The ones I’m familiar with say that one spouse must be 55. They also restrict how long/often minors can stay there.
I saw that on all of them as well.
Yes. We looked at these when we were contemplating moving my father to one, and may in a few years need to move my in-laws. At a certain point, maintaining a house and yard gets to be more of a challenge. Then there’s stairs (FiL just had surgery on a leg) and the need to downsize eventually.
So 55+ is basically apartment living without the disadvantages of a typical neighbours in an apartment building - and often, with other amenities. (As opposed to the full on retirement “homes” where they have communal kitchens, etc.)
In a nutshell. The arthritis in my knee has been getting worse over the years, so household repairs and climbing stairs/ladders was becoming challenging. I’ve always been able to do most home repairs, which has saved us a bundle over the years, but what I can do has been dwindling. The wife’s pride and joy garden was turned over to a professional a few years ago, as she just couldn’t do the extensive maintenance any longer.
This place has decent apartments and excellent services, and you can be as independent as you are capable of being. They have lots of programs (exercise, arts, continuing education, etc) that you can utilize or ignore, and most importantly, this is one of the few facilities of its type that is not owned by a soulless corporation.
Point taken. Thank you for your insight.
So you have a good reason for your adult daughter, her husband, and their 4 kids not to move in with you.
I’ve seen places with no stair entry. That would be awesome, for me and particularly for my husband.
Amusing comedy routine by Kathleen Madigan:
Some say there’s plenty of action in The Villages. 
My late Mom lived in a similar facility in greater Phoenix. She used to send me newspaper clippings about the police’s frequent discovery of gray/balding/wrinkly couples gettin’ it on in the shrubberies around the golf course.
My late aged MIL lived out her 90s in an independent living facility here in FL. The men were few, far between, and were getting more action than they’d had in college. The goods are wrinkly but plentiful. And oh so grateful.
I can hardly wait. 
Offer me a $500 a night suite instead of a humid, sweaty, insect infested bush, and then we’ll talk. LOL
Yeah, a humid, sweaty, insect infested bush is kind of a deal breaker.
You may have noticed that I have a way with words. LOL
But Steve, I like humid and sweaty! Even especially if it is in a $500/night suite.
You can sort of see this in “On a Clear Day You Can See Forever” - the fiance is interviewed as well as the husband for a corporate job [man is just graduating from college and being interviewed by several corporations, he has refined it to one major corp like IBM level, major major corp] and the assumption is that he will be signing an employment contract so the corp is screening he and his fiance to make sure they are appropriate to hire.
I actually remember back in 1969 hearing my mom and dad discussing his contract for the job he took post-Army career, and I remember various discussions on it over the next 20 or so years. He was a vice president so it was a bit different. When my brother and I went to work for the same company we didn’t have contracts [my brother started in 1974 and I started in 1976 but we were common employees not management though I did end up in management later, but there wasn’t a contract at that point for anybody.]
when I was a kid in the 80s 55 was pretty much retirement age and I heard much complaining when it went up to 60 and 65 in the 90s …although some people didn’t mind because a lot of people I knew retired at 55 ended up taking a job after 2-3 years because of boredom
For what it’s worth, 55+ communities are often cheaper than more open communities - at least in God’s Waiting Room (south Florida). So it’s a more affordable option, if you have enough to retire on but not enough to live lavishly. To me, that goes against the “well off” concept.
That’s not to say that there aren’t plenty of pretty swanky 55+ communities out there, with tons of really nice amenities.
But, because of the limits on who you can sell to, the places don’t generally go up as much in price as something without those restrictions.
We actually own a 55+ condo. Not voluntarily… the in-laws were facing homelessness, and we were able to purchase one for them because of the whole South Florida / 55+ thing. We actually had trouble with financing it - the bank took us up to 2 days before closing before saying “55+ and you are not gonna be living there, fuck you”. We’re old enough to live there, ourselves, but our son could not, if we kicked the bucket suddenly and left it to him (some such communities have a provision where someone could live there if they inherited the place).
As far as the original question (why 55?), others have come up with far better theories than I can.
That’s different from my impression (I was a young adult in the 1980s). 65 seemed to be the generally expected retirement age. Someone retiring at 55 was pretty much unheard-of. In the late 1980s, when I began working as a Federal contractor, I ran into more instances of people taking “early retirement” from their Federal jobs - but it was mostly 60 or so, once they’d earned a substantial pension. Some of them did indeed come back as contractors, afterwards. I’m sure there were plenty who did retire earlier than that, of course.
Neither of my parents had any expectation of retiring any sooner than 65 - and in fact Dad retired at 72, and Mom never did (she was a self-employed tax accountant - not full-time, except the first few months of the year!!).
I still don’t know how “55+” became the default age for retirement communities.
A lot of that is going to depend on the environment - if a kid grows up in a social group where every family has a police officer who retired in their 40s, that’s going to be the normal retirement age. If all of mom and dad’s friends had jobs with unions and actual pensions, 55 might seem to be a normal retirement age. You would thin that impression would change when they became adults - but I remember back around 1990 or so , I had to educate a bunch of my government coworkers. They thought every full-time job, including McDonald’s , provided health insurance, vacations and protections against being fired “just because” . Turned out that everyone they knew had either a unionized government job or a union job with a utility ( gas, electric, cable or phone company). They literally didn’t know anyone who worked for an insurance company or a department store full-time.
I still don’t know how “55+” became the default age for retirement communities.
I know there’s a law that prohibits age restricted housing unless some specified percentage of households contain someone over the age of 55 - the intent was to prevent housing that discriminated against families with children while still allowing senior communities. As to why 55 was chosen rather than 62 or 65, I can only assume it’s because 55 is the lowest common retirement age- people do retire in their 40s or early 50s but it’s not nearly as common as retiring at 55 or later.
Also, in the more advanced jobs, a lot of the social part of the job depended on the wife. (Corporate management, college professors, etc.).
You can see this sort of silly stuff in old sitcoms - Bewitched comes to mind. The wife was a participant of the job at that job level. The wife of the executive or manager was expected to host dinner parties, and other regular social events for the boss, other peer management, staff and clients. (Of course in real life, nobody in these parties got turned into a chimpanzee). Consequently, she had to fit in with all the other wives who might host or attend such social events. At of course, it was taken for granted the wife did not have a career to weigh her down. But then, in that position the man could provide for the whole family. Nowadays this sort of company entertaining is done in restaurants at company expense.
I remember my dad being worried that getting divorced might affect his chances for working at university. Fortunately, not, but he went straight into a second marriage. I also remember him remarking sometime in the late 60’s about the first single man promoted to department head. (A man, of course, not a woman - let’s not get too ahead of the times…)
I agree, and I’m about the same age that you are. In the '80s, the age for “full benefits” from Social Security was 65, and that was also the age at which one qualified for Medicare (it still is).
Anyone who was retiring before 65, in my recollection was either (a) wealthy, with good retirement savings, (b) on a pension which fully vested before 65, or (c) in poor health, making them unable to work anymore.