“Middle age is when you’ve met so many people that every new person youmeet reminds you of someone else.”

OGDEN NASH, 1902–1971

c01.qxp 2/22/07 3:24 PM Page 2

COPYRIG

HTED M

ATERIAL

Parkview atAsbury MethodistVillage

EVALUATION SITE: Parkview at Asbury Methodist Vil-lage

COMMUNITY TYPE: Independent Living Apartments• 65 independent living apartments

REGION: Mid-Atlantic

ARCHITECT: Cochran, Stephenson & Donkervoet, Inc.

OWNER: Asbury Methodist Village, Inc.

DATA POINTS: Resident Apartment: 1,055–2,585 gsfTotal Area: 2,387.69 gsf/apartmentTotal Area: 155,200 gsfProject Cost: $175.38/gsfTotal Project Cost: $27,218,995Investment/apartment: $418,753.77Occupancy: 99% as of May 2006

FIRST OCCUPANCY: October 2005

DATE OF EVALUATION: May 2006

EVALUATION TEAM: Rich Compton; Eleanor Alvarez;Eileen Nacht, AIA; Ingrid Fraley, ASID

Chapter 1

FIG. 1-1 This warm and welcoming view of the lobby uponentry minimizes the connection to the remote receptionistPhoto by Alain Jaramillo

c01.qxp 2/22/07 3:24 PM Page 3

Introduction

For more than 80 years, Asbury Methodist Village hasprovided services to the elderly on a sprawling 130-acrecampus located in Gaithersburg, Maryland, a suburb ofWashington, D.C. Mission-driven and spiritually based,Asbury’s reputation for excellence is well known.

Over the years, this continuing care retirementcommunity (CCRC) has evolved not only in the con-struction of housing and related services, but also in thedevelopment of unique educational, wellness, and cul-tural programs to support a comprehensive retirementlifestyle. The Rosborough Cultural Arts and WellnessCenter offers an Olympic-size pool, personal fitnesstrainers, a 350-seat theater for regional and communityproductions, and the AVTV Asbury Village private tele-vision station. The Keese School of Continuing Edu-cation offers a wide range of lectures, classes, andeducational tours during its academic year, which runsfrom September through May.

The many buildings on the campus include inde-pendent living cottages and apartments, assisted living,skilled nursing, adult day care, outpatient services, caremanagement, pharmacy, rehabilitation, and communityservices, all supporting a population of 1,300 residents,850 associates, and 1,600 volunteers. Walking paths,

4 Part I Independent Living Apartments

community gardens, putting greens, tennis courts, thepond, and surrounding woods create an outdoor envi-ronment that is scenic and therapeutic. Residents areconnected not only by roads and walkways, but also bythe lifestyle and community amenities that encouragetotal involvement in campus life.

The subject of this evaluation is one specific build-ing, which represents the challenges and decision processthat many owners and operators face when an exist-ing building has aged and no longer serves its originalpurpose.

The “211 Building” was constructed in 1991 as aseven-story, apartment-style building to serve 192assisted living residents. The resident floors weredesigned with traditional double-loaded corridors andsmall efficiency-style units. Resident common spaceconsisted of a dining room, living room, and club room,located on the second floor of the terrace level. In addi-tion, a large chapel located on the first floor providedreligious services for all residents of the Asbury campus.

As residents continued to age in place, the day-to-day logistics of moving all 192 residents, utilizing onlytwo elevators for meals and activities, became over-whelming. Reality dictated that once residents weremoved to the terrace level, they remained there and didnot return to their apartments until the end of the day.

FIG. 1-2 Terrace-level plan Courtesy of Cochran, Stephenson & Donkervoet, Inc.

c01.qxp 2/22/07 3:24 PM Page 4

Chapter 1 Parkview at Asbury Methodist Village 5

Congestion increased and the common spaces could nolonger function for their intended purposes. Operationalinefficiencies rose, as did costs associated with these inef-ficiencies.

AUTHOR’S NOTE: The remainder of this post-occupancyevaluation differs in format from its companion chapters.The original assisted living building was submitted to the“Design for Aging Review” in 1992. The transformationof the building into The Parkview Apartments has notbeen submitted to the “Design for Aging Review,” but thisstory in itself is a post-occupancy evaluation of the originaldesign. This transformation process is therefore worthy ofdiscussion but uses a slightly different format. Within thefollowing content, the owner’s objectives and the architect’sresponses for that transformation process are clearly demon-strated and the results of the evaluation are documented.

Master Planning

The master planning process consisted of a building andprogramming analysis to assess existing conditions anddetermine desired changes. The “211 Building” had tochange from a high-occupancy, high-service, complexoperational entity to a “highest and best use” productthat minimized reuse complications.

To that end, the Asbury organization engaged in anextensive planning process that was thorough, research-based, inclusive, and highly communicative. Participantsin this process included long-term care staff, industryexperts, and consumer advocates who were able to iden-tify a needed service gap on the campus, determine aviable financial plan, and review the staffing require-ments for this new entity.

The conversion required thoughtful decisions atstrategic points, but above all, team members had tokeep their eyes on the big picture. At the same time, stay-ing on track also required flexibility in overcomingunforeseen obstacles. They fixed what they could, con-verted some challenges into opportunities, and acceptedthose things that could not be changed. Even in the faceof two critical issues that had severe financial conse-quences, the team demonstrated the courage to makedifficult and important decisions under pressure, to thebenefit of the finished product.

With a waiting list of 400 and a pent-up demandfor larger apartments, the design team determined thatthe best use of the “211 Building” would be for inde-pendent living apartments, designed to appeal specifi-cally to the active senior 60 years of age or older. Withthat demographic, these units would also appeal to cou-

ples. The resulting “Programming Document,” used as achecklist by the design team, included the followinginformation:

• Function of every space• When spaces would be utilized• Required adjacencies• Décor of the spaces• List of finishes• Consideration of maintenance issues, aesthetics, and

acoustics• Furniture, fixtures, and equipment• Other design criteria

It should be noted that, unlike most renovationprojects, this community did not have to deal with thechallenges of renovating an occupied building. In con-junction with the decision to move toward independentliving, the completion of a new assisted living buildingsolved the problem of what to do with the existing pop-ulation.

Design Challenges

During the life of the “211 Building,” water problemsand leaks were not unusual. As part of the design pro-gram, a forensic study was conducted to determine thecause of water penetration through the existing façade.The findings indicated that the original brick cavity wall

FIG. 1-3 This side of the building, with the original chapelon the right, was reconstructed to mimic the original façade,but created some confusion as to which entry is the main onePhotograph by Richard Compton

c01.qxp 2/22/07 3:24 PM Page 5

had not been properly constructed. Therefore, the deci-sion was made to remove the exterior skin of the build-ing. Only the building infrastructure was salvaged,including columns, floor slabs, elevator and stair shafts,and mechanical chases. At this point in the process,implosion of the original building was discussed, but asavings of $20 per square foot was estimated if the newunit layouts could be designed around the existing struc-tural elements. Considering the unanticipated expenseof removing the outer wall, this cost savings was a wel-come addition to an escalating budget.

The main chapel, with its strong history and connec-tion to the community, had to be preserved, and thus thisspace was not significantly changed during construction.

In addition, the façade on this side of the buildingwas rebuilt to match the original design, to minimize thecity review process. More aggressive bay projections wereadded to the other sides of the building to improve thelayout of the units and to establish a new building image.

Large, “high-end” units were required to meet con-sumer demands. The existing floor-to-floor height ofeight feet challenged the designers to minimize the visualimpact of low ceilings. Coffered tray ceilings were incor-porated and bay projections with higher windows maxi-mized the amount of natural light and framed outdoorviews to the park. To avoid extensive duct work and theresulting bulkheads, fan coil units were incorporated,sometimes with great frequency, in the individual units.

The number of apartments created was not basedon a marketing study, but solely on the capacity of the

6 Part I Independent Living Apartments

existing footprint of the building’s floors. Corridors arenow single loaded, forcing all available square footageinto the apartment units. The result is a total of 65apartments with 13 different unit types, mixing one-bedroom, two-bedroom, and two-bedroom-with-denunits. Units range in size from 1,030 square feet to 2,590square feet. As a point of comparison, only 40% of theexisting 745 independent living apartments on campusare larger than 1,000 square feet. The new commonspaces on the main level include a dining room, clubroom, library, and main entry lobby.

Of particular interest is the attempt to reorient theentry to the apartment building to take advantage of thewooded views, with the accompanying new buildingname of “Parkview.” This required a new entry with anew porte cochere to anchor the new entrance on theside of the building opposite the original entrance. Theold entrance remains, primarily to serve the main chapel.

A new three-level parking garage, with a coveredspace for each of the 65 residents, was also constructed.It included 35 additional uncovered spaces on the topdeck. Assigned parking is important to this active adultpopulation, many of whom are still working.

Entry/Commons

The shift in the entry sequence poses an interestingdilemma. Although the redesign succeeded in movingthe building focus and main entry to the “park” side ofthe site, the original approach, with its circular drivewayand chapel entry, remains off Russell Avenue, which isthe main street of the campus. This causes some confu-sion for the first-time visitor in finding the appropriateentrance to the building.

The road eventually leads one past the newly con-structed garage and loading dock, past a massivelyscreened generator, to a final arrival at the new portecochere. Visitor parking is not clearly delineated, nor is itconvenient to this front entry.

The reception desk is located in a discrete corner ofthe lobby, making it difficult for the receptionist to visu-ally control the entry. From the visitors’ approach, thereceptionist is not in the direct line of sight, and thesense of confusion is immediate upon entry. However,upon the evaluation team’s arrival, the receptionist wasquick to leave the remote desk and provide assistance.

The lobby features a nicely designed fireplace sur-rounded by a furniture grouping in a transitional style.To the right is the club room, the main communityspace, used primarily for planned events and rarely forinformal socialization. Changes from its original config-uration within the assisted living building design were

FIG. 1-4 The existing chapel was not touched during con-struction, and remains a landmark for campus residentsPhotograph by Richard Compton

c01.qxp 2/22/07 3:24 PM Page 6

Chapter 1 Parkview at Asbury Methodist Village 7

minimal but included the addition of an accessibleramp to the raised podium area, a beverage/kitchen areato accommodate catered events, and an extremely largetelevision.

Bible study, bridge club, and the Tuesday dance aresome of the resident-initiated activities. The furnishingsare senior-friendly, with moisture-proof fabrics that seemsomewhat at odds with the intended focus on a youngerpopulation.

Dining

The dining room, to the left of the lobby, has a multi-purpose appearance, as opposed to perhaps a more logical upscale restaurant image. At the time of the eval-uation, only one meal was offered and only on limiteddays: buffet on Wednesday; dinner on Thursday, Friday,and Saturday; and brunch on Sunday.

Some confusion has arisen about what the theme ofthe dining service should be, with two points of viewexpressed. One opinion is that the dining programshould be another venue on campus with the same levelof service, to avoid creating a perception that theParkview dining experience is better. The second opin-ion is that this dining room has an opportunity to pro-vide an upscale dining experience that is currentlymissing from the campus. Without full definition byoperations, it is not surprising that only limited diningopportunity is available.

Parkview considers itself a restaurant, with surf-and-turf, display cooking, and upscale brunch service.Parkview residents have a point-of-service card for din-

ing, which records charges based on their use of any ofthe dining rooms on campus. The remaining campusresidents prepay for meals and costs are deducted;though they are encouraged to visit the new Parkviewdining room, they must pay an additional fee at thisvenue. Meal costs are higher in this dining room becauseof the higher quality of food and service. However, resi-dents believe that they are not necessarily seeing thisvalue, and consider other options both on and off cam-pus to be more affordable or desirable.

FIG. 1-5 Typical apartment-level floor plan Courtesy of Cochran, Stephenson & Donkervoet, Inc.

FIG. 1-6 Extensive millwork, finished in warm tones, createsa welcoming feeling for the lobby and dining room beyondPhotograph by Richard Compton

c01.qxp 2/22/07 3:24 PM Page 7

Parkview is also one of two dining rooms on cam-pus where alcohol is served. Currently, residents bringtheir own alcohol and are free to serve themselves.Although some residents disapprove of this policy andrefuse to eat in the dining room, Parkview would like toobtain a liquor license and provide spirits as a part of itsstandard service.

8 Part I Independent Living Apartments

The outdoor dining experience is disappointing as aresult of the change in the main orientation of the build-ing. On what is now the back side of the building thereis a wonderful patio, complete with outdoor dining fur-niture located adjacent to the loading dock, massive gen-erator, and parking garage. Although screening has beenadded, this function at this location seems misplaced andinconvenient.

Commercial Kitchen

The original renovation plan included preservation ofthe original kitchen. As a result of the “ravages of con-struction,” maintaining this objective was the secondchallenge for the design team. It became evident thatthe existing kitchen equipment was not usable, as it wasof an “old school” health care design. Late in the con-struction process, the kitchen was gutted and all theequipment replaced, resulting in a delayed buildingopening.

Housekeeping and Maintenance

All of the housekeeping services provided in the residentapartments are at additional cost to the resident. A min-imum of three hours of cleaning per apartment unit isrequired if a resident desires any cleaning service. Fiftypercent of the residents contract for this service on aweekly or biweekly basis.

FIG. 1-7 The multipurpose room was part of the originalconfiguration and required minimal renovation for the newindependent population Photograph by Richard Compton

FIG. 1-8 The terraceextension of the diningroom is located between thelobby and the loading dockPhotograph by RichardCompton

c01.qxp 2/22/07 3:24 PM Page 8

Chapter 1 Parkview at Asbury Methodist Village 9

One full-time maintenance person is assigned tothe building to provide preventative as well as emer-gency maintenance services. Residents can receive addi-tional services for small projects at a cost of $30.50 perhour. Larger projects are addressed by a list of approvedcontractors who are allowed to work in the units andunderstand the scope of services and expectations ofquality.

The trash removal system is through the use of trashchutes, available on each of the floors, which connect toa large dumpster located in the main trash room atgrade. This dumpster is then rolled down a hallway tothe loading dock area, where it awaits pickup. Issues of pest and infection control are not foremost in theoperator’s mind at the moment, although a summer’sassortment of flies, pests, and rodents may warrantreconsideration.

Corridors and Apartments

The single-loaded corridors allow natural light penetra-tion and should provide some amount of orientation.However, the narrow four-foot-wide corridors do notallow residents to stop, rest, and orient to the outdoors.With the addition of many 90-degree bends, the vistas arecompromised, so orientation by object, such as a promi-nent grandfather clock, is more likely to be of value.

Narrowness of corridors and excessive turns alsoaffect the safe use of wheelchairs and motorized wheel-chairs; turning around while in one would certainly be achallenge. Housekeeping reported difficulty in usingwider vacuum cleaners in these limited spaces.

The operator has developed a system to turn offmany of the corridor lights during the day, leaving theperception of burnt-out light bulbs that need to bereplaced. Hallways may have been overlit or perhaps notwell thought through for energy efficiency.

Elevators, although totally refurbished, are sized tothe original assisted living building design. Because thereis no freight elevator, deliveries and move-in processesare challenged by the shortened height and fast-closingdoors of the elevator system. Another challenge is thelocation of the parking garage, which is not connected tothis main set of elevators. A circuitous route is requiredto access a second set of elevators at the opposite end ofthe building.

Apartment designs were masterfully planned toaccommodate odd spaces that resulted from the con-straints posed by existing building structure. Large win-dows and coffered tray ceilings were incorporated tominimize the perception of low ceilings. Unconven-tional apartment arrangements were addressed by the

operator’s provision of interior design services to helpresidents visualize the best use of their apartments.

Although units had some universal design features,such as lever handles on the doors, single-lever faucets,wire pulls, raised electrical outlets, and ranges withfront controls, other aging-in-place features were notincluded. Grab bars in the showers, though not initiallyplanned for, have now been added; shower enclosureshave thresholds that would require a more extensiveretrofit to create a roll-in shower; lighting over the vani-ties features exposed bulbs; all bathroom surfaces arewhite and lack contrast for residents with vision impair-ments; dishwashers are not raised and microwaves arelocated above the range. Because residents are allowed tostay in their apartments as their care needs progress,attention to these basic design conveniences would bebeneficial. It should be noted that aging in place isapproved only with the appropriate caregiver support,which is coordinated through Asbury’s care managementdepartment. Although home health agency services areused and encouraged in the apartments, a care managerfor the resident must be identified as the person who will

FIG. 1-9 Single-loaded apartment corridors are designedwith strategically placed seating alcoves to minimize theimpact of the four-foot-wide corridors Photo by AlainJaramillo

c01.qxp 2/22/07 3:24 PM Page 9

ensure that all the required services are provided in aconsistent manner.

Operator Perspectives

This organization engaged in an excellent planningprocess that embraced the mission “to promote relation-ships that celebrate a balanced and fulfilling lifestyle” forParkview residents and the entire Asbury Methodistcampus. The staff that worked on this project seemed to

10 Part I Independent Living Apartments

be handpicked with the common threads of experience,proven ability to work well with residents, and commit-ment to the vision of a new building on campus.

Parkview is also evidence of the power of a goodidea. The administrator, at the time of critical decisionmaking, took a careful view of the future needs of thiscommunity and led the way. Even with changes in keyleadership positions during the planning and construc-tion process, the solidity of the plan allowed the projectto move forward and reach its goal.

Design consultants incorporated resident and staffinput through the establishment of the PartnershipAdvisory Group. Draft plans were presented to all stake-holders and frequent marketing meetings reinforced thecommitment to the plan. As the project went to con-struction, leadership became proactive and incomingresidents were engaged in the planning process. Multiplespecial events were planned prior to, during, and afteropening to solicit opinions and maintain strong lines ofopen communication.

The move-in process was well considered and wellorganized. Each day started with a clear idea of the goalsand objectives to be met, as well as a review of the issuesand successes from the prior day. Inaugural residentsincluded former board members and others close to theAsbury organization, so standards of service were highand the team exceeded expectations. The resident satis-faction rate of 98% can only be attributed to this intensecommunication process. As a result, the famous“Parkview Team Approach” is now used as a model forother new openings within the organization.

When the Parkview Apartments opened, the occu-pancy goals were quickly exceeded, and at the time of theevaluation stood at a 99% occupancy level.

FIG. 1-10 Residents are able to furnish their unusual apart-ment layouts with the assistance of the project designerPhotograph by Richard Compton

General Project Information

PROJECT ADDRESSAsbury Methodist Village211 Russell AvenueGaithersburg, MD 20877

PROJECT DESIGN TEAMArchitect: Cochran, Stephenson & Donkervoet, Inc.Interior Designer: Partners in PlanningLandscape Architect: Cochran, Stephenson & Donkervoet, Inc.Structural Engineer: Morabito Consultants, Inc.Mechanical Engineer: James Posey Associates, Inc.Electrical Engineer: James Posey Associates, Inc.Civil Engineer: RBA GroupDining Consultant: N/A

Gerontologist: N/AManagement/Development: N/AContractor: Donohoe Construction

PROJECT STATUSCompletion date: October 2005

OCCUPANCY LEVELSAt facility opening date: 91%At time of evaluation: 99%

RESIDENT AGE (YRS)At facility opening date: 77At time of evaluation: 77

c01.qxp 2/22/07 3:24 PM Page 10

Chapter 1 Parkview at Asbury Methodist Village 11

RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES

Apartments

Typical Size Size RangeProject Element No. (GSF) (GSF)

One-bedroom units 8 1,055 1,055–1,490One-bedroom with den units 7 1,340 1,340Two-bedroom units 40 1,685 1,335–1,685Two-bedroom with den units 8 1,490 1,490–2,585Three-bedroom with den units 2 2,535 2,535Total (all units) 65 98,625 GSFResidents’ social areas (lounges, dining, and spaces) 16,683 GSFMedical/health/fitness and activities areas 0 GSFAdministrative, public, and ancillary support service areas 514 GSFService, maintenance, and mechanical areas 39,378 GSFTotal gross area 155,200 GSFTotal net usable area (per space program) 115,822 NSFOverall gross/net factor (ratio of gross area/net useable area) 1.34

SITE AND PARKING

SITE LOCATIONSuburban

PARKINGFor This Facility

Type of Parking Residents Staff Visitors Totals

Open surface lot(s) 0 16 22 38Parking structure 100 0 0 100Totals 100 16 22 138

SITE SIZEPart of a larger CCRC campus, site area for this specific proj-

ect not calculated.

CONSTRUCTION COSTS

SOURCE OF COST DATAFinal construction cost as of October 2005

SOFT COSTSLand cost or value N/AAll permit and other entitlement fees Included in belowLegal and professional fees Included in belowAppraisals N/AMarketing and preopening Included in belowOther fees Included in belowTotal soft costs $1,661,015

BUILDING COSTSNew construction except FF&E, special finishes, floor and window coverings, HVAC and electrical $14,255,168Renovations except FF&E, special finishes, floor and window coverings, HVAC and electrical Included in above

FF&E and small wares Included in aboveFloor coverings Included in aboveWindow coverings Included in aboveHVAC $5,340,464Electrical $2,059,353Parking garage $1,625,758Total building costs $23,280,743

SITE COSTSTotal site costs, including demolition costs: $2,277,237

TOTAL PROJECT COSTSTotal project costs: $27,218,995

FINANCING SOURCESUnknown

c01.qxp 2/22/07 3:24 PM Page 11