1 to 3% to new construction costs, while retrofitting later could reach 10 to 15%, depending on the project. A separate housing study summarized by the Pew Charitable Trusts found that features such as zero-step entrances and wider doors can be considerably less expensive to incorporate during initial construction than to retrofit later. The cost depends on the house, the site, the floor plan and the features involved. But the underlying principle is difficult to dismiss: some things are far easier to design in than to cut into a finished house later.

What if the housing problem isn't that Boomers won't move? We often hear that older homeowners are holding onto their homes and contributing to constrained housing inventory. Freddie Mac estimated that approximately 1.6 million housing units were held off the market in 2018 by three older cohorts, including Baby Boomers. I would be careful about drawing a straight line from that finding to Universal Design. But it does raise a compelling question: what if more older homeowners would consider moving if the alternatives were genuinely attractive? Imagine a beautiful, high-end home designed for someone at 55 that remains just as desirable at 75 or 90. Not retirement housing. Not assisted living. Just an exceptional home that happens to work exceptionally well as life changes. That could be a compelling product. And potentially a compelling reason to move.

Universal Design doesn't have to look like Universal Design. Good Universal Design should look like good design. A zero-step entrance can be elegant. A curbless shower can be beautiful. A wider doorway can feel more spacious. A main-floor bedroom can be desirable. Better lighting benefits everyone. Lever handles are convenient. Flexible rooms are useful long before anyone needs them for caregiving. The same feature that helps an 80-year-old move through the house can help a 35-year-old carrying a sleeping child. The same flexible room that accommodates a caregiver today can be an office, gym or guest room tomorrow. Universal Design isn't about designing for disability. It's about designing for life.

So what should luxury homebuilders be asking? Perhaps the question isn't "how do we make this home smarter?" Perhaps it's "how do we make this home continue to work as the people living in it change?" That's a different design brief. And it doesn't mean abandoning wellness, technology or sustainability. It means integrating them with another principle: design for longevity, in the home too.

If we are serious about helping people live longer, healthier lives, we should build homes that can accommodate those extra years. If we are serious about sustainability, we should think about the useful life of the home, not just its energy consumption. If we are serious about multigenerational living, we should consider what happens when those generations have different physical abilities. And if we are serious about everyday livability, we should ask whether the home will remain livable when everyday life changes. The 2026 Northwest Idea House may represent where luxury homebuilding is going. I hope the next evolution goes one step further. Let's build homes that aren't just beautiful at the moment of completion. Let's build homes that remain beautiful, functional and desirable for as long as the people who live in them do.