With global warming, accessibility takes a whole new meaning with as much emphasis now given on green and blue spaces as on “physical accessibility, adequate seating, lighting and toilets” as the World Health Organization puts it. This is in line with works from Rachel Thomas, who’s suggested for more than 15 years to approach accessibility through the fields of urban ambiances. This involves taking all kinds of perceptions into account (visual, auditive, olfactive, thermal…) and bear in mind that public space is inhabited, far from this tendency urban planners have to make public space the smoothest possible, which often means the emptiest. Here, I present intuitions I’ve had preparing field work, during interviews with stakeholders. What I found striking are the stories I’ve heard of people moving out to a retirement home at the merest problem of day-to-day mobility, as if residential mobility was the only possible answer to difficulties to run errands on one’s own or participate socially. This is all the more contradictory that Vincent Kaufmann shows in Switzerland that workers accept long commutes because of residential stability. This is less true in France, but from his conceptualization, we can assume that the field of possibilities of older adult’s mobility is so unthought of that moving out is preferred than finding new ways of travelling, be it with dedicated transport, adapted vehicles or simple support. In French, Mathilde Bigo already noted that ageing in place policies (maintien à domicile) have a double meaning implying both home support and home staying. During the test walk we took with stakeholders, when we asked them to picture themselves in their ideal place to grow old, they agreed on an apartment with large windows on a lively street. To me, it illustrates well the ambiguity between mobility and immobility, activity and passivity.