Author: Ted Van Houten

House transportation bill to face Senate Democrats

Posted on by Ted Van Houten

RICHMOND — The path forward on a long-term plan to fund transportation projects in Virginia will have to move through skeptical Senate Democrats, though it was still unclear Wednesday what a final package might look like.

A version of Gov. Robert F. McDonnell’s proposal survived the House of Delegates but the state Senate rejected its own version of the bill on Tuesday after Democrats balked at the ideas of swapping the gas tax for a higher state sales tax and of paying for transportation using general fund revenues.

Sen. A. Donald McEachin (D-Henrico) said Wednesday that Democrats were still looking for a substantive plan that would generate closer to $1 billion a year for the state, steer clear of the general fund and not rely on would-be revenues from the passage of federal legislation related to the collection of Internet sales taxes. That legislation, they have said, has stalled in Congress.

“I think that’s the signal we sent last night,” said McEachin, who dismissed accusations that Democrats were unwilling to bargain. “We’re still willing to roll up our sleeves and do some hard work.”

On Tuesday, the Senate sent its legislation to the Finance Committee, effectively killing it and raising doubts about the prospects for the House measure on its way to the Senate. The House-approved bill is now the only surviving version of the governor’s package, and the Senate could amend or kill it.

“I’m very disappointed,” McDonnell (R) said in an interview Tuesday night. “I think the Democrats have a lot of answering to do tonight. They’re going to have to tell us what they’re willing to do. This is a party that says no to everything but higher taxes. I think the Democrats are way out of touch and they need to start being reasonable.”

While Senate Democrats were in lockstep Tuesday, four House Democrats voted in favor of their chamber’s transportation proposal: Rosalyn R. Dance (Petersburg), Luke E. Torian (Prince William), Roslyn C. Tyler (Sussex) and Onzlee Ware (Roanoke City). They cited regional concerns among their reasons for breaking with their party to support the bill.

Sen. Janet D. Howell (D-Fairfax), who voted against the Senate version of the plan, said her Republican colleagues did not offer a plan with adequate funding for public transit projects.

“I’m looking for . . . a plan I can sell to my constituents,” Howell said. “I haven’t seen that yet.”

Northern Virginia Transportation Alliance President Bob Chase said the House bill is “very much a work in progress.”

“The emphasis in the House has been to get something out,” said Chase, an early supporter of McDonnell’s plan. “I think it’s been crafted . . . in a way to try to show as many legislators as possible that there’s something in the bill that they ought to like. Where the bill stands now doesn’t necessarily preclude anything from being considered in conference.”

Stewart Schwartz, executive director of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, said the House’s version of the governor’s plan is “still a very flawed bill.”

“Eliminating the gas tax makes no economic or transportation sense,” Schwartz said Tuesday. “If it reduces gas prices like the governor projects, it is likely to increase the amount of driving, decrease transit use and increase congestion, especially in the two most urban regions of the state. There is nothing in this to guarantee that local jurisdictions across the state will get the local funding hey need. There’s no way to make this plan better at this point.”

Schwartz also wasn’t optimistic about the plan’s chances for improvement in a conference committee, which he predicted would be “disastrous” for Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads.

“Once it goes to a closed-door committee . . . dominated by the governor’s party, you are unlikely to get a bill that would address the many concerns that the metro regions have identified. The worst thing would be to have such a flawed plan move forward.”

Read the original article here >>

Coalition for Smarter Growth joins fight for transit dollars in Montgomery County

Posted on by Ted Van Houten

D.C.-based nonprofit the Coalition for Smarter Growth has joined the cause for transportation dollars to build the Purple Line and Bus Rapid Transit system, both of which supporters say would ease congestion in Bethesda, BethesdaNow.com reported.

The nonprofit, which until now has dealt largely with Northern Virginia transportation and sprawl issues, has turned its attention to Montgomery County and will host an event on Feb. 13 at the Silver Spring Civic Building focused on the area.

Read the original article at Washington Business Journal >>

The Next Generation of Transit: the Key to Montgomery’s Green Future

Posted on by Ted Van Houten

Join us for the Coalition for Smarter Growth’s panel discussion on the need to “invest in transit to improve our quality of life, protect our open spaces, and do our part in stopping climate change,” on Wednesday. February 13th from 6-8 pm at the Silver Spring Civic Building.

The Planning Department will be part of the panel, discussing the update to our Master Plan of Highways, which will move that functional plan beyond roadways to address bus rapid transit, bicycle-pedestrian priority areas, and MARC service.

The Coalition shares some interesting data about bus rapid transit:

NextGenTransit-flier_Page_1

and provides a good description of bus rapdi transit (it’s not what you might expect from buses!):

NextGenTransit-flier_Page_2

Photos courtesy of The Straight Line
Read the original article here >>

More bus service may come to 16th Street’s southern half

More bus service may come to 16th Street’s southern half

Posted on by Ted Van Houten

WMATA might beef up service on the busy 16th Street (S) line with a bus starting in Columbia Heights, where existing S buses often become too full to pick up passengers. That was one of the options WMATA and DDOT bus planners discussed with riders at a meeting last Monday.


Photo by Jess J on Flickr.

Every bus commuter knows that during morning rush hour, the people who board a bus early in the route are the ones who get the seats. They can get some reading or work done, or fit in one final snooze before they start their days.

But to riders who board the 16th Street “S-line” buses on the the southern half of the route, it’s not just a matter of getting a seat. Full buses pass them by, one after another, during the morning crunch. More and more commuters in that section have been giving up on the bus altogether and either waste money and gasoline on taxis and cars, or walk relatively long distances, making them late to work.

25 residents packed a daycare room at the Jewish Community Center on a cold and rainy night last Monday evening and shared not only their frustrations, but also their thoughtful ideas. Express and Current reporters also were there. Dozens of residents who could not attend emailed me their concerns and ideas, which I shared with WMATA officials.

For example, rider Mary M. wrote,

Just this week (Tues, Wed, and today, Thurs), it has taken me 45-50 minutes to get from 16th & V to 14th & I, and anywhere from 4 to 6 buses have passed the stop each morning because they are too crowded to accept any more passengers. (Also, on Tuesday morning, 2 buses that had hardly anyone standing passed us by in the cold). There are usually 15-20 people waiting at V St in the mornings.

At the meeting, S bus riders heard from WMATA bus planners Jim Hamre and David Erion and DDOT’s Steve Strauss. All 3 have a wealth of experience with District bus service. They have worked to make improvements in the past, like the S9 express bus. Rapid population growth in central DC has created challenges for bus service to keep up, they said.

But they offered hope of addressing this problem without affecting service for those who live along the northern half of the route. On Friday, in a follow-up phone call, Hamre also told me that WMATA is working on new proposals which he can discuss with the community around the 3rd week of February.

New route could serve half of 16th, if there’s a space to lay over

One possibility discussed with Hamre during the meeting is a rush hour route focused on the morning problem strip: Columbia Road to downtown DC. But one obstacle is layover space—a bus route requires a location for the bus drivers to park, pause, and get ready for an on-time departure. My ANC colleague Noah Smith proposed inquiring about space in nearby neighborhoods.

We asked whether the route could run for only the 8-9 am hour, and therefore perhaps avoid the need for the parking stop. But the availability of a layover space is a very important part of running a bus route, the planners said. Would the elusive search for bus-length parking in one of the most congested parts of town stall this idea?

After the meeting, my wife Divya, who often jogs to Rock Creek and back, suggested asking about using the existing turnaround area on Calvert Street, by the Duke Ellington Bridge, where the 90s bus lines end today. That is less than 5 blocks from Columbia Road, and then just another 5 blocks from the 16th & Columbia intersection.

Hamre was intrigued by the idea when we discussed it by phone. While it’s not ideal, he said he’d look into it, among other possibilities. (None of those possibilities include reducing service to the northern half of the S route).

Other ideas that came up at the meeting include posting bus supervisors along the current S line to efficiently reorder buses en route, and consolidating certain stops that are very close together (at least during rush hour) along 16th Street.

We are looking forward to seeing WMATA’s proposals later this month. As soon as the meeting is confirmed, we will share it here and elsewhere to hopefully get an even bigger turnout than the one we had last Monday. Thanks go to the Jewish Community Center for providing the space, WMATA and DDOT officials for attending, and Noah Smith, who collaborated with me to organize the event.

Photo courtesy of Jess J on Flickr

Read the original article here. >>

Group Argues New Transit Options Key To Growth In Bethesda, Montgomery

Posted on by Ted Van Houten

A new group is joining the cause for transportation dollars to build the Purple Line light rail and Bus Rapid Transit system, both of which supporters say would ease congestion in Bethesda.

The Coalition for Smarter Growth, a D.C.-based nonprofit that until now has dealt largely with North Virginia transportation and sprawl issues, has turned its attention to Montgomery County and will host an event focused on the area next week in Silver Spring.

“The Next Generation of Transit: The Key to Montgomery’s Green Future” is scheduled for 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. on Feb. 13 at the Silver Spring Civic Building and will feature County Councilman Roger Berliner (D-Bethesda-Potomac), Smart Growth America CEO Geoff Anderson, Montgomery County Planner Larry Cole and Purple Line project manager Mike Madden.

The Coalition for Smarter Growth helped host a happy hour on White Flint development last week. It will focus its message next week on what the group argues are the environmental benefits of transit projects:

Montgomery County residents care about the environment. The county has been a leader in progressive planning from its award-winning Agricultural Reserve and extensive stream valley parks, to affordable housing and the revitalization of Silver Spring.

Now, Montgomery County is at a crossroads.  The county is expected to add over 200,000 new residents and over 100,000 new jobs in the next 20 years. Traffic and pollution will only grow worse if we don’t give people better options for moving around. Over 34% of greenhouse gas emissions in Montgomery County come from transportation.  Linking transit and transit-oriented communities can make a major contribution to fighting climate change and reducing air pollution.

But among our transit projects, the Purple Line may fail for lack of funding, WMATA needs to continue restoring its aging infrastructure, and the county needs more rapid transit connecting more places. We need to act now as a community and support a three-part transit agenda linking the Purple Line, Metro and the proposed Rapid Transit System. Investing in transit alternatives will be critical for doing our part to solve climate change, improve our air quality, support sustainable development and create good green jobs.

Join us with Geoff Anderson of Smart Growth America and Roger Berliner of the Montgomery County Council to discuss transit and smart growth solutions to climate change. We’ll also get the latest updates on Montgomery transit projects and strategize with us about how we can do our part through investing in transit.

For more information, visit the event website.

Flickr photo by ACTransit.org

Read the original article on BethesdaNow.com >>

A few steps can fix Inclusionary Zoning

Posted on by Ted Van Houten

DC’s Inclusionary Zoning (IZ) affordable housing program has suffered from serious administrative problems in its start-up phase. As a policy, however, it is still sound, and is the right policy for DC’s future.


Photo from 2910 Georgia Ave.A handful of IZ units are on the market, along with over 900 units in the pipeline. There are also 1,000 units that came through the Zoning Commission’s Planned Unit Development (PUDs) process since 2000, using the same policy standards as IZ.

Unfortunately, 2 early IZ units sat on the market for more than a year, and the developer has sued the city to get out of the IZ requirement. This doesn’t reflect a fundamental flaw in IZ; rather, it arises from understaffing at the DC government and rigid local and federal regulations. There’s not much time to fix the sputtering implementation of this important affordable housing policy tool.

IZ brings many benefits

IZ sets aside 8-10% of new housing construction for households earning 50-80% of Area Median Income (a 50% AMI household of 3 earns $49,250 per year, a 80% AMI household earns $78,221 per year). IZ is worth fixing because we have plenty of evidence that this kind of program can produce results beyond what other housing programs can. IZ provides affordable housing in mixed-income and wealthier neighborhoods throughout a jurisdiction rather than concentrating it in a few neighborhoods.

This benefit of economic integration has been documented. Low-income children in programs like IZ perform better in school than their peers, because they live in low-poverty neighborhoods and attend local low-poverty schools. Another other advantage of IZ is that it does not require a direct subsidy from the government to construct the affordable unit, but rather lets the developer to build extra market-rate units, and uses that value to pay for the below-market ones.

Other than a nominal administrative cost, IZ is a very cost-effective way to sustain the city’s production of new moderately-priced homes. There are many successful similar programs throughout the country, including Montgomery County’s long-running IZ program, Moderately-Priced Dwelling Units (MPDUs).

DC IZ also has a sister program which creates affordable dwelling units through PUDs and public land deals. (Confusingly, these are often called ADUs, which is the same acronym, but not the same thing, as Accessory Dwelling Units, market-rate basement or garage units inside someone’s house). This program does not appear to have problems filling units at the same income levels. That success shows that IZ can also overcome its challenges with some concerted attention.

Three problems have stalled IZ

Three debilitating problems with the program’s administration can be fairly easily corrected and get it back on track: severe understaffing, rigid regulations, and rigid FHA lending rules.

Severe understaffing: Only 1-2 people administer the program inside DC’s Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD). Without a few more staff people, IZ and the sister affordable dwelling units (ADUs) cannot be administered effectively. The Mayor and DC Council need to provide a few more staff positions to manage these programs.

An alternative to administering the program entirely inside the DC government would be to give responsibility for the for-sale units to a nonprofit experienced in managing permanently affordable homeownership programs. CityFirst Homes is already doing a similar job with the District’s first major housing land trust. Evidence suggests that more hands-on assistance from a non-profit like CityFirst Homes can drastically cut foreclosure rates and yield more successful homeowners.

The other component that requires sustained support is the housing counseling agencies who educate applicants and help them through the process. Ensuring the city’s budget provides for this is another key ingredient to success. In all, these administrative costs amount to a modest budget item and are a fraction of what it costs to subsidize new affordable housing construction.

Rigid IZ regulations: DHCD manages a process for connecting a person who qualifies for affordable housing to available units. This involves a centralized application and lotteries. Details of that process have proven too rigid to accommodate the realities of matching housing seekers and available units.

The city is in the process of revising the regulations to give the program necessary flexibility. This revision should be in effect in a few months.

An alternative to the current lottery system would be to let the developers market the units to qualified households, and simply have the District housing agency certify the applicants as qualified and provide general oversight. This is already the process for the PUD and public land “ADUs.”

With sufficient support from housing counseling agencies, residents in search of an affordable home should be able to get enough help to conduct that search, especially with the city’s useful website, dchousingsearch.org.

Rigid FHA lending rules: The Federal Housing Administration has emerged as the predominant mortgage backer in the post-2008 affordable homeownership world. Nationwide, most local housing programs have encountered a critical conflict with FHA rules where local programs (like IZ and ADUs) often require that the affordability provisions survive foreclosure. FHA does not allow for this.

The only way to deal with FHA mortgage lending standards that conflict with local program requirements is to change the program to conform to FHA’s standards, and get FHA to sign off on the changes. DC is acting to change its standards to comply with FHA. The timeline for receiving FHA’s approval is uncertain but the city hopes it will happen shortly, we hope in the next month or so.

If a unit goes into foreclosure and then sells on the market, the city would lose its investment in an affordable home. There are other safeguards the city could put in place that do not conflict with FHA. They would at least allow the city to recover the value of the affordability of the unit, should a foreclosure occur and the unit sell on the market.

With these three administrative fixes in place, DC should be ready to smoothly operate a program to place the right applicant in the right unit as 900 more IZ units come online.

Mend it, don’t end it

IZ’s growing pains have led to some calls to more fundamentally modify or scrap the IZ program. We should consider and debate these suggestions only once DC fixes the immediate problems and the program administration is running smoothly.

Some opponents continue to question the policy itself, but experience across the country points to IZ as a valuable and effective tool to create moderately-priced housing in strong markets with virtually no direct cost other than a small budget for staffing the program.

Photo courtesy of 2910 Georgia Ave.

Read the original article on Greater Greater Washington. >>

A Very Happy Hour!

Posted on by Ted Van Houten

Nearly one-hundred people came out to talk about the future of White Flint at a happy hour Tuesday evening co-hosted by the Friends of White Flint and the Coalition for Smarter Growth at Seasons 52 on Rockville Pike.

Lindsay Hoffman, from Friends of White Flint, and Kelly Blynn, from Coalition for Smarter Growth, greet the crowd.

Lindsay Hoffman, from Friends of White Flint, and Kelly Blynn, from Coalition for Smarter Growth, greet the crowd.

The turnout exceeded our expectations.

The turnout exceeded our expectations!

County Councilmembers Hans Riemer and Roger Berliner offered a few words about the potential of White Flint as envisioned in the White Flint Sector Plan, which the council passed in 2010. “We are on the verge of a golden age in Montgomery County and it’s projects like this that are bringing that life,” Riemer was quoted as saying by Bethesda Now.

Councilmember Roger Berliner (D - District 1)

Councilmember Roger Berliner (D – District 1)

Councilmember Hans Riemer (D - At Large)

Councilmember Hans Riemer (D – At Large)

Studies show that changing demographics combined with a renewed interest in urban living have resulted in a greater demand for compact, walkable neighborhoods like what’s envisioned in the sector plan. North Bethesda Market, where Seasons 52 is located, shows where White Flint will go in the future, with high-rise apartments set over shops and restaurants around a central plaza.

Councilmember Berliner said that projects like it are integral to attracting young, educated residents to the county. “Montgomery County’s future in my judgement does in large part depend on being able to attract this kind of crowd, a young, energetic crowd,” he said.

White Flint Implementation Coordinator Dee Metz answers questions

White Flint Implementation Coordinator Dee Metz answers questions

The Friends of White Flint and the Coalition for Smarter Growth both plan to hold more happy hours and other events in the area. Stay tuned for announcements of future events!

Photos courtesy of Dan Reed.

Read the original article on Friends of White Flint. >>

Testimony before the D.C. Zoning Commission: Support Case No. 04-33F Text Amendments: PUDs and Inclusionary Zoning – Termination of Affordability Controls upon Foreclosure

Posted on by Ted Van Houten

Please accept our testimony on behalf of the Coalition for Smarter Growth. My organization works to ensure that transportation and development decisions in the Washington D.C. region accommodate growth while revitalizing communities, providing more housing and travel choices, and conserving our natural and historic areas. I also note that we have been working to create and implement a successful Inclusionary Zoning program since its inception in 2003.

We are here to express our strong support for these amendments. We concur that the proposed text amendments are needed to ensure that IZ and ADU covenants conform to FHA guidelines. We appreciate that the city can take other steps through regulations to protect the public’s interest in its investment in below market rate homes without conflicting with FHA requirements. We look forward to the District developing these regulations to complement this action.

These amendments are critical to removing a major barrier affecting the IZ program. Administration of IZ has experienced a number of substantial challenges as units have come on line in the last year. While these challenges remain a major disappointment, they can be overcome. The first challenge is the severe understaffing of both the IZ program and the management of ADUs – affordable dwelling units generated through PUDs and public land dispositions. It appears that no more than one or at most two DHCD staff members manage every aspect of the ADU and IZ programs. Elected officials have touted the benefits of these affordable housing units, but they have not provided the modest funding needed to adequately support these assets. A few more staff members and continued support for adequate housing counseling services are needed to ensure that these programs have the resources they need to work with applicants and developers.

While ADUs are largely managed by individual developments with oversight from DHCD, IZ was designed to more closely manage the recruitment of applicants and the placement process. The intention was to provide greater assistance to residents in search of a home they could afford and allow them to come to one place to find assistance, rather than chase project after project. ADUs have not experienced the problems in leasing or sales of units at 80 percent AMI that IZ has. Considering these differences, and other factors, DHCD is in the midst of revising the IZ regulations. We hope this process will take no more than a couple of months. Apparently, the regulations were too rigid to respond to obvious needs in practice, such as ensuring that an applicant who enters a lottery for a for-sale unit is qualified to get a mortgage for that unit. There appear to be a variety of glitches in the IZ regulations that are inhibiting the smooth process of connecting the right applicant with the right unit. We are hopeful that this regulations revision will resolve these problems within the next several months.

You are here today to resolve one of the other barriers that we have recently encountered – the rise of FHA as the leading backer of affordable residential mortgages, and FHA standards that conflict with affordable housing covenants common among local government programs. These amendments will allow prospective buyers to secure FHA financing and purchase affordable units subject to the Inclusionary Zoning program and ADU requirements. We welcome these appropriate and necessary text amendments to the current PUD and Inclusionary Zoning regulations to improve the effectiveness of these programs and increase the availability of affordable housing in the District of Columbia.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Cheryl Cort

Policy Director

Hospital case studies point the way for Prince George’s

Posted on by Ted Van Houten

What’s the difference between a hospital that’s a springboard for economic development, and one that’s not living up to its potential? Answer: Design, location, and connectivity. Local groups compiled a set of case studies to point the way as Prince George’s County moves forward with its proposed Regional Medical Center.


Image from ZGF.The new hospital is an important healthcare facility for the county, and as an employer of 2,000 workers, it can also catalyze economic development in an area where new investment has lagged.

Hospital officials are rumored to be interested in a sprawling 80-120 acre suburban-style site away from Metro, likely the old Landover Mall site. The sponsors of the case studies hope that these examples of great hospitals, designed by leading architectural firms, can help decision-makers understand the benefits of a more mixed-use, compact and transit-oriented site.


Matrix of case studies. Click to view full size.Envision Prince George’s Community Action Team for Transit-Oriented Development, the Coalition for Smarter Growth, and American Institute of Architects Potomac Valley collected the design case studies. They provide examples of mid- to large-scale hospitals with footprints of 1.5-48 acres. In fact, larger hospitals (measured in number of beds) are at the lower end of this range of acres, while the smaller hospitals tended to occupy more land area.

While Prince George’s continues to pursue additional federal offices (like the new FBI headquarters), a new $600 million medical center could be one of the best opportunities to jump-start transit-oriented development at one of the county’s 15 underutilized Metro stations.

In contrast to courting federal agencies, the state and county control the decision about where to locate and how to design a new medical center. Not encumbered with stringent federal security requirements, a regional medical center offers a better opportunity to connect to surrounding uses and fuel spinoff economic activity than an FBI or Homeland Security building.

Why a smaller, urban footprint?

Hospitals must plan for growth, and a working “rule of thumb” for traditional suburban or rural 200-bed hospitals (similar in size to the Prince George’s facility) is a minimum of 40 acres. This footprint provides a suburban or rural site with room for the initial building, associated drop-offs, parking, and room for future growth. Growth is common in medical facilities, whether for outpatient clinics, specialty centers, or the hospital itself.


Seattle Children’s Hospital. Photo from ZGF.Hospitals in a more urban context plan for similar growth, but within sites that are typically 10 acres or less. This smaller footprint offers several benefits over a suburban medical campus. Connecting a hospital center to a larger mixed-use environment where people can work, shop, and live helps attract and retain highly sought-after skilled healthcare workers. By better integrating into the surrounding community, an anchor institution like this can support a vibrant, walkable, thriving new hub.

Designers also point to sustainability benefits from a more urban design and context. A limited footprint disturbs less land and reduces the heat island effect. Placing a more compact medical center in an urban hub also allows for more environmentally-friendly transportation choices with frequent transit service, and walk and bicycle options for short trips. Driving and parking will remain an important mode of access, but a more urban hospital allows for lower parking supplies, greater access for those who do not have a car, and the choice to take some trips on foot or by bicycle.

While a footprint of 10 acres may seem small compared to a suburban campus of 40 acres or more, hospital complexes around the country and beyond are developing successful, busy hospitals on sites as small as a few acres.

The just-released case studies of 11 successful moderate to small-footprint hospitals of comparable size to the planned Prince George’s regional medical center share 3 common success factors: access, flexibility for future growth, and a connection to the surrounding environment.

Success factor: Access

An important factor for any healthcare facility is convenient and easy access to and from the site. High-quality public transportation, stores and services, and housing within walking distance create opportunities for staff and visitors to get outside the hospital while still being nearby, and enable some to come and go without having a car.


Access to Champ de Mars medical center. Image from CannonDesign.Several of the examples in the report show major hospitals that are integrated into city blocks. Hospital staff and visitors have easy access to a local services and transit options. For example, the Kaiser Permanente Los Angeles Medical Center is a 448-bed hospital, 7 stories tall situated on 3 acres of land. Within a block is the Red line light rail station and major bus routes.


GWU hospital entrance. Photo from Smithgroup JJR.Closer to home, the 6-7 story, 371-bed George Washington University Hospital occupies 2 acres. The front door of GWU Hospital opens onto the busy entrance of the Foggy Bottom Metrorail station and is embedded in a thriving urban district that mixes health, university, private office, retail and housing uses in a highly walkable, transit-accessible environment.

Medical facilities woven into the fabric of a larger mixed-use district served by transit can have an advantage when competing for medical professionals who desire to be in a lively, diverse place, and need flexibility with their commutes in a two-worker household.

Success factor: Flexibility for future growth

While suburban hospitals are typically designed with extra acreage to accommodate future growth, urban medical centers can anticipate similar growth, but plan smartly within a more constrained footprint.


Main entrance, American Hospital Dubai. Image from AECOM.Planning a smaller-footprint facility guides planners to take into account their overall surroundings, making better use of pedestrian connections to the surrounding community and supporting services. In the case of both the vertical high rise addition to Mercy Medical Center in Baltimore, with the 260-bed Bunting Center inpatient hospital on 1.5 acres, and the 350-bed American Hospital Dubai campus on 11 acres, planning for growth accounted for the sites’ larger surroundings.

The hospital designers from AECOM point out that an urban design and location provides significant advantages in offering the ability to walk to a nearby restaurant to avoid yet another meal at the hospital cafeteria or the convenience of staying at a nearby hotel for someone visiting a sick relative.

Success factor: Connection to green spaces

Numerous studies show that access to outdoor places and views of green spaces create a state-of-the-art healing environment. But urban hospitals don’t need to concede healing green features to their suburban and rural counterparts. Roof gardens, courtyards, and natural light are all achievable in small-footprint hospital centers.


Roof garden view, Bunting Center at Mercy, Baltimore. Rendering from AECOM.The centerpiece of the Bunting Center at Mercy Hospital healing environment is a multilevel roof garden, accessible on various floors and overlooked by room occupants above the midway point along the rise of the building. The 9th floor garden offers direct access from the ICU waiting room.

On the 28 acre campus of the 600-bed Seattle Children’s Hospital, 41% of the campus is dedicated as open space. Pedestrian paths are provided throughout the facility to promote walking and offer outdoor connections.

Innovative design and urban context show the possibilities

The 11 case studies offer examples of innovative architectural design, connectivity to the surrounding context, access to transit, green features and compact footprints. These features highlight how a regional medical center for Prince George’s and Southern Maryland could establish a new leading healthcare facility that not only attracts the staff and patients it needs to succeed, but fits into a larger district that thrives on the influx of activity.

Photos courtesy of Greater Greater Washington. Read the original article here.