Read the article, very interesting. I for one would not object to a slightly younger allowable age, say maybe 45. I probably wouldn't be interested in a lot of small children though.
One thing I have been thinking about which has been piqued by the current financial chaos is this:
Who will be the buyers for our homes 10-15-20 years down the road? I'm thinking that my kids probably wouldn't be
a) interested in the concept
or
b) due to shifts in retirement funding may not be able to afford.
I don't believe the follow on generations are as "invested" in the retirement concept as "Boomers" were. The "one company for life" and gold watch has gone by the board.
NOTE: there was a typo in the link here is the corrected link:
http://online.wsj.com/article...244267951.html