Shared Use Design Analysis: A Case Study of MyClinic
Transcript of Shared Use Design Analysis: A Case Study of MyClinic
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA: COLLEGE OF DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, AND PLANNING
Shared Use Design Analysis: A Case Study of MyClinic
Sustainability and the Built Environment Capstone
Bryan Pepper
3 August 2017
University of Florida: College of Design, Construction, and Planning
Pepper | 2
Table of Contents: Page(s)
Abstract 3
Key Terms 4
Introduction 5
Case Study: MyClinic 6
Background Research 8
Literature Reviewed 10
Methodology 14
Data 16
Results 34
Discussion 35
Disadvantages of Shared Use 35
Relevance to Sustainability 35
Setbacks 36
Conclusions 37
References and Citations 38
University of Florida: College of Design, Construction, and Planning
Pepper | 3
Abstract
While the supply of land suitable for development decreases across the globe
and the human population continues to rise, the need to improve the efficiency of
development practices is increasingly more apparent. Shared use design strategies
offer one such solution for the improvement of development efficiency. Shared use
design is defined in this research paper as a design strategy which allows multiple
independent entities to share resources and infrastructure in the development of a
single site. These independent parties are able to share initial costs as well as long term
operations and maintenance costs. These obvious financial savings are typically the
selling points associated with shared use design however for many, the perceived
complications of coordinating equal and efficient sharing of spaces makes the adoption
of shared use strategies uncommon. The benefits of shared use design do not stop at
the financial savings, and it is identifying and quantifying these other benefits to
sustainability that is the goal of this research paper.
One such example of the adoption of shared use design strategies is the case of
MyClinic in Jupiter, Florida. As a collaboration between the public Palm Beach County
Health Department and the private nonprofit MyClinic, this case represents a successful
shared use design example and the basis for this research. Several options were
considered for the permanent housing of MyClinic and ultimately, a shared use solution
was chosen over a more conventional approach. The lessons learned and the options
considered during the development of this project provide the assumptions and guiding
principles necessary to develop a comparative analysis. Three design scenarios were
developed and illustrate three different design approaches including a conventional
University of Florida: College of Design, Construction, and Planning
Pepper | 4
single use site approach, a shared site but single use building scenario, and a shared
use site and building example. Hypothetical schematic site plans were developed in
order to gather consistent data about various sustainability factors. Differences in
resource requirements and long term cost were compared. It was determined that the
scenario with the smallest impact across the board was the site that was shared and
included a shared building. By systematically demonstrating the difference in
environmental, social, and economic impact of shared use design, this research aims to
further the case for the importance of considering shared use development in future
design projects.
Key Terms
Shared Use Design – A design strategy which combines similar uses in a single building
and allows them to share infrastructure and resources
Single Use Design – A conventional approach to development which keeps uses
separated into selfcontained structures and sites
Co-Location – Placing several similar entities on a single site
Initial Impact – The sum of all resources utilized in the development of a site
Building Lifecycle – Refers to the entire “life” of a building, from construction to
demolition
University of Florida: College of Design, Construction, and Planning
Pepper | 5
Introduction
Shared use is defined in this research paper as a design strategy in which two or
more separate entities share a single space. This can include sharing a single site, a
single building, or a single office. By utilizing this design strategy, infrastructure and
resources can be shared and efficiency is improved. These cost sharing and efficiency
improving measures lead to financial savings for all parties sharing. The initial economic
incentives associated with shared use design are the factors that are typically
considered when determining a design approach, however the motivations for designing
with a shared use approach extend much further to include a variety of environmental
benefits and social benefits.
While shared use design strategies can be more complicated and harder to
coordinate than conventional methods, shared use design provides great
environmental, social, and economic benefits over conventional single use design
because it allows costs and resources to be shared among several entities, it
encourages greater interaction within the community, and it reduces initial and lifecycle
impacts of development. The research question this paper aims to answer is, what
benefits to sustainability does shared use design provide to construction and operations
(initial impact and building life cycle) compared to conventional single use design
situations?
The purpose of this research is to identify the benefits to the sustainability of the
built environment in which shared use design offers. In addition, this research attempts
to place consistent metric figures on these factors in order to quantify these predicted
savings. It is the hypothesis of this research that shared use design will provide a
University of Florida: College of Design, Construction, and Planning
Pepper | 6
considerable reduction in the site area and infrastructure required for a given
development project as well as in the long term operations and maintenance cost
associated with the project. In order to test this hypothesis, three design scenarios will
tested and will four unique sites will be developed utilizing assumptions gathered from
the real world case study of MyClinic in Jupiter, Florida. To produce comparable results,
each of the site plans must be designed using a consistent approach and consistent
design parameters.
The results of the data derived from these hypothetical scenarios will offer
reliable figures for comparing the costs and benefits of choosing a shared use design
approach over the more conventional single use design method. These results will also
demonstrate the diversity of lesser known benefits associated with shared use design in
addition to the economic benefits most commonly considered when thinking about
shared use.
Case Study: MyClinic
The rapidly developing small town of Jupiter, Florida offers a very unique social
condition which requires an equally as unique solution to adapt to. A large
socioeconomic disparity exists in the rapidly growing population of Jupiter. This gap in
economic status results in low income and potentially undocumented residents living
alongside more affluent residents in a single community and it is this demographic
condition has many difficulties associated with it.
One specific difficulty comes from providing equal and affordable access to
healthcare to all residents. In response to this growing issue, the local nonprofit hospital,
University of Florida: College of Design, Construction, and Planning
Pepper | 7
Jupiter Medical Center, developed the initial concept for a volunteer based clinic that
would be able to serve the underrepresented portion of the population. When it
ultimately became a reality, the nonprofit clinic had evolved into its own nonprofit
healthcare entity and began serving the community and growing rapidly. The concept of
a clinic utilizing the quality health services of a developed community on a volunteer
basis in order to serve those citizens who are not eligible for or are simply unable to
afford healthcare was a successful solution to the healthcare disparities of Jupiter.
Since opening its doors three years ago in 2014, the nonprofit clinic has grown
from a temporary modular structure with a handful of exam rooms to a fully equipped
4,000+ square foot permanent building. This upgrade was made possible through the
collaborative planning efforts of MyClinic with the Palm Beach County Health
Department in order to share the cost of purchasing and maintaining the building.
Prior to the joint acquisition of this property, MyClinic and the Palm Beach County
Health Department considered several potential options for the expansion of and the
permanent establishment of the project. The first option was essentially an expansion of
an existing Palm Beach County Health Department building, with the exception that the
two entities would remain completely separate and share only the site which the
buildings occupied. This expansion project was estimated to cost $2.2 million and would
add 3,333 square feet to the existing 3,288 square foot building bringing the total
footprint to 6,621 square feet, it would also require the redesign of the existing site and
the expansion of parking. Since the county already owned the property considered and
the temporary structure for MyClinic was already located on the site, this option seemed
attractive initially. The second option considered involved a property for sale within a
University of Florida: College of Design, Construction, and Planning
Pepper | 8
close proximity to the current site. This property consisted of a 4,282 square foot
medical office that was recently vacated and all necessary infrastructures, including
parking. After consultation and planning, it was determined that this space would be
sufficient for both entities if it was shared efficiently. The price tag of $1.6 million and the
ability to immediately move in and be ready to see patients without waiting for
construction was more than enough of an incentive for the stakeholders and this option
was ultimately chosen. Amy Pepper, MyClinic Board Secretary and Director states,
“MyClinic represents the best that a community can offer when diverse organizations
and individuals work together towards the common goal of improving the lives of their
neighbors."
Background Research
The concept of two independent healthcare providers sharing a single workspace
and place of operation is something that is not often considered due to a number of
complications and concerns. Issues of patient privacy and safety are among the highest
priority of concerns and make it difficult to get the conversation started regarding shared
healthcare spaces. Because of this fact, finding precedents to study and compare to the
research conducted by this paper is a difficult task. Although shared use is not a new
concept by any means, it is traditionally thought of in the sense of shared residential
developments or residential-commercial agreements where uses are co-located but
completely separated. Although these examples are not exactly the same as a
healthcare based example, the approach and lessons which can be learned from them
University of Florida: College of Design, Construction, and Planning
Pepper | 9
are still very beneficial and worth utilizing as a resource when conducting this
comparative analysis.
In addition to referencing case studies in the background research of this project,
the existing framework set out by the United States Green Building Council in its
Leadership for Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) offered valuable guidance
when determining the most comprehensive and suitable methodology. Now in its fourth
version, LEED offers a large number of categories in which to completely assess the
efficiency and sustainability of building projects. These categories provided a great deal
of help when determining which factors to study and which factors to emphasize more
than others. In addition, the LEED system for building and site analysis also offers
guidance in the form of reliable ways to determine metrics and quantify variables and
how to place values on certain measures.
In an attempt to replicate the site conditions of the case being studied, county
and town codes of ordinances were referenced. In addition to other provisions, these
lengthy documents lay out specific guidelines for how the locality is to be developed.
Everything from building setbacks and parking requirements to buffer and landscaping
requirements are laid out in explicit detail in the code of ordinance. Although the
individual pieces of information in these documents seem to be unrelated, a bigger
picture for how a municipality wants to be seen and the image it wants to put out to
visitors and residents can be interpreted from goals and objectives of these codes and
ordinances.
University of Florida: College of Design, Construction, and Planning
Pepper | 10
Literature Reviewed
Building the Evidence: Creating a Framework for Assessing Costs and Impacts of
Shared Use Agreements –
Shared uses can go much further than the building specific ways that they are
defined by this research paper. Shared use agreements can also be applied towards
facilities and services. The first case in this literature review deals with shared use
agreements as they relate to public and private facilities sharing their sports fields with
other entities, both public and private. The article conducts a legal analysis of 18
separate shared use agreements and evaluates and catalogs the means by which they
deal with certain aspects of this issue. Key areas which are focused on by this study
include sanitation, liability, and security as these are the areas in which many shared
use agreements find critical weaknesses in. Next, the article identifies four cases which
illustrate several different types of shared use relationships and explains how and why
these examples are successful or unsuccessful. The first example is a case of a shared
use agreement between a public school district and a city. This first example
demonstrates an extremely balanced sharing of cost and benefit. The first case includes
the use of public swimming pools in the agreement which adds an issue of high risk and
liability to the agreement, but also adds leverage for negotiation. The second case
studied is also an example of an agreement between a school district and a city. In this
agreement, both entities came together to fund a sports complex that would benefit both
the school district and the community. The agreement addresses all issues of
maintenance and liability in a similar fashion to the first agreement with the exception of
a much more in depth section addressing usage agreements was outlined from the
University of Florida: College of Design, Construction, and Planning
Pepper | 11
initial stages of the agreement. This has resulted in improved an improved relationship
and far fewer avoidable issues than the first case.
The next two cases both deal with shared use agreements between a school
district and a private entity. The private entity in the first case is a garden club that
wishes to utilize part of an abandoned middle school property to create a community
garden. The garden club’s plan will offer no ongoing cost to the school district and will
provide the community with an opportunity to grow their food locally and will provide an
educational opportunity to the adjacent middle school. With very little funding in the
school district’s budget, negotiation of the shared use agreement with the garden club
have been extremely time consuming. After four years of negation, the agreement was
settled. The cost of the project was insignificant in comparison to the cost of the
extended negotiation with the school district and it is this association that has many
feeling less than confident about the strength of the agreement. The final case studied
in this comparative analysis is a case regarding the use of a school district’s sports
fields by a youth soccer organization. The school district and the soccer organization
had a past agreement to share the sports fields as long as the youth soccer
organization paid for hourly permits. Recently, the school district replaced the sports
fields with high quality synthetic turf. Following this expenditure, the school district
decided to end the temporary permitting agreement due to the increased risk to the
school district’s new investment. The soccer organization reacted to this by recruiting
the voices of the students which participate in the youth soccer league. Ultimately, it
was this connection between the students and the soccer organization that has led to
the success of this shared use agreement. Although initially hesitant, the school district
University of Florida: College of Design, Construction, and Planning
Pepper | 12
has had no issues with the shared use agreement and has continued to strengthen its
relationship to this and other community organizations (Kuo, 2014).
Urban Land Institute Case Study – Oslo
The municipality of Washington D.C. is an extremely unique urban situation with
many unique and attractive features as well as several factors which make development
and design more challenging. In the case of the shared residential project known as
“Oslo”, the municipality’s strict and old fashioned zoning regulations challenged the
ability of architects and planners when attempting to redevelop an infill site to increase
density while maintaining attractiveness and affordability. With the goal of the project
being to maximize the limited space provided by the site, designers had to figure out a
way to accomplish this given the strict standards of D.C.’s Zoning regulations. When
inspection of the existing foundation revealed a number of structural concerns, the
developer worried that the only solution would be to invest large amounts of money to
improve the existing foundation due to a zoning regulation that required a certain
percentage of the original foundation to be preserved. After considerable pleading and
negotiating with the zoning board of Washington D.C., an amendment was passed to
this regulation and the decision was made to dig deeper. The compromised foundation
was removed and a fourth floor was added to the building below ground. This downward
expansion of the floor plan allowed designers to increase the square footage to 12,800
compared to the 5,400 square feet of the building which used to occupy the site. This
improvement allowed the developer to increase the units for rent to a total of 9 while
staying within the requirements set out by the zoning regulations. Although this case
University of Florida: College of Design, Construction, and Planning
Pepper | 13
has little in common with the case being studied by this research, the lessons learned
are applicable and valuable. However good and foolproof new and innovative ideas
sound, they will typically be met with resistance until they are proven to be successful.
Gaining the support of the community and utilizing a collaborative approach which
involves the community from the early stages of a project are extremely important steps
to consider when attempting to implement an unconventional project (Matkins, 2016).
Comparative analysis of energy consumption trends in cohousing and alternate
housing arrangements
The primary concern in this final case study is energy consumption and the
behaviors which may affect energy consumption. The author of this thesis feels strongly
that energy consumption trends in the United States specifically (and the world as a
whole) are linked far more deeply to behavioral issues than to technologic or
educational issues. The reasoning behind this idea is the fact that although energy
technology and efficiency continue to rise exponentially, energy consumption trends are
at an all-time high and are continuing to rise. In an effort to prove this hypothesis to be
true, the author relies on two cases of cohousing developments which are focused on
energy conservation. In both cases studied, the average energy consumption of
residents was far lower than the averages exhibited in single family housing situations.
This is caused partially by the sharing of resources and infrastructure associated with
these design methods, but the energy savings are far greater than the sum of the
energy benefits of the design. This result suggests that the act of being aware of energy
issues and the psychologic effect of living in a community that has the common goal of
University of Florida: College of Design, Construction, and Planning
Pepper | 14
saving energy can result in behavioral changes. The impact of this data is incredibly
insightful for the largescale community and population, but also suggests additional
benefits of shared use design. By altering the typical interactions that people expect
even in something as simple as housing or healthcare, the impacts can be
subconscious and are amplified through further sharing (Brown, 2004).
Methodology
A comparative analysis of 3 design scenarios with 4 hypothetical sites will be
conducted to determine the initial and life cycle savings associated with constructing
one shared building as opposed to two single use structures.
The real world case of MyClinic in Jupiter, FL will be utilized to provide initial
assumptions of building footprint, site development intensity, and program needs. These
findings will be used to develop 4 hypothetical site plans to illustrate three development
scenarios. These schematic plans will be created to consistent design standards and
are meant to provide a controlled means of gathering consistent and comparable data.
When designing the hypothetical sites, the first step taken was to analyze the two
case study sites in question. The sites were analyzed to determine the general site
intensity as well as to determine typical adjacent zoning conditions and landscape
intensity. These factors are the guiding principles used when developing schematic site
plans. The next step in developing the hypothetical site plans and improving the realism
is to reference both the Palm Beach County Unified Land Development Code and the
Town of Jupiter Code of Ordinances. These resources offer minimum design guidelines
in the form of dimensions and quantities of site program elements such as parking,
landscaping, buffers, and building setbacks. Using the information gathered thus far,
University of Florida: College of Design, Construction, and Planning
Pepper | 15
one can begin to conceptualize how the hypothetical sites will be organized and
function. An entry drive is the first program element that will be added to dictate the
placement of the building and parking. The minimum building setback for commercial
zoning is 30’ on all sides as per Palm Beach County Code requirements. By placing the
building immediately in the corner of this setback ensures the maximum efficiency of the
site as well as the consistency of the plans. Site dimensions can ultimately be adjusted
once building and parking is located. The South Florida Water Management District
Applicant handbook suggests that 15% of a sites total area should be expected to
handle all related stormwater so this percentage was used to roughly size the remaining
site (Palm Beach County, 2016).
Once the sites are finalized, analysis can be conducted on the three different
design scenarios. Stormwater storage volumes are determined using the modified
rational method and assumptions of preexisting conditions remain consistent across the
calculations of each site. A great deal of additional data is gathered through quantity
takeoffs. Utilizing the schematic site plans and a computer aided drafting software,
quantities such as impervious area, pervious area, roof area, vehicular use area, and
landscaped area are determined and compared across the sites and scenarios.
Additional information regarding consumption and usage of water and energy are
determined using calculators verified by the Landscape Architecture Foundation and the
Environmental Protection Agency. Such calculators are used to determine indoor and
outdoor water use, initial construction CO₂ footprint, and monthly cooling load.
University of Florida: College of Design, Construction, and Planning
Pepper | 20
Stormwater Storage Calculations:
𝑄𝑝 = 𝐶𝐶𝑎𝑖𝐴 𝑡𝑐 = [1.8(1.1 − 𝐶)𝐿ℎ1
2⁄ ] /𝐺1/3
𝑄𝑝 = Peak Runoff Rate 𝑡𝑐 = Time of Concentration
𝐶 = Runoff Coefficient 𝐶 = Runoff Coefficient
𝐶𝑎 = Antecedent Precipitation Factor 𝐿ℎ = Hydraulic Length
𝑖 = Rainfall Intensity (in/hr) 𝐺 = Slope %
A = Site Area (Acres)
Site 1a:
Predevelopment:
𝑄𝑝 = (0.3)(1.1)(6.6 𝑖𝑛 ℎ𝑟⁄ )1.46𝑎𝑐 𝑡𝑐 = [1.8(1.1 − 0.3)3861
2⁄ ] /21/3
𝑄𝑝 = 3.05cfs 𝑡𝑐 = 22.46 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑠
Post Development:
𝐶𝑎𝑣𝑔 = 21,086𝑠𝑓(0.8) + 40,595.5𝑠𝑓(0.3)
61,681.5𝑠𝑓
𝐶𝑎𝑣𝑔 = 0.47
10min: 𝑄 = (0.47)(1.1)(8.5)1.46𝑎𝑐
𝑄 = 6.42𝑐𝑓𝑠
20min: 𝑄 = (0.47)(1.1)(7)1.46𝑎𝑐
𝑄 = 5.28𝑐𝑓𝑠
25min: 𝑄 = (0.47)(1.1)(6.4)1.46𝑎𝑐
𝑄 = 4.83𝑐𝑓𝑠
30min: 𝑄 = (0.47)(1.1)(5.9)1.46𝑎𝑐
𝑄 = 4.45𝑐𝑓𝑠
* = Peak Storage Volume
T
(mins)
I
(in/hr)
Max Flow
In (cfs)
Max Flow
out (cfs)
Volume In
(cf)
Volume Out
(cf)
Storage
Required (cf)
10 8.5 6.42 3.05 3,852 1,830 2,022
20 7 5.28 3.05 6,336 3,660 2,676*
25 6.4 4.83 3.05 7,245 4,575 2,670
30 5.9 4.45 3.05 8,010 5,490 2,520
University of Florida: College of Design, Construction, and Planning
Pepper | 21
Site 1b:
Predevelopment:
𝑄𝑝 = (0.3)(1.1)(6.4 𝑖𝑛 ℎ𝑟⁄ )1.25𝑎𝑐 𝑡𝑐 = [1.8(1.1 − 0.3)3951
2⁄ ] /21/3
𝑄𝑝 = 2.64cfs 𝑡𝑐 = 22.7 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑠
Post Development:
𝐶𝑎𝑣𝑔 = 21,627𝑠𝑓(0.8) + 32,802.1𝑠𝑓(0.3)
54,429.1𝑠𝑓
𝐶𝑎𝑣𝑔 = 0.50
10min: 𝑄 = (0.50)(1.1)(8.5)1.25𝑎𝑐
𝑄 = 5.84𝑐𝑓𝑠
20min: 𝑄 = (0.50)(1.1)(7)1.25𝑎𝑐
𝑄 = 4.81𝑐𝑓𝑠
25min: 𝑄 = (0.50)(1.1)(6.4)1.25𝑎𝑐
𝑄 = 4.40𝑐𝑓𝑠
30min: 𝑄 = (0.50)(1.1)(5.9)1.25𝑎𝑐
𝑄 = 4.06𝑐𝑓𝑠
* = Peak Storage Volume
T
(mins)
I
(in/hr)
Max Flow
In (cfs)
Max Flow
out (cfs)
Volume In
(cf)
Volume Out
(cf)
Storage
Required (cf)
10 8.5 5.84 2.64 3,504 1,584 1,924
20 7 4.81 2.64 5,772 3,168 2,604
25 6.4 4.40 2.64 6,600 3,960 2,640*
30 5.9 4.06 2.64 7,308 4,752 2,556
University of Florida: College of Design, Construction, and Planning
Pepper | 22
Site 2:
Predevelopment:
𝑄𝑝 = (0.3)(1.1)(6.4 𝑖𝑛 ℎ𝑟⁄ )1.81𝑎𝑐 𝑡𝑐 = [1.8(1.1 − 0.3)4621
2⁄ ] /21/3
𝑄𝑝 = 3.82cfs 𝑡𝑐 = 24.6 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑠
Post Development:
𝐶𝑎𝑣𝑔 = 31,513𝑠𝑓(0.8) + 47,284𝑠𝑓(0.3)
78,797𝑠𝑓
𝐶𝑎𝑣𝑔 = 0.50
10min: 𝑄 = (0.50)(1.1)(8.5)1.81𝑎𝑐
𝑄 = 8.46𝑐𝑓𝑠
20min: 𝑄 = (0.50)(1.1)(7)1.81𝑎𝑐
𝑄 = 6.97𝑐𝑓𝑠
25min: 𝑄 = (0.50)(1.1)(6.4)1.81𝑎𝑐
𝑄 = 6.37𝑐𝑓𝑠
30min: 𝑄 = (0.50)(1.1)(5.9)1.81𝑎𝑐
𝑄 = 5.87𝑐𝑓𝑠
* = Peak Storage Volume
T
(mins)
I
(in/hr)
Max Flow
In (cfs)
Max Flow
out (cfs)
Volume In
(cf)
Volume Out
(cf)
Storage
Required (cf)
10 8.5 8.46 3.82 5,076 2,292 2,784
20 7 6.97 3.82 8,364 4,584 3,780
25 6.4 6.37 3.82 9,555 5,730 3,825*
30 5.9 5.87 3.82 10,566 6,876 3,690
University of Florida: College of Design, Construction, and Planning
Pepper | 23
Site 3:
Predevelopment:
𝑄𝑝 = (0.3)(1.1)(6.6 𝑖𝑛 ℎ𝑟⁄ )1.28𝑎𝑐 𝑡𝑐 = [1.8(1.1 − 0.3)3911
2⁄ ] /21/3
𝑄𝑝 = 2.79cfs 𝑡𝑐 = 22.59 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑠
Post Development:
𝐶𝑎𝑣𝑔 = 24,276𝑠𝑓(0.8) + 31,672.5𝑠𝑓(0.3)
55,948.5𝑠𝑓
𝐶𝑎𝑣𝑔 = 0.52
10min: 𝑄 = (0.50)(1.1)(8.5)1.28𝑎𝑐
𝑄 = 6.22𝑐𝑓𝑠
20min: 𝑄 = (0.50)(1.1)(7)1.28𝑎𝑐
𝑄 = 5.13𝑐𝑓𝑠
25min: 𝑄 = (0.50)(1.1)(6.4)1.28𝑎𝑐
𝑄 = 4.51𝑐𝑓𝑠
30min: 𝑄 = (0.50)(1.1)(5.9)1.28𝑎𝑐
𝑄 = 4.32𝑐𝑓𝑠
* = Peak Storage Volume
T
(mins)
I
(in/hr)
Max Flow
In (cfs)
Max Flow
out (cfs)
Volume In
(cf)
Volume Out
(cf)
Storage
Required (cf)
10 8.5 6.22 2.79 3,732 1,674 2,053
20 7 5.13 2.79 6,156 3,348 2,808*
25 6.4 4.51 2.79 6,765 4,185 2,580
30 5.9 4.32 2.79 7,776 5,022 2,754
University of Florida: College of Design, Construction, and Planning
Pepper | 24
Building Foot Print and Stormwater Storage Volume
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
Building Footprint (ft²) Stormwater Storage Volume (ft³)
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
University of Florida: College of Design, Construction, and Planning
Pepper | 25
Initial Construction CO₂:
Site 1a: 128 Metric Tons
Site 1b: 128 Metric Tons
Site 2: 232 Metric Tons
Site 3: 159 Metric Tons
Landscape Installed = Site Area – Impervious Area –
Stormwater Basin Footprint
Indoor Water Use:
Site 1a: 14,998 gal/month
3 Toilets
Site 1b: 14,796 gal/month
3 Toilets
Site 2: 29,794 gal/month
6 Toilets
Site 3: 19,332 gal/month
4 Toilets
University of Florida: College of Design, Construction, and Planning
Pepper | 26
Outdoor Water Requirement*:
Site 1a: 70,305 gal/month
Site 1b: 48,546 gal/month
Site 2: 78,285 gal/month
Site 3: 41,087 gal/month
Indoor and Outdoor Water Use
*Water requirement values are for the month where watering need is at a maximum and do not
represent actual water use figures for irrigation
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
Indoor Water Use (Gal/Month) Outdoor Water Requirement(Gal/Month*)
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
University of Florida: College of Design, Construction, and Planning
Pepper | 27
SRI Values:
LEED Reference Guide for standard paving [ssc7.1]:
New Concrete Gray = 35
Weathered Concrete Gray = 19
New Asphalt = 0
Weathered Asphalt = 6
LEED requires SRI value of 78 or higher for low slope roofs [REQ ss7.13]
Site 1a: Site 1b: Site 2: Site 3:
Asphalt = 16,691sf Asphalt = 17,283sf Asphalt = 23,053sf Asphalt = 18,887sf
Concrete = 352sf Concrete = 352sf Concrete = 822sf Concrete = 371sf
Roof = 3,540sf Roof = 3,465sf Roof = 7,005sf Roof = 4,485sf
Asphalt, Concrete, and Roof Surface Areas
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
Asphalt (ft²)
Concrete (ft²)2
Roof(ft²)
University of Florida: College of Design, Construction, and Planning
Pepper | 28
Total Site Area and Impervious Area
Construction CO₂ Footprint
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
Total Site Area (ft²) Impervious Area (ft²)
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Initial Construction CO₂ Footprint (Metric Tons)
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
University of Florida: College of Design, Construction, and Planning
Pepper | 29
Property Setbacks (Palm Beach County, 2016)
University of Florida: College of Design, Construction, and Planning
Pepper | 30
Parking Lot Requirements (Palm Beach County, 2016)
University of Florida: College of Design, Construction, and Planning
Pepper | 31
MyClinic Shared Use Site Plan
University of Florida: College of Design, Construction, and Planning
Pepper | 32
MyClinic Shared Use Floor Plan
University of Florida: College of Design, Construction, and Planning
Pepper | 33
MyClinic Initial Expansion Plan
University of Florida: College of Design, Construction, and Planning
Pepper | 34
Results
Of the data collected, there was an apparent trend towards the reduction of
factors contributing to the initial impact of development as well as a reduction in the long
term costs of maintenance and operation. Stormwater volume was reduced by nearly
half which has a substantial impact given the reduction in building footprint was far
smaller of a ratio. Total site area was also reduced by a considerable margin from the
separate site scenario. This reduction allows for a greater amount of habitat to be
preserved in addition to the financial savings of buying a smaller piece of land. Both
indoor and outdoor water use decreased significantly as a result of a smaller total site
area, smaller building footprint, reduction in code required landscaping, and the ability to
share building facilities. Through this sharing of common facilities, the resulting
decrease in building footprint allows for a reduced code parking requirement. This
allows the area of asphalt to be reduced. This material has a low solar reflective index
(SRI) and increases the ambient temperature of the site greater than materials with a
higher SRI. The scenario with the greatest area of low SRI materials was the first which
requires two separate sites. This doubles the asphalt required for vehicular circulation
and also doubles the impervious area of the sites.
University of Florida: College of Design, Construction, and Planning
Pepper | 35
Discussion
Disadvantages of Shared Use
Although there are very few, it is important to acknowledge the disadvantages
that are associated with shared use design. Across every case study referenced in the
literature review, as well as in the real world case of MyClinic, participants in shared use
agreements expressed difficulties in the cooperation of all parties. Issues such as
liability, financing, maintenance, and security are all factors which are pointed out as
disadvantages of shared use design in the real world. There is also a lack of identity
and ownership that is experienced in cases of shared use agreements. Without being
able to point a finger to a single entity which is solely responsible, a sort of tragedy of
the commons can be experienced. All parties want to be able to use the shared site, but
they are less willing to provide investment and improvement should something come up.
The last disadvantage that was brought up specifically in the case of MyClinic is the
confusion that can be associated with collocating two similar healthcare providers. To
add to the confusion, many patients who rely on the services provided do not speak
English as their first language. As a result, the shared facility has a waiver that must be
signed to acknowledge that the patient understands which entity is delivering the
service.
Relevance to Sustainability
Shared use design offers improvements to the environmental, social, and
economic sustainability of building projects as well as to the community.
Environmentally, shared use can reduce initial CO₂ footprint, reduction of low SRI
materials (Heat Island Affect), reduce stormwater runoff and storage required, reduce
University of Florida: College of Design, Construction, and Planning
Pepper | 36
heating and cooling load, preserve land/habitat, and reduce waste and consumption.
Economically, shared use design can reduce initial cost, reduce lifecycle maintenance
cost, reduce heating and cooling cost, enable less full time staff required, and enable
broad cost sharing (waste disposal, landscape maintenance, etc.). In the MyClinic case,
shared use design also offers a number of social benefits. By bringing doctors and the
community together in a volunteer setting has fostered relationships that could never
have happened without the project. The project also reduces commute time and
distance for staff and patients and also provides greater family convenience for those
families who might have split eligibility and need to utilize both facilities.
Setbacks
As stated previously, the situation of two independent healthcare providers
sharing a single space or even a single site is extremely unique. This condition makes it
exceedingly more difficult to find precedents that are comparable than in a non-
healthcare related case. This setback forced the research to become far more
innovative and creative when designing the methodology. Having no similar example to
aid in the development of such research adds to the complexity associated with this
challenge.
In addition, creating hypothetical site plans is a difficult task and involves a great
deal of assumption. Having the real world case study to inform the development of the
hypothetical sites is essential in order to have results which are meaningful.
University of Florida: College of Design, Construction, and Planning
Pepper | 37
Conclusions
Based on the data gathered using the 4 hypothetical site plans, a change in
resource use and environmental impact can be observed between the 3 design
scenarios. It is clear in every area that was evaluated that a shared site and building
result in the smallest impact when compared to two smaller buildings on two separate
sites and two separate buildings on a shared site. It is also clear from the results that
the least efficient strategy evaluated was the scenario involving two separate sites due
to the nonlinear relationship of size to resources when considering two sites.
These results support the hypothesis that a shared use design approach
improves the long term sustainability of site scale development projects in addition to
reducing the initial cost and impact of the development. This research also supports the
claim that shared use design strategies are important considerations for future
development projects in order to improve the overall sustainability of our built
environment.
University of Florida: College of Design, Construction, and Planning
Pepper | 38
References and Citations
Works Cited
Brown, Jason R. “Comparative Analysis of Energy Consumption Trends in Cohousing
and Alternate Housing Arrangements.” DSpace@MIT, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, 1 Jan. 1970, dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/30142.
“Build Carbon Neutral.” Construction Carbon Calculator, Mithun
Architects+Designers+Planners and The Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center at
the University of Texas at Austin, 2007, buildcarbonneutral.org/.
“Calculate Your Business' Water Use.” Calculate Water Use | Water Footprint
Calculator, Bonneville Environmental Foundation, 2017, store.b-e-f.org/calculate-
business-footprint/water/.
Coffelt, Donald P., and Chris T. Hendrickson. “Life-Cycle Costs of Commercial Roof
Systems.” Journal of Architectural Engineering, vol. 16, no. 1, 2010, pp. 29–36.,
doi:10.1061/(asce)1076-0431(2010)16:1(29).
Data USA. “Palm Beach County, FL.” Data USA, Census Bureau, 2015,
datausa.io/profile/geo/palm-beach-county-fl/.
EPA. “Water Budget Tool.” EPA Water Sense, Environmental Protection Agency, 23
June 2017, www.epa.gov/watersense/water-budget-tool.
University of Florida: College of Design, Construction, and Planning
Pepper | 39
Jacob, John S, and Ricardo Lopez. “Is Denser Greener? An Evaluation of Higher
Density Development as an Urban Stormwater-Quality Best Management
Practice.” Journal of the American Water Resources Association, vol. 45, no. 3,
June 2009, web.mit.edu/cron/Backup/project/urban-
sustainability/Stormwater_Sarah%20Madden/References/Jacob&Lopez2009.pdf.
Kuo, Tony. “Building the Evidence: Creating a Framework for Assessing Costs and
Impacts of Shared Use AgreementsFRAMEWORK FOR SHARED USE
WORKGROUP.” Building the Evidence: Creating a Framework for Assessing
Costs and Impacts of Shared Use AgreementsFRAMEWORK FOR SHARED
USE WORKGROUP, July 2014,
publichealthlawresearch.org/sites/default/files/downloads/product/BuildingEvid_S
haredUseAgreement_LA_Sept2014.pdf.
“Landscape Performance Series.” Landscape Performance Series, Landscape
Architecture Foundation, 31 Oct. 2016, landscapeperformance.org/.
Matkins, Allen. “ULI Case Studies - Oslo.” ULI Case Studies, Urban Land Institute, 2004
Dec. 2016, casestudies.uli.org/oslo-washington-dc/.
O'Connor, Jennifer. “Survey on Actual Service Lives for North American Buildings.”
Woodframe Housing Durability and Disaster Issues Conference, Oct. 2004,
cwc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/DurabilityService_Life_E.pdf.
University of Florida: College of Design, Construction, and Planning
Pepper | 40
Palm Beach County. “Palm Beach County Unified Land Development Code.” PZB -
Zoning Division, Palm Beach County, Jan. 2016,
discover.pbcgov.org/pzb/zoning/ULDC/Articles.aspx.
ProMatch. Asphalt Parking Lot Resurfacing Cost Estimates. ProMatcher, 2014, parking-
lots.promatcher.com/answers/how-much-does-parking-lot-resurfacing-cost-2388.
Strom, Steven, et al. Site Engineering for Landscape Architects. 6th ed., John Wiley &
Sons, 2013.
Town of Jupiter. “Town of Jupiter Code of Ordinances.” Municode Library, Town of
Jupiter, Jan. 2017, library.municode.com/fl/jupiter/codes/code_of_ordinances.
U.S. Green Building Council. “LEED Credit Library.” U.S. Green Building Council, 2017,
www.usgbc.org/credits.