Cities for All Ages

Across OECD member countries, cities are experiencing significant demographic change, driven by natural factors and migration, and magnified by shocks like pandemics, wars and natural disasters. While the share of older adults in OECD city populations is rapidly increasing due to declining fertility rates and longer life expectancies, the largest cities continue to grow and attract younger people, requiring robust investments in urban spaces, housing, services and infrastructure that accommodate the diverse needs of all age groups.

Creating cities for all ages not only enhances residents’ lives but can also help reach broader economic, social and environmental goals. Conversely, failing to do so can incur significant social and economic costs, including reduced well-being, increased isolation and lower productivity. National and city-level governments can implement policies that promote age-inclusive urban environments, i.e. urban environments that incorporate the needs and priorities of individuals of all ages, ensuring equal opportunities and participation across all stages of life through universal accessibility and urban design, provision of adequate housing and equitable access to services and employment. An in-depth exploration of these strategies and practical examples can be found in Chapter 2.

In recent decades, the share of population aged 65 and over has doubled on average across OECD countries, increasing from less than 9% in 1960 to 18% of the total population in 2021. Declining fertility rates and increasing life expectancy have led to a growing proportion of older adults within the OECD population. In 2021, 242 million people were 65 years of age or more across OECD countries, including more than 64 million who were at least 80 years old (OECD, 2023[1]).

Between 2022 and 2050, the population aged 65 years and older in OECD countries is expected to grow from 250 million to 372 million, an increase of almost 50% (Burgalassi and Matsumoto, 2024[2]). As a result, 1 in 4 people in OECD countries are projected to be aged 65 years or older by 2050, compared with 18% in 2022, while those aged 80 years and older will more than double, reaching 10% of the population. In 5 OECD member countries (Korea, Japan, Italy, Greece and Portugal), the share of the population aged 65 and over is projected to exceed one-third by 2050 (reaching 40%, 38%, 35%, 34% and 34% respectively).

Meanwhile, the shares of children (age 0-14), youth (age 15-24) and working‑age citizens (15-64) are all expected to decrease by 2050 in OECD countries (Burgalassi and Matsumoto, 2024[2]). The increase in the share of older people has led to a rise in the old-age dependency ratio, i.e. the number of individuals aged 65 or older per 100 people of working age (20-64 years old). Over the last 30 years, this ratio has increased from 21 in 1994 to 33 in 2024 on average across OECD countries; over the next 30 years, it is expected to reach 55 per 100 people of working age (UN, 2022[3]).

The population in cities is relatively young compared to non-urban areas in OECD countries. The share of people aged 65 and over is lower in functional urban areas (FUAs), i.e. urban areas which encompass the economic and functional extent of cities based on population density and travel-to-work flows according to the OECD/European Commission definition (Dijkstra, Poelman and Veneri, 2019[4]), than outside FUAs across 31 out of the 35 OECD countries with available data (Figure 1.1). Moreover, populations outside FUAs aged faster than inside them in 22 out of 35 OECD countries between 2000 and 2022, with the old‑age dependency ratio increasing more quickly outside FUAs than in FUAs (Figure 1.2). Nonetheless, the old-age dependency ratio rose in the FUAs of all 35 OECD member countries where data are available during this period, and the share of older people in metropolitan areas is expected to increase from 20.9% to 27.9% between 2020 and 2040, on average, across 29 OECD countries with available data (OECD, 2024[5]; n.d.[6]). The greatest increases in the old-age dependency ratio in FUAs between 2000 and 2022 were in Korea (4.8%), Colombia (2.9%), Mexico (2.6%), Japan (2.4%), Chile (2.4%), Poland (2.2%) and Portugal (2.0%). For some countries (Colombia, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Sweden), the old-age dependency ratio increased more quickly in FUAs than outside FUAs between 2000 and 2022 (Figure 1.2).

Demographic trends in cities, including those related to ageing, are not uniform across all cities in OECD member countries. According to population projections made by the European Union, larger OECD FUAs above 5 million inhabitants and between 1 and 5 million are expected to experience 20% and 5% growth respectively in 2020-30. In contrast, smaller OECD FUAs with fewer than 250 000 inhabitants or between 250 000 and 1 million are expected to shrink by 4% and 3% respectively (Figure 1.3) (OECD, 2022[8]).

Furthermore, in 30 out of 36 OECD countries with available data, FUAs with fewer than 500 000 inhabitants are ageing faster than larger ones (Figure 1.4). In addition, in OECD countries, metropolitan areas that lost population between 2008 and 2018 saw the share of older adults increase by 4.0%. In contrast, growing metropolitan areas experienced a 2.7% increase in the share of older adults during the same period.

Cities across the OECD face significant demographic challenges that shape the demand for urban spaces, housing, services and infrastructure. Most OECD cities are grappling with rapidly ageing populations, which increase the need for accessible housing, healthcare and age-friendly transport. At the same time, the largest cities are still growing, requiring investments in education, affordable housing and job markets, to keep younger generations working, engaged and thriving. Failing to create cities that accommodate the needs of people of all ages can limit access to essential services, housing, jobs and other opportunities for all, leading to significant social and economic costs. Cities are often not age-inclusive because of three main challenges: inadequate urban design, which diminishes quality of life; a lack of age-inclusive housing, which worsens living conditions of older adults but also of younger generations; and failure to leverage the full economic potential of all ages, which leads to reduced economic growth, heightened public spending and missed economic opportunities.

Inadequate infrastructure in cities can decrease the well-being of residents and even put lives at risk when the needs of the most vulnerable segments of the population are not accounted for. This includes (but is not limited to) the lack of sustainable and active modes of transport (ITF, 2022[9]) and inaccessible public transport (OECD/ITF, 2024[10]). Poorly designed or maintained pedestrian routes increase trip time and put people with limited mobility at risk of injury. Additionally, insufficiently protected infrastructure for walking and cycling (ITF, 2023[11]) and unclear signage prevent people with poor vision or dementia from independently navigating the city (Imrie, 2017[12]). Such design features can render cities inaccessible, unnavigable and unsafe for vulnerable populations (ITF, 2023[11]), especially children and older people, who are particularly exposed to car crashes and reduced autonomy. This can also exclude them from key services and amenities that make city life attractive. For instance, data from the Seoul Metropolitan Area, Korea, show that a quality pedestrian network is key to ensuring that people over 65, highly reliant on walking, enjoy access to key amenities, leisure and social encounters (ITF, 2023[13]).

The ageing population also faces a high risk of traffic fatalities. In the United States, two-thirds of all car‑related fatalities in 2022 involved drivers aged 65 and older: 58.6% are older drivers themselves and another 8.4% are their passengers (NSC[14]). According to mortality data from the United States (US) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), between 2012 and 2022, the number of motor-vehicle deaths involving drivers and other road users aged 65 and older increased 22.7% between 1999 and 2022, from 7 780 to 9 547 (Figure 1.5). Among older pedestrians and cyclists in particular, the number of deaths increased 72.9% and 271.2% respectively over the same period. Thus, considering that 84% of US pedestrian fatalities take place in urban areas (NSC[14]), addressing street safety is essential to protecting older adults in cities. In Seoul, Korea, the excessive crossing distance on streets can be particularly challenging for children and persons over 65, who have the highest walking mode share of all age groups and rely on active modes for the freedom to pursue activities independently (ITF, 2023[13]; KOTI, 2019[15]). Indeed, the length and number of crossings, proximity to car traffic and number of steps can all lead to a more arduous and even dangerous pedestrian journey.

Likewise, past research has shown that older adults tend to display a stronger preference for protected cycling infrastructure (Hardinghaus and Weschke, 2022[16]) and that the perception of cycling infrastructure safety decreases with age (Jevremović et al., 2024[17]). In some countries, cycling practices have age‑inclusive features, such as a high degree of separation from traffic, either in the form of quality cycling infrastructure (e.g. Germany, the Netherlands) or through tolerance for senior citizens cycling on sidewalks (e.g. Japan) (Koglin, 2013[18]; Goel et al., 2021[19]; Lagadic, 2022[20]). All in all, providing safe, accessible, well-lit and well-marked infrastructure for active transport is key to ensuring children and older adults can thrive in cities.

The relative quality of neighbourhoods, including levels of access to healthcare and education facilities, quality housing, an active and supportive community, and safe and green outdoor spaces can directly impact the well-being and development of children, women during pregnancy and caretakers of all kinds, as well as indirectly impact family stress levels and parenting methods (OECD, forthcoming[21]). For example, according to research, children with better access to parks and recreational resources are less likely to experience significant increases in body mass index, a key indicator of obesity and associated health risks (Wolch et al., 2011[22]). Furthermore, access to safe outdoor spaces has been linked to better mental health outcomes for children, providing opportunities for social interaction, physical activity and stress reduction. In contrast, a lack of such amenities can contribute to sedentary lifestyles and social isolation which negatively impact children’s development and well-being (EEA, 2022[23]). Likewise, the increase in urban green spaces can significantly improve the health and well-being of older people through increased levels of physical activity and social interactions (Wood, Pykett and Stathi, 2022[24]).

Cities that fail to adapt to the needs of all ages risk exacerbating spatial segregation by inadvertently channelling different age groups into distinct urban areas. When urban design neglects aspects such as accessible public transportation, affordable and age-friendly housing options, and inclusive public spaces, older residents, families with young children and younger adults are often forced to live outside city centres. In many cities, age distribution is influenced by factors such as younger people settling in suburban areas or specific neighbourhood characteristics, like the presence of parks, schools or nightlife, which attract certain age groups (Leyso and Umezaki, 2023[25]). Spatial age segregation in cities reduces intergenerational interaction and can limit the social and economic benefits of diverse communities. For example, United Kingdom (UK) data show an increasing physical separation between generations within urban areas, especially in the largest cities where children are no longer growing up in the same areas where retirees are growing old (Kingman, 2016[26]).

Spatial segregation and inequalities between neighbourhoods can affect not only children’s immediate well-being but also their physical and mental health, cognitive and socio-emotional development, and, ultimately, their pathways and opportunities in life (OECD, forthcoming[27]). In some countries, evidence suggests that neighbourhood inequalities are among the most significant factors affecting social mobility. In the United States, the quality of a child’s neighbourhood (e.g. poverty rates, income inequality, schools, crime rates, segregation) matters half as much as parental income in determining upward mobility (Chetty and Hendren, 2018[28]). The effects of neighbourhood conditions on children are also gaining policy attention in the context of climate change, which disproportionately impacts those in disadvantaged areas and poses serious risks to their development, well-being and fundamental right to a healthy environment.

Spatial and economic inequalities can also intersect to shape the living conditions and access to amenities among older adults. In the case of the Seoul Metropolitan Area, the share of the population over the age of 65 is higher in peripheral areas with the lowest accessibility levels to leisure activities and facing barriers to access healthcare with fewer local transport options (“village” buses). On the other hand, high-accessibility areas in the centre display a concentration of higher-income households (ITF, 2023[13]). Age groups are not homogeneous (OECD/ITF, 2024[10]) and higher-income citizens within older age groups are likely to be better able to ensure their access to amenities, leading to growing inequalities among senior residents.

Poor intergenerational social cohesion can also lead to missed opportunities for knowledge and resource exchanges, socialising and cost-efficient care, while poor cultural integration has led to conflicts over the use of space between generations regarding nightlife, green spaces and cycling versus driving (Reia, 2023[29]; The Economist, 2023[30]). In the United Kingdom, for instance, it is estimated that spatial segregation by age (as well as income and ethnicity) is costing the UK economy GBP 6 billion each year, and just 5% of children in the country’s largest cities have a neighbour over 65 years old (Kingman, 2016[31]).

Age-exclusive cities, designed without consideration for the needs of all generations, can contribute to social isolation across age groups. Age segregation reduces opportunities for cross-generational interactions, leading to the physical and social isolation of vulnerable groups, especially older people. This, in turn, compounds the risk of loneliness and social isolation for older people, who are already more likely to live alone (OECD, 2024[32]). Urban design can exacerbate the effects of physical deterioration in older age, especially for people struggling with mobility and cognitive decline, which can discourage them from leaving the house and lead to an even greater risk of social isolation. In the Seoul Metropolitan Area, there are lower levels of accessibility by public transport and active modes, especially for older people residing in the area’s peripheral zones. This reinforces spatial access inequality for individuals without cars, contributing to increased car dependence and the associated negative externalities of congestion, pollution and traffic fatalities. For older adults, the lack of suitable alternatives to driving can mean less independence and a higher risk of social isolation, leading to associated negative health outcomes (ITF, 2023[13]). Social isolation carries health risks, both physical and mental, including depression, cognitive decline, heart disease and stroke, and earlier death (CDC, n.d.[33]; Khalaila et al., 2024[34]). A lack of daily social engagement can also limit informal support networks, making it harder for older residents to access help in times of need. A cognitive health design pilot programme in a residential neighbourhood of Seoul led to a 16.7% increase in older residents leaving the house at least 5 times a day and a 20% increase in the share of seniors using outdoor space for socialising (CLC, 2019[35])

Research shows that young adults can also suffer from social isolation and loneliness in cities. In the United States, young people encounter fewer individuals from diverse groups compared to adults, with the isolation of young people being exacerbated in larger cities and for those living in poverty (Couture, 2024[36]). Students in major metropolitan areas experience higher levels of racial and income isolation (Cook, Currier and Glaeser, 2024[37]). Social isolation of young people in cities can be due to several factors, including a lack of affordable housing, leading young adults to live in smaller and less connected neighbourhoods, limited availability of youth-friendly public spaces restricting opportunities for social interactions, or limited financial means. For example, income shapes students’ experiences: students from higher-income families visit more amenities, spend more time outside the home and explore a wider variety of locations than low-income students (Cook, Currier and Glaeser, 2024[37]). Higher isolation for youth can have severe long-term consequences, such as dropping out of school (OECD, 2021[38]).

Urban housing is often unaffordable due to the rise in housing prices in recent decades as well as the declining or stagnant investment in social housing. Real house prices across the OECD rose by 77% between 1996 and 2022, while gross domestic product (GDP) per capita increased by only 29% over the same period; cities, in particular, are grappling with housing affordability challenges (OECD, 2023[39]). In 2021, across 17 OECD member countries with available data, relative to the country average, buying a house in a metropolitan region was, on average, 40 percentage points (pp) more expensive than in a region far from a metropolitan area and, within metropolitan areas, city centres are on average 30% more expensive than suburbs (OECD, 2022[8]). Furthermore, public investment in housing has declined significantly since the 2007-08 global financial crisis, falling to less than 0.01% of GDP in OECD countries by 2018. Meanwhile, social housing stocks have shrunk in 18 of the 25 OECD countries with available data, driven by a slowdown in new social housing development.

A shortage of affordable housing can lead to overcrowded living conditions, especially in urban areas where living space is more limited and housing prices are higher. In the European Union (EU), for example, rates of overcrowding are consistently higher in cities than in rural areas or towns and suburbs (19.9% of EU households living in cities live in an overcrowded dwelling, compared with 15.0% in rural areas and 14.8% in towns and suburbs) (Eurostat, 2022[40]). Families with young children in particular can struggle to keep up with housing costs. In the United States, the US Census Bureau Household Pulse Survey taken during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic found that rates of rent arrears were higher among renters with children at home compared to those without children (OECD, 2021[41]). This can push families into housing conditions that can directly affect their children’s health and educational outcomes, such as poor-quality or overcrowded housing (OECD, 2021[41]). For example, damp homes can cause respiratory issues such as asthma (OECD, 2021[42]). Moreover, noisy homes lacking privacy can impede children’s ability to study, to the detriment of their educational outcomes (Habitat for Humanity, 2021[43]). In addition, many families with children continue to struggle with homelessness across OECD countries. In the United States, roughly 58 000 families with children were experiencing homelessness in 2023. In Germany, nearly half of people experiencing sheltered homelessness belonged to a household with children (OECD, 2020[44]). Housing that is unaffordable, overcrowded, poor quality or far away from key amenities such as childcare, parks and schools may discourage parents from staying in or moving into cities (ITF, 2023[13]).

Young adults (16-34 year‑olds) face distinct hurdles: they are least likely to own homes and are heavily reliant on volatile private rental markets, which forces many into prolonged periods of renting, overcrowded or substandard accommodation (Cournède and Plouin, 2022[45]). In the European Union for example, 6% of young people live in overcrowded dwellings, compared to 17% of the general population. Across OECD countries, about half of 20-29 year‑olds continue to live with their parents, a figure that has been on the rise over the past 2 decades (Figure 1.6) (OECD, 2024[32]). This situation not only delays their transition to home ownership, a preference indicated by a vast majority of people when surveyed, but also increases their vulnerability to homelessness in urban centres (Cournède and Plouin, 2022[45]). On average, across EU countries, as of 2019, 26% of the young population lives in overcrowded dwellings compared to 17% for the general population, and 6% live in overcrowded dwellings that also lack daylight, a bath or shower, or a proper roof. Insufficient supply of quality affordable housing in cities can also force young people to settle for poorer quality housing in exchange for affordability, or to live with their parents well into adulthood. An increasing number of young people in OECD member countries are also facing homelessness, particularly in cities (Cournède and Plouin, 2022[45])

Older people face specific challenges too. For pensioners who do not own their own property, housing in high‑demand areas is often unaffordable, and much of the housing stock is not adapted to the potential accessibility needs of older people. In Australia, a survey by the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI) found that 75% of the 96 respondents – made up of housing and aged care industry professionals – reported that the housing needs of lower-income older people (aged 55 and over) are “not well” or “not at all well” met (AHURI, 2022[46]). Many cities also lack diverse housing options such as supportive housing, co-housing or accessory housing (“granny flats”)1 that could support older adults to age in place safely. Housing that is not accessible to seniors and does not offer supportive services increases the risk of accidents and undermines independent living. For example, fewer than 5% of housing units in the United States have the necessary features to accommodate a person with moderate mobility difficulties, such as either no steps between rooms or rails/grab bars along all steps or an accessible bathroom with grab bars (HUD, 2015[47]). In Japan, 58% of residences with older adults in 2023 lacked barrier-free facilities (Burgalassi and Matsumoto, 2024[2]). This lack of suitable housing can lead to mismatches in the allocation of housing stock: empty nest older adults may find themselves with larger, difficult-to-maintain properties while younger families are forced into overcrowded units, as seen in Ireland where 25% of older adults (aged 55 and above) found their homes difficult to maintain (Age Friendly Ireland[48]).

Finally, poor-quality, ageing housing stock in cities, characterised by low energy efficiency and substandard insulation, further exacerbates health and energy poverty risks, especially for older adults who may have limited incomes and underlying health conditions. Housing and other building stock account for nearly 40% of energy-related carbon dioxide emissions globally, reaching up to 70% in large cities like New York in the United States, Paris in France or Tokyo, Japan (OECD, 2022[49]). Additionally, the housing sector contributes to 37% of global emissions of fine particulate matter, posing serious respiratory and cardiovascular risks, while poorly managed indoor temperatures can trigger symptoms of sick building syndrome (OECD, 2022[49]). Conversely, improvements in the energy efficiency of buildings have been linked to improved public health outcomes, as evidenced by lower blood pressure among residents following energy efficiency renovations in Japan (OECD, 2024[50]).

Cities that fail to consider the needs of different age groups face considerable economic costs, including reduced workforce participation and productivity, heightened public spending and lost consumption potential.

Failing to integrate workers of all ages in labour markets leads to reduced economic growth and productivity in cities. As the ratio of people aged 65 and over to people of working age (15-64) is rising, without policy action to increase the participation of older workers in the labour market, population ageing can act as a significant drag on economic growth and the improvement of living standards, and can put public finances under strain (OECD, 2019[51]). In predominantly urban TL3 regions2 across the OECD, 10 pp faster ageing is associated with a 1.9 pp decline in productivity growth relative to other regions within the country (Kim and Dougherty, 2020[52]).

OECD research estimates that building multigenerational workforces and giving older employees greater opportunities could raise GDP per capita by 19% over the next 3 decades. Furthermore, evidence across OECD countries shows that older workers can boost firm productivity through their own experience and know-how, and by enhancing team performance via age and skill complementarities between younger and older workers (OECD, 2020[53]). Neglecting to harness the potential for multigenerational team productivity means cities will miss out on competitive advantages and innovative capacity.

Cities that lack age-inclusive infrastructure, especially for older people, can create significant barriers to the workforce participation of older workers. For example, limited or inaccessible transport infrastructure makes it challenging for older workers to commute to workplaces. Cities that lack low-floor buses, accessible underground stations or adequate transit routes effectively exclude older workers with mobility challenges from workforce participation. This issue is particularly acute for lower-income older adults, who may not have other commuting options, restricting their job choices to areas close to home or within walkable distances. Likewise, a lack of affordable and efficient public transport modes limits access to economic opportunities for young people, especially in cities where affordable housing is located far from job opportunities. Research shows that in US car “independent” cities, an increase in the public transit density by one standard deviation is associated with a two-pp reduction in the youth unemployment rate (Brandtner, Lunn and Young, 2017[54]).

The lack of affordable housing in city centres, both for young and older people, can have significant negative impacts on productivity, by pushing people to the peripheries of cities and restricting their participation to the labour force and job opportunities, particularly in sectors that are concentrated in urban centres. Research shows that the mismatch between affordable housing and job centres increases the cost of commuting, reduces available time for work or education, and reduces productivity. A study of 34 000 workers in the United Kingdom found that those who commute fewer than 30 minutes per day gain 7 days’ worth of productive time annually, compared with those who commute over 1 hour per day. Longer commute times are linked to a higher likelihood of depression, financial strain and stress (Vitality, 2017[55]). Another study of congestion costs calculated that 164 hours lost due to congestion per year in Boston, United States, equated to a productivity cost of USD 4.1 billion (INRIX, 2018[56]).

Furthermore, cities that neglect to implement upskilling and reskilling programmes for older people risk restricting their ability to adapt to the evolving needs of local job markets, especially as megatrends such as the green transition and the digital transition are transforming the world of work, skill requirements and local economies (OECD, 2023[57]). This can, in turn, lead to premature workforce exit. While metropolitan areas in Group of Seven (G7) countries show an increased participation of older adults in the labour market, older workers across the OECD are more prone to exit the labour market than transition to new positions (OECD, 2023[58]). Across OECD member countries, only 24% of workers aged 55-65 participate in training courses, compared to 41% of the cohort aged 45-54. This discrepancy is attributed chiefly to a lack of digital skills. Failure to reskill and engage older adults living in cities in the local labour market may therefore lead ageing workers into early retirement and their increased dependency on public services instead, putting a strain on the resources of cities (OECD, 2024[59]).

Failing to provide local upskilling and reskilling programmes for young workers and, more generally, to workers of all ages can also lead to persistent skills mismatches, hampering workers’ ability to find employment aligned with local job markets, especially as the shift to the green economy requires new skills and the digital transformation has made digital skills essential across most professions (OECD, 2023[57]). While young people between 15 and 29 years old across the OECD relocate almost exclusively to metropolitan regions, youth unemployment rates are higher than those of other working-age adults in all 60 regions of the 7 OECD countries with available data (OECD, 2022[8]). In 2021, the median gap was 11 pp across OECD regions, highlighting the need for effective local skills programmes tailored to young workers.

A lack of age-friendly infrastructure, including safe and accessible transport systems, walkable public spaces and affordable and adequate housing, can lead to more isolation, inactivity and associated health risks across various age groups, such as obesity, cardiovascular disease and mental health issues. Inaccessible sidewalks and inadequate crosswalks also elevate the risk of injuries among older residents, leading to greater reliance on emergency care. This can therefore lead to increased healthcare and social service expenditures to address these physical and mental health issues, further burdening public systems already strained by population ageing (Crowe et al., 2022[60]).

Furthermore, adapting cities to accommodate people of all ages as an afterthought, rather than integrating inclusive design from the outset, creates significant long-term costs for governments. For example, work by the World Bank indicates that the economic and social costs of retrofitting city infrastructure to accommodate all ages, such as incorporating accessibility features to existing infrastructure, are generally higher than the costs of incorporating these features in the construction phase (Das et al., 2022[61]).

Age-friendly urban design contributes to public health goals by promoting physical activity, social connectivity and mental well-being (Annear et al., 2012[62]). This can lead to reduced healthcare costs, aligning with national objectives to control public healthcare expenditures. Furthermore, by reducing barriers to social engagement, cities can help decrease the social isolation that often affects older adults, which is increasingly recognised as a public health priority.

Exclusionary urban design can also lead to missed opportunities in sectors catering to both older and younger residents. The “silver economy” generally refers to the economic opportunities arising from the public and consumer expenditure related to population ageing and the specific needs of the population over 50 (Eatock, 2015[63]), therefore representing a significant potential for economic growth in ageing cities. It encompasses a wide range of sectors focusing on meeting the needs of older people, including healthcare, housing, mobility and transport, tourism and leisure, retail and consumer goods and technology and digital services. The silver economy is expected to continue growing as the share of older people continues to increase. In Europe, the silver economy is expected to contribute over EUR 6.4 trillion to the EU economy and 88 million jobs in 2025, i.e. 31.5% of the EU GDP and 37.8% of EU employment (EC, 2018[64]).

Adapting cities for all ages would, therefore, help boost economic growth by leveraging the evolving demands of older people, for example for health services, housing, consumer goods and services, leisure and tourism, thereby unlocking the opportunities of the silver economy. For example, long-term care represents one such industry with potential for job growth in correlation with a substantial increase in demand. Between 2015 and 2030, the number of older people in need of care around the world is projected to increase by 100 million (OECD, 2023[1]; 2024[59]; ILO/OECD, 2019[65]). In the European Union, tourists aged 65 years and over accounted for nearly 1 in 4 tourism nights for private purposes spent by EU residents in 2022 (Eurostat[66]). The tourism sector is expected to be one of the main beneficiaries of population ageing due to the greater importance older adults place on travel in their leisure time during retirement than previous generations (Alén, Losada and Domínguez, 2015[67]).

With populations ageing in nearly all OECD countries, cities that adopt age-inclusive strategies will also be better prepared for further demographic shifts. Age-inclusive urban planning allows cities to anticipate and adapt to changing needs, from workforce transitions to evolving healthcare demands, positioning them as adaptable and forward-thinking in the face of demographic change and other megatrends or shocks.

[48] Age Friendly Ireland (2021), Age Friendly Guide to Right-Sizing: How About One Million More?, https://agefriendlyireland.ie/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/AFI-Rightsizing-Policy-Guide.pdf.

[46] AHURI (2022), Embracing alternative housing ideas to house our ageing population, Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, https://www.ahuri.edu.au/analysis/news/embracing-alternative-housing-ideas-house-our-ageing-population (accessed on 26 July 2024).

[67] Alén, E., N. Losada and T. Domínguez (2015), “The impact of ageing on the tourism industry: An approach to the senior tourist profile”, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 127/1, pp. 303-322, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-015-0966-x.

[62] Annear, M. et al. (2012), “Environmental influences on healthy and active ageing: A systematic review”, Ageing and Society, Vol. 34/4, pp. 590-622, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0144686x1200116x.

[54] Brandtner, C., A. Lunn and C. Young (2017), “Spatial mismatch and youth unemployment in US cities: Public transportation as a labor market institution”, Socio-Economic Review, Vol. 17/2, pp. 357-379, https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwx010.

[2] Burgalassi, D. and T. Matsumoto (2024), “Demographic change in cities: Trends, challenges and insights from G7 economies”, OECD Regional Development Papers, No. 67, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f2aec988-en.

[33] CDC (n.d.), Health Effects of Social Isolation and Loneliness, United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, https://www.cdc.gov/social-connectedness/risk-factors/index.html.

[28] Chetty, R. and N. Hendren (2018), “The impacts of neighborhoods on intergenerational mobility I: Childhood exposure effects”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 133/3, pp. 1107-1162, https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjy007.

[35] CLC (2019), Age Friendly Cities: Lessons from Seoul and Singapore, Center for Liveable Cities, https://www.clc.gov.sg/docs/default-source/books/book-age-friendly-cities.pdf (accessed on 13 March 2024).

[37] Cook, C., L. Currier and E. Glaeser (2024), “Urban mobility and the experienced isolation of students”, Nature Cities, Vol. 1/1, pp. 73-82, https://doi.org/10.1038/s44284-023-00007-3.

[45] Cournède, B. and M. Plouin (2022), No Home for the Young?: Stylised Facts and Policy Challenges, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/adbee321-en.

[36] Couture, V. (2024), “Urban youth most isolated in largest cities”, Nature, Vol. 625/7996, pp. 667-668, https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-04083-2.

[60] Crowe, D. et al. (2022), “Population ageing and government revenue: Expected trends and policy considerations to boost revenue”, OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 1737, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9ce9e8e3-en.

[61] Das, M. et al. (2022), Silver Hues: Building Age-Ready Cities, World Bank, Washington, DC, https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/urbandevelopment/publication/age-ready-cities.

[4] Dijkstra, L., H. Poelman and P. Veneri (2019), “The EU-OECD definition of a functional urban area”, OECD Regional Development Working Papers, No. 2019/11, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d58cb34d-en.

[63] Eatock, D. (2015), “Briefing: The silver economy: Opportunities from ageing”, European Parliamentary Research Service, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/EPRS/EPRS-Briefing-565872-The-silver-economy-FINAL.pdf.

[64] EC (2018), The Silver Economy, European Commission, https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/a9efa929-3ec7-11e8-b5fe-01aa75ed71a1.

[23] EEA (2022), Who Benefits from Nature in Cities? Social Inequalities in Access to Urban Green and Blue Spaces across Europe, European Environment Agency, https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/who-benefits-from-nature-in.

[40] Eurostat (2022), Income and Living Conditions, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/income-and-living-conditions/database.

[66] Eurostat (n.d.), “Tourism trends and ageing”, Statistics Explained, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/SEPDF/cache/55730.pdf.

[19] Goel, R. et al. (2021), “Cycling behaviour in 17 countries across 6 continents: Levels of cycling, who cycles, for what purpose, and how far?”, Transport Reviews, Vol. 42/1, pp. 58-81, https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2021.1915898.

[43] Habitat for Humanity (2021), How Does Housing Affect Children’s Education?, https://www.habitat.org/sites/default/files/documents/21-81776_RD_EvidenceBrief-6-Education_FASH-lores_1.pdf.

[16] Hardinghaus, M. and J. Weschke (2022), “Attractive infrastructure for everyone? Different preferences for route characteristics among cyclists”, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 111, p. 103465, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2022.103465.

[47] HUD (2015), Assessing the Accessibility of America’s Housing Stock for Physically Disabled Persons, United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.

[65] ILO/OECD (2019), “New job opportunities in an ageing society”, Co-authored paper prepared for the 1st Meeting of the G20 Employment Working Group under the Japanese G20 presidency (Tokyo, 25-27 February 2019), https://www.ilo.org/publications/new-job-opportunities-ageing-society (accessed on 22 August 2024).

[12] Imrie, R. (2017), “‘The lonely city’: Urban infrastructure and the problem of loneliness”, in Sagan, O. and E. Miller (eds.), Narratives of Loneliness: Multidisciplinary Perspectives from the 21st Century, Routledge, New York, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315645582.

[56] INRIX (2018), “Congestion costs each American 97 hours, $1,348 a year”, https://inrix.com/press-releases/scorecard-2018-us/.

[13] ITF (2023), “Accessibility in the Seoul Metropolitan Area: Does Transport Serve All Equally?”, International Transport Forum Policy Papers, No. 117, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/4ef85abc-en.

[11] ITF (2023), Improving the Quality of Walking and Cycling in Cities: Summary and Conclusions, ITF Roundtable Reports, No. 192, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/cdeb3fe8-en.

[9] ITF (2022), “Streets That Fit: Re-allocating Space for Better Cities”, International Transport Forum Policy Papers, No. 100, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5593d3e2-en.

[17] Jevremović, S. et al. (2024), “Age-friendly cycling infrastructure - Differences and preferences among 50+ cyclists”, Sustainability, Vol. 16/17, p. 7280, https://doi.org/10.3390/su16177280.

[34] Khalaila, R. et al. (2024), “A prospective association between social isolation and cognitive performance among older adults in Europe: The role of loneliness and poor oral health”, Aging and Mental Health, Vol. 28/8, pp. 1162-1168, https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2023.2299968.

[52] Kim, J. and S. Dougherty (eds.) (2020), Ageing and Fiscal Challenges across Levels of Government, OECD Fiscal Federalism Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/2bbfbda8-en.

[31] Kingman, D. (2016), Generations Apart? The Growth of Age Segregation in England and Wales, Intergenerational Foundation, https://www.if.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Generations-Apart_Report_Final_Web-Version-1.pdf.

[26] Kingman, D. (2016), Generations Apart? The Growth of Age Segregation in England and Wales, Intergenerational Foundation, https://www.if.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Generations-Apart_Report_Final_Web-Version-1.pdf.

[18] Koglin, T. (2013), “City cycling”, European Planning Studies, Vol. 22/1, pp. 227-228, https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2013.798111.

[15] KOTI (2019), Passenger Travel Status Index Book: How Do Korean People Travel?, Korea Transport Institute, https://english.koti.re.kr/eng/bbs/specilRschView.do?bbs_no=60963 (accessed on 21 August 2024).

[20] Lagadic, M. (2022), “Cycling for all? A feminist analysis of the Tokyo Bicycle Utiliastion Promotion Strategy”, FFH-EHESS Working Paper.

[25] Leyso, N. and M. Umezaki (2023), “Uncovering spatial patterns and temporal trends in the ageing of the Tokyo metropolis population”, Journal of Population Ageing, Vol. 16/4, pp. 939-958, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12062-023-09412-x.

[14] NSC (2021), Older Drivers - Injury Facts, National Safety Council, https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/road-users/older-drivers/ (accessed on 15 October 2023).

[50] OECD (2024), Global Monitoring of Policies for Decarbonising Buildings: A Multi-level Approach, OECD Urban Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d662fdcb-en (accessed on 13 March 2024).

[32] OECD (2024), OECD Affordable Housing Database - HM1.4 Living Arrangements By Age Groups, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/data/datasets/affordable-housing-database/hm1-4-living-arrangements-age-groups.pdf (accessed on 21 August 2024).

[59] OECD (2024), OECD Employment Outlook 2024: The Net-Zero Transition and the Labour Market, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ac8b3538-en.

[5] OECD (2024), OECD Regions and Cities at a Glance 2024, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f42db3bf-en.

[7] OECD (2024), Regions, Cities and Local Statistics, OECD, Paris, http://oe.cd/geostats (accessed on 21 November 2024).

[39] OECD (2023), “Confronting the cost-of-living and housing crisis in cities”, OECD Regional Development Papers, No. 49, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/7a6008af-en.

[1] OECD (2023), Health at a Glance 2023: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/7a7afb35-en.

[57] OECD (2023), Job Creation and Local Economic Development 2023: Bridging the Great Green Divide, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/21db61c1-en.

[58] OECD (2023), Retaining Talent at All Ages, Ageing and Employment Policies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/00dbdd06-en.

[49] OECD (2022), Decarbonising Buildings in Cities and Regions, OECD Urban Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a48ce566-en.

[8] OECD (2022), OECD Regions and Cities at a Glance 2022, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/14108660-en.

[41] OECD (2021), Building for a Better Tomorrow: Policies to Make Housing more Affordable, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5d9127d4-en (accessed on 29 August 2024).

[42] OECD (2021), Measuring What Matters for Child Well-being and Policies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e82fded1-en.

[38] OECD (2021), “Supporting young people’s mental health through the COVID-19 crisis”, OECD Policy Responses to Coronavirus (COVID-19), OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/84e143e5-en.

[44] OECD (2020), Better Data and Policies to Fight Homelessness in the OECD: Policy on Affordable Housing, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/0eef075a-en (accessed on 29 August 2024).

[53] OECD (2020), Promoting an Age-Inclusive Workforce: Living, Learning and Earning Longer, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/59752153-en.

[51] OECD (2019), Working Better with Age, Ageing and Employment Policies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c4d4f66a-en.

[21] OECD (forthcoming), Building Child-Friendly Neighbourhoods: Empowering Communities with Data-Driven Action, OECD Publishing, Paris.

[6] OECD (n.d.), OECD Regional Database, OECD, Paris.

[27] OECD (forthcoming), Unlocking Potential: Why Monitoring Children’s Neighbourhood Conditions Matters, OECD Publishing, Paris.

[10] OECD/ITF (2024), Sustainable Accessibility for All, ITF Research Reports, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5c91857c-en.

[29] Reia, J. (2023), “Why more cities are hiring ‘night mayors’ and establishing forms of nighttime governance”, The Conversation, https://theconversation.com/why-more-cities-are-hiring-night-mayors-and-establishing-forms-of-nighttime-governance-202488 (accessed on 26 July 2024).

[30] The Economist (2023), “Throughout the rich world, the young are falling out of love with cars”, The Economist, https://www.economist.com/international/2023/02/16/throughout-the-rich-world-the-young-are-falling-out-of-love-with-cars (accessed on 14 March 2024).

[3] UN (2022), World Population Prospects 2022, United Nations, https://doi.org/10.18356/9789210014380c009 (accessed on 20 August 2024).

[55] Vitality (2017), “Long commutes costing firms a week’s worth of staff productivity”, https://www.vitality.co.uk/media/long-commutes-costing-a-weeks-worth-of-productivity/.

[22] Wolch, J. et al. (2011), “Childhood obesity and proximity to urban parks and recreational resources: A longitudinal cohort study”, Health and Place, Vol. 17/1, pp. 207-214, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2010.10.001.

[24] Wood, G., J. Pykett and A. Stathi (2022), “Active and healthy ageing in urban environments: Laying the groundwork for solution-building through citizen science”, Health Promotion International, Vol. 37/4, https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/daac126.