Urban Design: Backyard Cottages for Seniors

For seniors who require long-term senior care, staying in hospitals and long-term care facilities may be financially challenging, particularly if they are living off their pensions and retirement funds with limited coverage for healthcare. To create a more affordable housing option for seniors, a research team in Calgary, Alberta, has been developing a portable solution that would allow seniors to remain in a home environment and age in place in a community.

This week, our Project Manager, Josh, introduced us to an innovative backyard cottage project in Calgary and discussed the potentials of developing prefabricated cottages in Seattle. 

A rendering of the backyard cottage project.   |  Image by the University of Calgary Faculty of Environmental Design via Next City. 

Written by Josh Janet, Project Manager | PE:

One solution for addressing city concerns over population growth and housing shortages that has been discussed over the last few years in Seattle is the backyard cottage (otherwise known as “mother-in-law suite,” “laneway housing,” or the painfully dull “detached accessory dwelling unit”). The basic idea is that rather than upzone single-family neighborhoods around the city to allow for apartment building construction, single family neighborhoods may be zoned (and encouraged) instead to build additional smaller units on existing properties to create new living space.

It is not my intent with this post to weigh the pros and cons of backyard cottages. There has been plenty of that going around neighborhood councils and planning meetings as it is. Instead, I thought I would comment on a recent article on Next City that introduces the idea of prefabricated cottages designed specifically for seniors in mind.

The provision of senior housing is a chief concern for the folks at Urbal. We work diligently with clients on designing and developing senior housing that addresses the needs of an older population while respecting the need to support independent and active lifestyles. Unfortunately, new construction can be very expensive, especially in hot real estate markets like Seattle, and so the work we produce isn’t always affordable to the full range of seniors that need both affordable and accessible housing.

Researchers at the University of Calgary’s Faculty of Environmental Design, Cumming School of Medicine, and O’Brien Institute for Public Health are currently evaluating a prefabricated backyard cottage designed with medical monitoring technology and chronic disease management equipment included. The single-story units are approximately 460 square feet in area (less than the 800 square feet maximum allowed in Seattle) and are intended to be portable for re-use on multiple sites. Special features include:

• The cabinetry in the kitchenettes are designed with wipe boards to help seniors coping with memory loss to mark the contents of each.
• Under-cabinet lighting is used in areas with counter tops, such as the kitchen and bathroom, to help residents’ eyes adjust more easily when being used at night.
• Full length towel bars along bottom cabinetry that double as grab bars.

Backyard cottages are popular in Canadian cities like Calgary and Vancouver because the lots are generally longer and skinnier than what we have in the United States and can more easily accommodate additional units without impacting the privacy of the primary residence. The lots are also usually backed by an alley, so backyard cottage residents can access their units without having to pass through the front of the property. What I’m getting at is that these specific units might not work as well on Seattle lots, but the general idea remains a good one.

A second concern is the cost. The article states that these units would be expected to be rented or leased for $1500 to $1900 per month. This is not unreasonable for a senior that requires extensive medical monitoring and treatment from a healthcare professional, but I would imagine that subsidizing even a portion of the cost of these units as a city policy would help seniors relying on social security payments to afford these units more comfortably.

A third concern is the appearance of these units. They look very institutionalized, even with a few stylized elements like continuous grab bars in the bathrooms that double as shower rods and toilet paper dispensers. The presence of medical equipment in the home doesn’t preclude it from being designed to feel like a home. Warmer tones and more natural materials would help make the cottage feel right at home in a single-family neighborhood rather than the current “Jetsons” vibe this unit is imparting.

I will be following the development of these units to see how they perform and whether or not the University will be able to partner with a contractor and manufacturer to get the idea off the ground.

Urban Design: The Barracks at Magnuson Park

The highlighted portion shows the barracks at Magnuson Park.   |   Image captured from Google Earth. 

Situated in Seattle’s Sand Point neighborhood, Magnuson Park is the second largest urban park in Seattle, best known for its variety of amenities and pieces of Seattle's military past. Since the park was formerly home to the Sand Point Naval Station, a few historic remnants of the former base remain — with some of them being vacant for over a decade.

This week, our Project Manager Josh introduced us to the evolution of the historic barracks at Magnuson Park and unveiled the potentials of an urban adaptive reuse project that will transform the barracks into affordable housing.

Written by Josh Janet, Project Manager | PE:

I have spent time in the last few months viewing condominiums on behalf of a friend who recently moved to Seattle from Philadelphia. On one such visit, I drove past the barracks in Magnuson Park. These buildings have interested me since the first time I visited the park years ago, and I thought I would re-visit the history and status of the Barracks today.

The barracks at Sand Point were built between 1929 and 1938 to house Navy sailors as part of a larger Naval Air Station complex. The park had previously been used as King County’s first airfield. The complex reached its peak military use in 1945 with the housing of over 4,600 Naval or Marine personnel and more than 2,800 civilians.

Building 9, the official name for the barracks, is a 144-foot wide, 800-foot long wood-framed building just north of the park’s entrance along Sand Point Way NE. Designed in colonial revival fashion, the exterior is faced with red brick with white trim around casement windows and around the roof edge. The roof is pitched and lined with dormers. The windows feature keystones above and stone sills below, with additional stonework surrounding a number of main entry doors. There are apparently some original stained glass windows intact in the former chapel at the south end, but I’ve only observed the casement windows or infill plywood at window openings in the past.

The building is two or three stories tall depending on what section you’re in, including the basement but excluding the attic space, of which portions were converted to dormitories in the 1940’s. The Navy stopped using it as formal barracks in 1953.

Building 9 courtyard. 

Building 9 exterior facade.

Park signage for Building 9.

Boarded up exterior door.

The land was formally designated as a park in 1977 by Senator Magnuson (hence the name) following a twenty-year public process and attempts by both King County and the Federal Aviation Authority to maintain the airfield status. A grassroots campaign called “Friends of Sand Point Park” led effort to eliminate the airfield and promote the land for its current park use.

The Navy declared its remaining property in the park surplus in 1991 and the city prepared a plan two years later to provide housing on it for low-income families and the homeless. City Resolution 29429, approving a physical development management plan, included plans for the rehabilitation and new development of low-income and homeless housing. The Resolution cited the need to “enhance safety, reduce social isolation, and create a sense of community among residents” as well as a need to “preserve the historic and neighborhood character of the site.” The city implemented the Sand Point Historic District, an area just south of Building 9 that includes 175 housing units, to meet this goal. These units have been managed by non-profit Solid Ground in coordination with the Seattle Parks and Recreation Department since 2007 for “transitional housing residences for families, single adults and youth.”

Building 9, however, was “intended to be developed as a multi-use educational facility” considering options such as food service, classrooms, and administrative offices instead of the plan today for additional housing. The University of Washington acquired the building in 1999, but it couldn’t get its act together while the building went unmaintained and vandalized over the next fifteen years. In its original request for proposals for redevelopment, the University stated that much of the building’s plumbing and electrical systems had been removed by thieves. Eventually, Washington representative Frank Chopp secured $14 million in state funding for its redevelopment into affordable housing. Mercy Housing Northwest (MHN) won the bid for the project in 2014.

The redevelopment by MHN will include “a computer lab, laundry facilities on each floor, an exercise studio, bike storage and maintenance area, and children’s indoor play areas in the basement,” as well as an 18,000 square-foot community health center to be operated by SeaMar Community Health Clinics. Rents are anticipated to cost between $700 and $1000, which is a little steep for low-income housing but represents rents affordable to individuals earning 30%-45% of area median income (nearly $90,000 in 2015). Perhaps most important among these units are that 70% of the units will be two- or three-bedroom units, a critical need for low-income families.

It is my understanding that the project is in the permitting phase right now, with construction not expected to begin for about another year. Still, I am eagerly looking forward to the day that the naval barracks at Magnuson Park are not only restored back to their original luster, but to see them being used by members of our community who could benefit from affordable housing.

Photo Credit:  All photos are taken by Josh Janet, edited by Sapphire Chan.

---

Source:

• “Building 9 at Sand Point Renovation & Adaptive Re-Use: Request for Qualifications and Concepts.” University of Washington. 30 Jan 2012. Last visited: 11 Dec 2016. Available WWW: http://www.washington.edu/community/files/2012/02/Building-9_RFQ-C__2_.pdf.

• Esteban, Michelle. “WWII barracks will serve again as low-income housing.” 10 Feb 2015. Last visited: 11 Dec 2016. Available WWW: http://komonews.com/news/local/wwii-barracks-will-serve-again-as-low-income-housing

• “History Summary Sand Point Peninsula.” University of Washington School of Environmental & Forest Sciences. Last visited: 11 Dec 2016. Available WWW: http://courses.washington.edu/fm328/Fieldtrip%20Material/Peninsulahistory_PublicComps.pdf

• McRoberts, Patrick. “Magnuson Park (Seattle).” History Link. 5 May 2000. Last visited: 11 Dec 2016. Available WWW: http://www.historylink.org/File/2287.

• “Partner Organizations – Magnuson Park.” Seattle Parks and Recreation. Last visited: 11 Dec 2016.Available WWW: http://www.seattle.gov/parks/find/parks/magnuson-park/partnerorganizations. 

• “Seattle City Council Resolution 29429.” Seattle Office of the City Clerk. 16 June 1997. Last visited: 11 Dec 2016. Available WWW: http://clerk.seattle.gov/~scripts/nphbrs.exe?s1=&s3=29429&s2=&s4=&Sect4=AND&l=200&Sect2=THESON&Sect3=PLURON&Sect5=RESNY&Sect6=HITOFF&d=RESF&p=1&u=%2F~public%2Fresny.htm&r=1&f=G.

• “Seattle City Council Resolution 30063.” Seattle Office of the City Clerk. 1 Nov 1999. Last visited: 11 Dec 2016. Available WWW: http://clerk.seattle.gov/~scripts/nphbrs.exe?s1=&s3=30063&s2=&s4=&Sect4=AND&l=200&Sect2=THESON&Sect3=PLURON&Sect5=RESNY&Sect6=HITOFF&d=RESF&p=1&u=%2F~public%2Fresny.htm&r=1&f=G.

• “Seattle City Council Resolution 30293.” Seattle Office of the City Clerk. 2 Apr 2001. Last visited: 11 Dec 2016. Available WWW: http://clerk.seattle.gov/~scripts/nphbrs.exe?s1=&s3=30293&s2=&s4=&Sect4=AND&l=200&Sect2=THESON&Sect3=PLURON&Sect5=RESNY&Sect6=HITOFF&d=RESF&p=1&u=%2F~public%2Fresny.htm&r=1&f=G.

• “Warren G. Magnuson Park.” Washington Native Plant Society. Last visited: 11 Dec 2016. Available WWW: https://www.wnps.org/restoration/documents/MP/MP_Proj_Notes/MP_a1_1.pdf

Urban Design: Adapting Parking Structures for Homes

In our previous blog post on the adaptive reuse project of King Street Station, we chatted with our Project Manager, Josh, to learn about the unique opportunity of creating an urban cultural space in Seattle’s historical train station. This week, continuing on the theme of adaptive reuse architecture, Josh revealed the potentials of adapting parking structures for residence use, and discussed another unique project in downtown Seattle — the Tower at 4th and Columbia project, which might include four floors of above-grade parking that can convert into living spaces.

Written by Josh Janet, Project Manager | PE:

Before I joined Urbal Architecture, I worked for six years at an A/E firm that designed parking structures. With sustainability and adaptive reuse as recurring themes in architectural design and urban planning over the last two decades, I have often been asked about the possibility of renovating and adapting existing parking structures for use as new residences, similar to how vacant warehouses in de-industrialized cities have been transformed into high-demand lofts.

Sadly, the reality is that there are too many obstacles in how parking garages are (and have been) designed that if the land beneath is desired for higher-density uses, then the most cost-effective and practical solution is to demolish the structure and start anew. In a recent Wired article, however, it seems that LMN Architects is designing a new above-grade parking garage in downtown Seattle with many of these challenges addressed up front.

Proposed rendering of the 4th and Columbia project.   |   Image by LMN Architects via Wired

1.       Design load: Building codes require structural engineers to only design parking structures for 40 pounds per square foot (psf) live load, while apartment loading varies from 40 psf in interiors to 100 psf in corridors. Accounting for the possibility of higher loads in design, while adding construction cost, mitigates the need for extensive structural rehabilitation if and when the building use changes.

2.       High ceilings: Parking garages are only required to provide a 7’-0” clearance for standard vehicles and 8’-2” for floors accommodating ADA vans. Most designers try to minimize material and labor cost by keeping the heights as low as possible. Accounting for higher ceilings up front allows future residential uses to not feel claustrophobic as well as account for the physical space required for future mechanical heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment.

3.       Ventilation: Above-grade parking garages can avoid substantial construction and operation costs if they are designed with sufficient “openness” in the exterior facades that the building is considered to be naturally ventilated. This “openness” becomes an issue for adaptive reuse, however. All of those openings would need to be enclosed and properly sealed for waterproofing and thermal protection if it was expected that the spaces would be permanently occupied.

4.       Ramped floors: This is the one area of LMN’s project that I’m still skeptical has been completely addressed. Floors in parking structures are ramped for two reasons- to move vehicles between floors and to direct any surface water to drains (standing water is both a slip hazard and structural maintenance issue). An enclosed structure reduces the amount of rainwater that would enter the structure, but cars can still carry/drip water with them that needs to be drained somewhere. The amount of water expected here may be so minimal that there is less concern of creating unsuitable conditions, but I’ve seen a parking structure built with completely flat slabs before (underneath a hospital) where the engineer informed the owner that their solution to the standing water problem was to “hire someone who can push the water into a nearby drain with a broom.”
Additionally, vehicular elevators are a creative solution, but they can create queuing issues at high volume periods; off-line maintenance periods make that parking garage unusable during that time; and unless we’re talking about driverless cars or the functionality is dummy-proof, there could be human error involved in how the vehicular elevator is used.

Regardless of that last concern, it is highly commendable to LMN Architects for approaching the challenges of adaptively reusing parking structures up front and to the developer for accepting the associated construction and operational cost premiums. Cities are constantly reinventing themselves over time, and the ability to adapt the physical environment to meet new challenges is a greener solution than demolition and starting over.