Multigenerational living: the housing experience of Lebanese Australian families

ABSTRACT

Housing diversity, which refers to the existence of a variety of housing options tailored to accommodate diverse lifestyles, cultural backgrounds and financial capacities, remains conspicuously deficient in Australian cities. In recognition of the imperative to investigate the housing needs of various family types, this study undertakes a qualitative analysis of the housing experiences within multigenerational Lebanese Australian families. The paper analyses data collected through in-depth interviews and household tours of 20 participants from 15 different households situated in Western Sydney’s and Greater Brisbane’s metropolitan areas. The study documents the housing experiences of four sub-types of multigenerational families and elucidates the processes by which domestic architectural configurations are adapted and formulated to meet the needs of diverse multigenerational family arrangements. The study reveals that housing designs play a central role in shaping both positive and negative experiences for Lebanese Australian families, many of which parallel the experiences encountered by broader mainstream Australian society.

KEYWORDS:

• Multigenerational families
• housing diversity‌
• Lebanese Australian
• suburban housing
• Sydney
• Brisbane

Introduction

For decades, assumptions about family structures and lifestyles have guided the production of speculatively produced housing in Australia (Dunstan, Hewitt, and Nakata 2020). There is an abundance of research that discusses the Great Australian Dream: a societal desire to achieve homeownership of detached suburban houses (Johnson 2018). Central to that dream is the underlying assumption about the lifestyle of the nuclear Anglo-Australian family, which has led to the suburban Australian housing stock being delivered with minimal consideration of diverse family types and alternative lifestyles that are part of life in the Australian suburbs (Keys 2019).

However, Australian society was never solely composed of Anglo-Australians (Collins et al. 2020; Davison 2000), nor was the nuclear family the only form of the Australian family (Lozanovska 2019; Shaweesh and Greenop 2020). For example, Indigenous Australians have particular ways of ‘doing family’, in that there is great value placed on extended family and community relationships, as expressed through distinct domestic behaviours (Dunstan, Hewitt, and Nakata 2020, 323; also see Memmott et al. 2012). Additionally, Australia experienced mass migration from across the globe, particularly between the 1950s and 1970s, contributing to the cultural diversity of Australian society (Morgan, Rocha, and Poynting 2005). There is a growing body of research that investigates how non-Anglo cultures and non-nuclear families live in Australia’s housing stock (Collins et al. 2020; Lozanovska 2019), and the variations in the needs of Anglo and nuclear families that are not necessarily considered when designing speculatively-produced housing (Fincher and Gooder 2007). However, the ways that non-Anglo multigenerational families accommodate their needs in Australian suburbs remains under-researched (Levin 2010; Lozanovska 2016; Shaweesh and Greenop 2020)

Drawing on the experiences of 20 participants from 15 households, this paper extends our understanding of how diverse family types (and sub-types), and cultural and social needs are shaping suburban housing in Australia. The paper investigates the housing experience of multigenerational families under four sub-types: adults living in their parents’ homes, multi-family households, multiple related families occupying adjacent dwellings and the continued use of the parents’ house by subsequent generations (Bayt Al-Ayleh; بيت العيلة ).

The paper investigates the motivations behind multigenerational living and explores how these types of diverse living arrangements affect the residential experiences of the study participants. Additionally, the paper examines the spatial and behavioural adaptations made by the participating families within the context of conventional Australian housing. Understanding how families adapt their living spaces is highly important knowledge required to inform the production of housing that aims to improve the comfort and functionality of these living arrangements to enhance the wellbeing of the householders.

Housing diversity and household variations in the Australian context

In Australia, the cultural narrative of a ‘good life’ largely relates to the Great Australian Dream, which tells the story of ‘young, white heterosexual nuclear families upsizing from small inner-city apartments to large single-detached suburban houses’ (Penfold, Waitt, and McGuirk 2018, 164). The narrative associates culture (the Anglo culture); family type (the nuclear family); and lifestyle (of young populations) with specific locations (in the suburbs) and specific housing types (the detached house). These assumptions are not limited to people’s perceptions of families and lifestyles but are also absorbed and re-expressed in the physical attributes of speculatively produced housing (Fincher 2004). Thus, many people in Australia make homes in suburban housing settings where the spatial organisation reflects a ‘generalised version of the Australian culture’ (Johnson 2018, 24; see also Dowling 2012; Freestone 2000). Assumed housing needs are particularly evident in relation to household structures, domestic privacy, and personal space (Dovey 1992). However, cultural diversity, diversity in household types, lifestyles, life cycles and financial and physical capabilities have placed housing diversity at the centre of research, policy and political discussions in Australia (Gilbert et al. 2020; Hulse, Morris, and Pawson 2018; Pawson, Milligan, and Yates 2020).

It is worth noting that the architectural attributes of housing in Australia have shifted over the years, reflecting changes to perceived mainstream ideals among Australians (Freestone 2000; Randolph and Freestone 2012). Johnson (2018, 25) explains that changes to the Australian house are not limited to its physical attributes, stating that ‘there has also been a reconfiguration of who is living there and how’.

Given the longevity of housing, there is some diversity in Australian housing stock (Judd et al. 2014; Volz 2018), but there is not an adequate amount of housing diversity, and the existing diversity is inadequately distributed across Australian cities (Gilbert et al. 2020; Johnson 2018). In the context of this study, the term ‘housing diversity’ refers to variety in the built form, tenure and affordability of housing in relation to its capacity to cater to diverse lifestyles and financial capabilities (Gilbert et al. 2020). For example, Fincher and Gooder (2007, 169) argue that narratives of housing providers in Australia delivering medium-density housing (including planners, architects and developers) ‘do not match the varied lives of the range of household, housing and neighbourhood types. But how far the narratives depart from the reality is not clear’. Therefore, household variations; cultural and social diversity; and the changing needs of residents over life cycles are key considerations for studies on housing diversity (Dowling and Power 2012; Gorman-Murray 2008).

Housing experiences of diverse family types

Researchers (from disciplines such as geography, sociology, anthropology, architecture and planning) have been investigating the consequences of associating specific family types with certain housing types and/or locations. Fincher and Gooder (2007, 169) acknowledge that ‘definitions of family and family households have become increasingly complex and diverse’. In addition to the nuclear family, other family types include ‘couple-only, multigenerational, multi-family, group, single-parent and the fastest growing household type across much of the West, single-occupancy households’ (Lane and Gorman-Murray 2011, 222).

Besides being diverse, household types continuously change, and sub-types emerge, adding to the complexity of addressing housing needs in Australia. Johnson (2006, 262) explains the following: ‘There have also been major changes in household composition [in Australia], with a long-term divergence between small population growth and high levels of household formation’. However, societal changes (including the emergence and/or change of household variations) are not always met with spatial responses in housing designs. Judd (2017, 136) argues that ‘while the social component (the family) changes over time and with circumstances, the physical environment (the dwelling) is relatively fixed in space and time, and its adaptation more difficult’. Therefore, there is an urgent need to examine the adequacy of the conventional Australian housing stock in meeting the needs of diverse cultures, and household types.

One example of research exploring the housing needs of diverse household types explores the housing needs of single-person households. Wulff, Heal, and Reynolds (2004) reported on planners’ assumption that smaller households will desire to live in smaller dwellings, therefore, the shift towards smaller households will facilitate the shift towards compact cities. However, according to Wulff, Heal, and Reynolds (2004), the reality is that single-person households (at least at the time of their study) preferred living in detached three-bedroom houses. Their research suggests that people opting for denser living arrangements (e.g. apartments) ‘may be trading off housing type preference for desirable locational amenity, including the perceived lifestyle attributes of the inner-city’ (Wulff, Heal, and Reynolds 2004, 70). However, recent research suggests that apartments, if well designed, might appeal to people living alone (Faulkner et al. 2023). Another example is the increase in single-parent households in Australia, and single mothers are particularly challenged by accessing housing that is affordable and has ‘enough bedrooms for their children; this is especially the case if their children are incompatible for a shared bedroom’ (Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute [AHURI] 2023, para. 6).

Even though the nuclear family is the main family type considered in the production of detached suburban housing, the needs and lived experiences of nuclear families are also ill-considered in certain housing types and locations, particularly in the context of suburban densification (Cook, Herath, and Kerr 2023). For example, Australian cities are witnessing profound densification, with an increase in the number of apartments and apartment-dwellers. Housing affordability, the lack (or poor distribution) of housing densities and growth of population by rapid migration are generating calls to increase housing densities, particularly in inner-city and middle-ring suburbs of major Australian cities (Daley, Coates, and Wiltshire 2018). Apartment living can be considered atypical for families with children; an assumption reflected in the design and marketing of apartments (Kerr, Gibson, and Klocker 2018). Fincher (2004, 325) explains that developers see ‘city high-rise residences as appropriate only for people without families, and see women, separately from the couples they make up with men, only as potential victims requiring the security that high-rise apartment living is said to provide’. Nevertheless, many families with children challenge this norm and choose to live in apartments, and endeavour to accommodate their needs in domestic spaces that largely neglect to consider them as potential occupants. However, spatial limitations associated with the design and materiality of apartments ‘leads to tensions around acoustics and privacy, while apartment materiality creates an emotional dilemma between being a good parent and a good neighbour’ (Kerr, Gibson, and Klocker 2018, 1).

While a nuclear family is depicted as a social norm associated with detached housing, there is also lack of consideration of variations within nuclear family living arrangements. For example, Dockery et al. (2022, 49) reported that ‘within some CALD [culturally and linguistically diverse] communities ... having large numbers of children within a nuclear family was said to be common’. Given that housing affordability is an obstacle to accessing adequate housing in Australia, larger nuclear families can end up living in housing that is too small for their needs (in terms of amenities), leading them to experience house crowding (Dockery et al. 2022).

Australia (along with other Western nations) is also witnessing an increase in multigenerational living (Muennig, Jiao, and Singer 2018), adding to the variety of household types that should be considered in the dialogue on housing diversity. Approximately 20% of Australians live in multigenerational households (Easthope et al. 2015); however, Easthope et al. (2017) argue that research on Australian society has neglected multigenerational living for the past three decades. There are several forms of multigenerational living that have been identified in the Australian context:

Multigenerational households might include mums and dads and their adult children living under one roof, middle-aged couples who took in one or both sets of parents, three – or even four – generation households and skipped generation households where grandparents and grandchildren live together without the middle generation … each scenario reflecting different personal pathways to living together. (Liu and Easthope 2017, 2)

Despite existing research recognising several forms of multigenerational living, the consideration of multigenerational households in public policy is complex ‘because no one knows how many there are, or where and how they live’ (Liu and Easthope 2017, 2). However, there are research findings that identify CALD communities and Indigenous Australians as more likely (compared to the mainstream society) to practice multigenerational living (Dockery et al. 2022; Pilkauskas and Martinson 2014). From the perspective of mainstream society, the concept of ‘in-kind transfers’ includes the practice of adults who ‘remain in or return to the family home as a means of reducing their overall living expenses and accelerating the rate at which they are able to save’ (Cook 2021, 1196), mostly in the hope of achieving homeownership.

The desire to maintain multigenerational living arrangements has been linked to the housing preferences of several migrant communities in Australia. For example, Chiang and Hsu (2005) reported that Taiwanese migrants prefer housing that can accommodate multigenerational living. Further, compared with young adults from an Anglo background, young adults from non-English speaking backgrounds are less likely to leave their parental homes during the early periods of adulthood (Flatau et al. 2007, 67), as is the case among young adults who are from a Lebanese background (Hyndman-Rizik 2010). Shaweesh and Greenop (2020) argue that Lebanese Australians prefer houses that have physical layouts capable of accommodating social practices that support the maintenance of strong familial ties, including the ability to cater for multigenerational living and facilitate large social gatherings, which typically includes hosting members of the extended family on a regular basis.

As discussed, speculatively produced housing in Australia is generally formed with assumptions about household types, domestic culture and lifestyles. This has led to a need to understand the housing experience of multigenerational households in Australia. Judd (2017) documented several design-related experiences that emerge from adopting multigenerational living to Australian dwellings. The first is the complexity of navigating privacy in multigenerational households, given that the housing design influences ‘both social and spatial dimensions’ (Judd 2017, 139). According to Judd (2017, 141), this issue can be addressed through ‘better territory-defining design to create greater self-containment within the dwelling’. The second is inadequate space, particularly when the household size increases suddenly rather than gradually such as when adult children return after leaving home, in some cases having returned with children and/or a partner (Judd 2017). Housing designs that consider multigenerational occupancy require ‘room layout and articulation’ because both are ‘equally important for supporting the often-different lifestyles, privacy needs and independence of different generations in a multigenerational household’ (Judd 2017, 143). The third is that noise interference in multigenerational households closely relates to the layout of a room, the number of bedrooms and room adjacencies (Judd 2017). Judd (2017, 139) explains that ‘inappropriate housing design has also contributed to problems of privacy, intra- and intergenerational tensions and compromises arising from inflexibility’.

The studies discussed above demonstrate that, to achieve housing diversity in Australia, it is important to engage in the following: (1) identify the continuously emerging – and changing – household variations; and (2) consider (not assume) the housing needs of household variations in different housing types and localities. Thus, this study builds on the work of Judd (2017, 136), which raises the following important question in relation to housing designs for multigenerational living:

Do these families [those adopting multigenerational living] simply adapt to an existing dwelling design, make modifications, or move to more suitable housing, and what responses to the needs of multigenerational households are forthcoming from housing policy, designers and the housing industry?

This paper responds to this question by examining the housing experiences of several multigenerational Lebanese Australian families, and it adds to Judd’s (2017) question by asking whether the Lebanese Australian experience differs from that of mainstream Australian society as documented in existing literature.

Method

This paper discusses results from a larger study conducted by the author that examined aspects of everyday life of Lebanese Australian families in suburban Australian housing. The study examines the perspective of 20 participants from 15 households, predominantly women (17 out of 20 participants) and of the Muslim faith (18 out of 20 participants). The participants represent a cohort that self-identify as part of the Lebanese Australian community. The sample includes migrants (seven participants); Australian-born to migrant parents (ten participants); and Anglo-Australians who adopted the Lebanese Australian lifestyle after marriage (two participants). Fifteen of the participants lived in several suburbs of Lebanese ethnic concentration in Western Sydney, and four participants lived in Greater Brisbane suburbs at the time of the interviews.

A combination of purposive and snowball sampling was employed to recruit participants. The purposive sampling approached community members while considering the subgroupings that could operate as comparative units in the data analysis, including age, gender, migrants’ original city or village; length of time living in Australia; neighbourhood characteristics (e.g. ethnic concentration and proximity to ethnic shops and religious infrastructure); the location of extended family members; and tenure status. Participants were recruited by approaching Lebanese grocery shops, mosques and through personal connections with members of the community. Participants recruited through purposive sampling functioned as both participating individuals and community gatekeepers.

The analysis draws on data collected through in-depth interviews, household tours, digital voice recordings, photographic documentation and digital historical imagery tools. The participants were mainly interviewed in their homes (unless an alternative arrangement was requested). The participants were given the option to speak either in Arabic or English to maximise their ability to express their ideas more comfortably. Interpreters were not required because the author is fluent in both languages. The duration of the interviews ranged between 45 minutes and 3 hours. The interviews were digitally recorded with the permission of the participants and transcribed (into a translated version in English for interviews conducted in Arabic to achieve data consistency). Digital illustrations of the houses’ layouts and the internal furniture mapping were completed shortly after the interviews using architectural illustration software. Tables 1 and 2 summarise the participants’ demographic information, pseudonyms used in this paper and codes used in the analysis.

Table 1. Summary of the demographic and household information of the Sydney-based sample, as well as participants’ reported experience of multigenerational living at the time of the interviews and before.

Participant Pseudonym	S01 Deena	S02 Maha	S03 Amani	S02* Maha	S04 Basem	S05 Manar	S06 Rania	S07 Samiha	S08 Jessica	S09 Nadine	S10 Ali	S11 Riham	S13 Amal	S14 Fatina	S15 Amin	S13** Amal	S16 Clara
Household (HH)	HH 1			HH 2	HH 3		HH 4	HH 5	HH 6	HH 7	HH 8		HH9	HH10			HH11
Gender Ager Place of birth	Female 56 Lebanon	Female 33 Australia	Female 20 Australia	Female 33 Australia	Male 35 Lebanon	Female 32 Australia	Female 39 Australia	Female 50 Lebanon	Female 39 Australia	Female 24 Australia	Male 35 Australia	Female 29 Australia	Female 28 Australia	Female 46 Lebanon	Male 29 Australia	Female 28 Australia	Female 39 Australia
Number of householders at the time of the interview	6			3	Five living in the dwelling; 19 living in the family complex		5	Four living in the dwelling; nine living in family complex	6	5	3		4	5			6
Variations of multigenerational living***	1, 2, 4			NA	3	3	NA	1, 3, 4	NA	2, 3	NA		NA	1, 4			2, 4
Previous experiences of multigenerational living***				1, 2	All types	1, 4	1	All types	2	1	1, 4	1, 4	1	2

* Maha was part of HH1. She was also interviewed after moving out to HH2 with her nuclear family.

** Amal was also part of HH10 before her marriage. Her experiences of living in HH10 and HH09 are recorded.

*** 1 = adults living in their parents’ homes; 2 = multi-family households; 3 = multiple related families occupying adjacent associated dwellings; 4 = continued use of the parents’ house by subsequent generations (Bayt Al-Ayleh).

Table 2. Summary of the demographic and household information of the Brisbane-based sample, as well as participants’ reported experience of multigenerational living at the time of the interviews and before.

Participant Pseudonym	B01 Firyal	B02 Ameera	B03 Nehad	B04 Zainab
Household (HH)	HH 12	HH 13	HH 14	HH 15
Gender Age Place of birth	Female 39 Lebanon	Female 25 Syria	Female 36 Syria	Female 37 Lebanon
Number of householders at the time of the interview	4	4	8	NA
Variations of multigenerational living*	1, 4	NA	1, 2, 3	NA
Previous experiences of multigenerational living*	2	All types

*1 = adults living in their parents’ homes; 2 = multi-family households; 3 = multiple related families occupying adjacent associated dwellings; 4 = continued use of the parents’ house by subsequent generations (Bayt Al-Ayleh).

Multigenerational living: insights from the Lebanese Australian community

The Lebanese migration to Australia from the 1880s occurred over three major migrations waves. The first wave occurred from the later nineteenth century up to World War II and included a small group of migrants fleeing poor living conditions under the Ottoman rule of the region that constitutes modern-day Lebanon. The second wave occurred between 1947 and 1975, after the outbreak of the Arab–Israeli War. The third occurred after 1975, induced by the outbreak of the Lebanese Civil War (Convy and Monsour 2008).

In Lebanon, family as a social institution is central to the culture, and the local norms place great emphasis on kinship, family ties and providing care, particularly for elderly family members (Mehio-Sibai, Beydoun, and Tohme 2009). In Australia, the extended family continues to function as a source of social, cultural and economic support to Lebanese Australian people (Batrouney 1995). This is reflected in the settlement patterns of Australians from a Lebanese background. Strong village-based chain migration was associated with the three waves of migration discussed above (Burnley 1982) and, during these waves, the extended family functioned as a powerful source of support (socially and financially) when Lebanese people were settling in Australia (Hyndman-Rizik 2010). Armstrong (2000, 181) explains that the ‘Lebanese enclave in Marrickville developed because they wanted members of the large extended family to be close to each other’.

Generally, Lebanese migrants moving to Australia live with family members who have already settled in Australia until they improve their financial stability and can live independently, mostly within proximity to other family members, which led to the clustering of Lebanese migrants, mainly in Western Sydney (Hyndman-Rizk 2014). This pattern is recorded among Lebanese migrants from both the Muslim and Christian faith (Hugo 1995; Hyndman-Rizk 2014). Family life influenced not only the community member’s choice of where to live, but also their housing needs and preferences (Shaweesh and Greenop 2020).

Unfortunately, the extent and form in which Lebanese Australian people practice multigenerational living remains under-researched. In particular, no quantitative studies have measured the extent of multigenerational living among Lebanese Australian households. However, the experience of multigenerational living was prominent among the participants in this study, who have all – except for one¹ – experienced one or more of the variations (identified in this study) of multigenerational living.

The socio-spatial implications of multigenerational living

The study gathered the perspectives of participants who are currently or had previously engaged in multigenerational living. The analysis discusses four of the variations of multigenerational living that were reported among the participants; however, there might be other forms of multigenerational living among Lebanese Australian community members that did not participate in this research. These four variations reflect three aspects: the household structure (or who lives in a dwelling); the right to use a dwelling that is not one’s current residence; and the overlap between daily routines in the case of extended families occupying several dwellings (mainly dwellings in proximity of each other). Identifying these variations helps further understanding of the suitability of mainstream Australian housing in catering for families’ everyday domestic life and uncovers the coping mechanisms adopted by Lebanese Australians to meet their needs.

Single adults living in their parents’ homes

The first variation of multigenerational living is single adults living in their parents’ homes. Currently, housing in Australia is unaffordable for many people, which poses challenges for young adults in moving towards living in independent housing or achieving homeownership (Easthope et al. 2017; Parkinson et al. 2019; Whelan et al. 2023). Whelan et al. (2023, 45) report that co-residence of ‘young adults with parents has become increasingly common, and this form of tenure represents an important mechanism by which parents can provide support to children and facilitate home ownership’.

However, for the participants in this study, living in the parental home as unmarried adults is the norm and not a consequence of being unable to move out, and this is particularly true for women.² Unless adult unmarried children (of Lebanese Australian families) study or work far from home, they are not expected to move out until after marriage. When the participants were asked about their expectations of children leaving home when they become adults, the participants responded as if I should know that the question has an obvious answer of ‘no’ given that I am also from a Middle Eastern background. This indicates that, despite the economic benefit that can result from adults staying in their parents’ home, the reason behind the continuity of this type of multigenerational living emerges from cultural expectations rather than financial gain. This expectation influences the participants’ housing choices and adaptations of the internal spaces.

The participants reported that they prefer to buy detached houses with sizes and spatial layouts that are more likely to cater to the family’s changing needs as their children grow. The household tours that were conducted for this study documented various modifications that had been made to the domestic architecture of the participant’s houses in response to their children’s changing needs.

Several strategies were employed to modify existing interior spaces to accommodate the evolving requirements of children. These adaptations included converting interior areas into dedicated spaces such as music rooms, ateliers or workshops suitable for running home-based businesses. Moreover, separate social spaces (e.g. a living area or television/couch zone within a large bedroom) were designated within the house for adult children to ensure their privacy during social activities, such as hosting friends whenever they wished. Other families expanded the existing available spaces through several strategies, including adding extra bedrooms to the existing houses and/or providing individual personal spaces for each adult child. This expansion addressed issues related to privacy and noise disturbances that arose when adults shared bedrooms. Other families constructed supplementary structures to address the limitations of their existing interior spaces in accommodating their growing children’s needs. These additions included granny flats used as study spaces and storage sheds to minimise clutter within the main living areas.

Multiple participants described how creating a ‘homely’ atmosphere plays a critical role in their ability to raise children in accordance with their parenting values. For example, Firyal – a 39-year-old female participant – explained the following:

By creating a nice homey environment, this is very important to make them [the adult children] more attached to us and to the family. Each girl has her own room; we also spared a space for them to practise their hobbies. The office room has been later used as a music room and then as a workshop for my daughter who [is] practising to be an artist.

Despite this type of multigenerational living being considered a cultural norm by participants, they reported some conflicts arising from these living arrangements. These usually occur when adults do not agree with their parents about practices related to their everyday domestic activities. For example, Amal – a 30-year-old Australian-born participant – explained that her mother’s habit of buying in bulk and stacking items (usually grocery items) ‘is very problematic’. Three sheds were constructed in Fatina’s (Amal’s mother, also a participant of this study) backyard, which are mainly used as storage space. One shed contains three fridges (in addition to the main fridge in the kitchen). Amal explained that her mother (who migrated to Australia in 1980 after witnessing the Lebanese Civil War) stores large quantities of food and household items because of her past experience, which ‘makes her feel as they [the stored items] might be needed anytime’. This habit causes some discomfort for Amal, who helps her mother with domestic chores. She described cleaning the sheds and reordering items as ‘unnecessary time-consuming labour’ because many items expire and are wasted.

Multi-family households

The second variation of multigenerational living includes multi-family households. This type of multigenerational living commonly involves parents, their children, their children’s spouses and their grandchildren all sharing a dwelling. This arrangement can result from adult children staying in the parental homes after marriage or the parents moving in with their married children’s families when they need assistance with everyday activities as they grow older. The participants also reported a less common type of multi-family living that involves adults staying with their siblings’ families. This is more likely to occur when newly migrated adults move to Australia and share a dwelling with their sibling’s family until their financial situation improves and they can move out.³ The participants considered this type of multi-family living the least favourable and, unlike the first type, this type of multigenerational living is adopted because of necessity rather than choice.

The primary source of discomfort for the participants in multi-family households stems from lack of privacy within the house, which closely relates to the spatial layout of their houses. Specifically, married couples expressed difficulty in attaining the level of privacy they desire. Resolving disagreements between spouses can be challenging without the involvement of other family members. Additionally, when families use communal social spaces, they must coordinate their social activities, such as hosting friends, with the rest of the household, potentially resulting in conflicts among the residents when coordination efforts do not meet the needs of everyone involved. Noise was also reported to be a major concern in multi-family households, particularly for parents with children (who are most likely to have different daily routines from non-parent adult members of the household) or older children and young adults who need quiet spaces to study.

Participants also complained about the lack of amenities within multi-family living arrangements. Shared bathrooms and kitchen spaces require householders to coordinate daily activities, including showering and cooking.

Multiple related families occupying adjacent dwellings

The third variation of multigenerational living involves multiple related families occupying adjacent dwellings. In this variation, multiple families (e.g. parents and their children’s families) live in dwellings that have separate internal spaces but share one or more common areas such as outdoor spaces and storage. The scale of this type of living arrangement differs dramatically within the Lebanese Australian community. For example, it can be as small as occupying two adjacent residences (in the form of duplexes, or a house with a secondary dwelling such as granny flats), or as large as constructing/occupying entire complexes. Families construct granny flats or house extensions with separate amenities to accommodate the needs of multiple households while they share the backyards. Another example is families occupying several units in a complex or constructing duplexes with no shared internal facilities, but the families have overlapping daily routines and shared responsibility for daily chores such as food preparation, gardening, childminding and caring for the elderly. For the participants, this is the ideal situation because it allows them to maintain the social and economic benefits of proximity to the extended family, while being able to operate as separate households.

One study participant, Nadine (who was the only participant that was able to build her own house rather than modify an existing house; see Table 1), exemplifies the way in which certain migrant communities contribute to the housing diversity in Australia. In Nadine’s house design, a 685 m² lot accommodates two dwellings – a primary house to be occupied by the couple and one child (with plans to have more children in the future) and a granny flat to be occupied by Nadine’s parents-in-law. The main house consists of three bedrooms (a master bedroom, a boys bedroom and a girls bedroom); a study room; internal and semi-outdoor living areas; two toilets; a laundry; an internal kitchen; and an attached external kitchen to facilitate Lebanese cooking. The granny flat is located at the back of the house and contains two bedrooms, a toilet, a living area and a kitchenette. The backyard is shared between Nadine’s family and her parents-in law and is mostly paved to cater for large family gatherings (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. The spatial layout of Nadine's knock-down-rebuild house.

Interestingly, the block of housing in which Nadine’s house is located shares similar patterns of change. Several houses were knocked down and replaced with a house and a granny flat or were renovated and had a granny flat added in the backyard.

Another example is the complex of the Cherif family, located in Granville, which accommodates 19 family members in a complex consisting of multiple structures: five residences (four houses and a granny flat); an office; a storage room; parking area; and multiple outdoor spaces; see Figure 2. Basem and his wife Manar, who are part of the Cherif family, were interviewed for this study.

Figure 2. Development stages of the Cherif Family Complex.

The complex was constructed gradually by the family beginning in 1982. Basem’s parents purchased a house that was ‘small to meet the family’s needs’, yet was affordable for Basem’s family, given that they had suffered a significant financial loss because of the Lebanese Civil War. The two-bedroom and one-study house accommodated Basem’s family of seven for several years until they could build an extension to escape the ‘tiny, old house’. Over the years, Basem’s family managed to expand the site by purchasing an adjacent house and building a granny flat at the back of the second piece of land, and then eventually building a new two-storey house, storage room and an office at the back of the first piece of land. Each of the changes to the site were motivated by a need to accommodate the growing family (including the changing needs of children becoming adults, adult children getting married and having kids) and enabled by the economic advancement of the family over time. Figure 2 documents the changes to the site accommodating 19 members of Basems’s extended family.

Continued use of the parents’ house by subsequent generations: the concept of Bayt Al-Ayleh (بيت العيلة ; or the family’s house)

According to the study participants, the concept of Bayt Al-Ayleh refers to the ongoing relationship between children and their parents’ house after moving out (or after marriage). For example, many children continue to drop by for a meal or a coffee without prior arrangement, store their personal belongings in the house, stay the night and use the house as a place to meet their family. I consider this a type of multigenerational living because the dwellings (usually detached suburban houses) continue to be regularly used by multiple generations for extended periods.

The participants explained that the notion of Bayt Al-Ayleh is prominently linked to a house being the main place of gathering; it was described as ‘everybody’s house’ or ‘my home, regardless [of] where I actually live’, and as a place for fostering treasured memories with the family, particularly with cousins of their age. This explains the importance of social spaces for Lebanese Australian families. Couples with young or no children who consider their parents’ (and grandparents’) homes Bayt Al-Ayleh believe that their own houses will eventually become Bayt Al-Ayleh for their children and grandchildren in the future.

However, this continued use of the house by non-permanent occupants can cause some discomfort to the permanent occupants or disputes between siblings about what their rights are in their parents’ house after moving out. Several participants clarified that the disputes emerge as a consequence of having no set rules to identify who has the authority to manage the domestic spaces in the case of Bayt Al-Ayleh.

Discussion: situating multigenerational living in the dialogue on housing diversity

The findings presented in this paper provide understanding of the spatial and behavioural responses of multigenerational families to enable them to fulfil their needs in housing designed in the Australian context. This discussion aims to identify the implications of this study on our understanding of housing diversity (social and physical) in Australian cities.

The main finding of this study demonstrates the agency of Lebanese Australian families in meeting the needs of their multigenerational families. Spatial responses enacted to accommodate the needs of multigenerational families vary in scale of intervention, while some modifications are less extensive (e.g. furniture fitting or use of space in a way that diverges from its intended use), permanent and sometimes extensive physical changes (e.g. house extensions, building granny flats, and major changes to the internal spaces) are required when housing needs are complex and changing. More extensive modifications were particularly prominent for participants who had lived in their houses for a long period (some participants had been living in their houses for approximately 20 years). This observation has several implications for our understanding of housing diversity.

First, the ability to create permanent and significant physical adaptations in housing has many associated limitations. As Judd (2017, 148) reports, ‘modifying an existing dwelling or moving to a more suitable dwelling is not necessarily straightforward or affordable’. While autonomy over the space is an embedded ideal associated with the detached Australian suburban house (Burke and Hulse 2010), it is tightly associated with the ability to achieve homeownership, which is now one of the biggest challenges facing young Australians (Gilbert et al. 2020). Multigenerational families who do not own their homes are already challenged by accessing the private rental sector (Parkinson et al. 2022), and Australians living independently in rented properties might face the situation of having to move out if their circumstances change and they might need to adopt multigenerational living (e.g. when the need to care for elderly parents emerges; Judd 2017). Therefore, diverse housing needs should be considered from several perspectives. That is, in considering how to design Australian homes, it is important to consider the diversity desired or needed by people who are financially able to own their homes, the diversity needed by people who are in the rental market and the ability of housing to respond to changes over the family life cycle.

Second, owner-driven renewal activities can be seen as contributing to the housing diversity in Australia. Wiesel, Freestone, and Randolph (2013) consider multigenerational knock-down-rebuild a typology of owner-driven suburban renewal in Sydney. This practice has often occurred in middle-ring lower-value housing within areas with a significant concentration of immigrants and ethnic communities that has led to an increased demand for bigger houses in these areas (Wiesel, Freestone, and Randolph 2013, 716). While these activities are costly, understanding the spatial attributes of these houses might hold significant benefit for our understanding of migrant communities’ needs and aspirations. Future investigations on how suburban housing is adapted and transformed to meet the needs of migrant communities can provide rich insights into how non-Anglo, non-nuclear family housing can be adapted in the Australian suburb (Shaweesh and Greenop 2020). In particular, housing produced by migrant communities should be key in the increased debate around housing density as Australia aims for a sustainable, affordable future (Beer, Kearins, and Pieters 2007). Housing policies that allow for the construction of secondary dwellings would support migrant communities to increase housing density to cater for their social and cultural needs. While constraints to home-making practices are associated with denser, in-fill housing in Australia (Baker 2013), this research demonstrates how Lebanese Australian families are altering housing density (e.g. adding granny flats to housing and engaging in knock-down-rebuild activities that replace single-occupancy dwellings with dual – or more – occupancy dwellings) without necessarily experiencing lifestyle compromises.

Third, the challenges of multigenerational living emerging from housing design that were reported by the participants of this study largely align with those reported by prior studies (e.g. Judd 2017). Whether multigenerational living has been adopted as a cultural practice (e.g. Bayt Al-Ayleh) or for financial reasons (e.g. in-kind transfers; see Cook 2021), design-related challenges emerge. Lack of privacy, noise interference, the need for personal space and the need for spatial separation that allows for maximum control over daily activities were reported by the participants in this study and are also relevant for mainstream society (e.g. Judd 2017). This suggests that the need to consider the housing needs of multigenerational families is not necessarily culturally specific and can benefit Australians more broadly. Additionally, multigenerational family structures are not only found with recently settled migrants but are a continued practice among the Australian-born generations (who uphold the cultural values that might differ from that of the mainstream society). While the cohort participating in this study was predominantly from the Muslim faith, similar housing experiences (in relation to use, adaptations and redevelopment) were highlighted by Hyndman-Rizik’s (2010) study of the Maronite cluster of 500 families in Parramatta, Sydney. As a result of having a distinct culture, social life and family structures, Lebanese Australian community members are altering domestic architecture in Australian suburbs and the clustering of families from Lebanese backgrounds in certain neighbourhoods is resulting in an urban renewal in these areas that reflects their unique Lebanese Australian lifestyle (Hyndman-Rizik 2010).

Despite some similarities in the housing experience of multigeneration Lebanese Australian families with other multigenerational families, understanding the cultural component is significant in offering explanatory factors for behaviours relating to multigenerational housing. The present study demonstrates how culturally specific notions such as Bayt Al-Ayleh influenced the choices of the participants and the use and adaptation of housing in Australian suburbs. The concept of ‘family home’ is not unique to the Lebanese Australian community, for example, Pulvirenti (1997) described the influence of ‘family homes’ in Italy on the housing experiences of Italian migrants in Australia. Family homes in Italy were ‘a living history with several generations residing there at once’ (Pulvirenti 1997, 34). Similar to Lebanese Australian people, Italian migrants assessed housing not necessarily with specific reference to its size, but ‘measured it according to its capacity to provide for the family’ (Pulvirenti 1997, 35). This capacity, as demonstrated by this study, relates to several spatial attributes (e.g. number of rooms, their organisation, and location of entry points) and the implications of the spatial layout for privacy, personal space and noise control in the houses of multigenerational families.

Conclusion

This study makes a valuable contribution to research on housing diversity in Australia by shedding light on the diversity of family types and discussing the housing experience of four sub-types of multigenerational families. This in-depth exploration of Lebanese Australian families engaged in multigenerational living has unveiled important factors, ranging from financial and social dynamics to cultural considerations, that underpin the choice to engage in multigenerational living. This research has underscored the critical importance of recognising both the social and spatial dimensions when addressing the evolving dynamics of family structures in diverse societies.

This study also highlights the pivotal role of housing design in either facilitating or impeding the experiences of the members of multigenerational households. Notably, issues related to privacy needs, noise interference and the potential for establishing some degree of separation in the daily routines of household members can be effectively addressed through thoughtful design considerations. These challenges are pervasive not only among the participants of this study but also among other Australians who engage in multigenerational living. This underscores the broader necessity for housing diversity that can cater to multigenerational living arrangements for and beyond specific cultural groups.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 Participant B04 (see Table 2).

2 This is common among Muslim and Christian Lebanese people; see Hyndman-Rizik’s (2010) study on Maronite Christian Lebanese perceptions of multigenerational families.

3 This aligns with Hyndman-Rizk’s (2016) observation of the Lebanese Hadchite ( حدشيت ; a Maronite Catholic Lebanese village located in Mount Lebanon) community in Sydney. Pre-settled family members sponsored other family members for months or years until they established themselves in Australia and were able to move out, usually in the same suburb as their extended families (Hyndman-Rizk 2016).