Shattuck Hospital Relocation and Redevelopment | Jamaica Plain

[Lrfox]

Full story in the globe: https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...us/i6Q9BCVq92aGs4JJBInuUL/story.html#comments

Quick rundown:

• The state plans to close the 64-year-old Lemuel Shattuck Hospital in Jamaica Plain and move its inpatient services across town to the Boston Medical Center campus.
  
• State officials said that modernizing the hospital or building a new facility at the existing site would cost $400 million to $500 million. Buying and renovating a building owned by Boston Medical Center, the Newton Pavilion, will cost about half that, they said.
  
• The state will begin a planning process to develop recommendations for future use of the 13-acre Shattuck Campus. State law requires it to serve a public health purpose.

Here's a more detailed outline on the state's website: http://www.mass.gov/DPH/shattuckrelocation

13 acres within 1/2 mile of an MBTA stop is a pretty significant development opportunity. The public health requirement seems like it might be restrictive, but I'd love to get a look at the language in the law to see how flexible it might be. The potential for this spot is intriguing.

 

[JumboBuc]

Full story in the globe: https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...us/i6Q9BCVq92aGs4JJBInuUL/story.html#comments

Quick rundown:

• The state plans to close the 64-year-old Lemuel Shattuck Hospital in Jamaica Plain and move its inpatient services across town to the Boston Medical Center campus.
  
• State officials said that modernizing the hospital or building a new facility at the existing site would cost $400 million to $500 million. Buying and renovating a building owned by Boston Medical Center, the Newton Pavilion, will cost about half that, they said.
  
• The state will begin a planning process to develop recommendations for future use of the 13-acre Shattuck Campus. State law requires it to serve a public health purpose.

Here's a more detailed outline on the state's website: http://www.mass.gov/DPH/shattuckrelocation

13 acres within 1/2 mile of an MBTA stop is a pretty significant development opportunity. The public health requirement seems like it might be restrictive, but I'd love to get a look at the language in the law to see how flexible it might be. The potential for this spot is intriguing.

The Shattuck Campus could be a good alternative to Long Island, and could also take on some of the facilities currently located on the "Methadone Mile."

Either way, the City and Commonwealth are in dire need of more psychiatric, homelessness, and addition treatment facilities. I'm as pro-development as anyone on this forum, but the Shattuck Campus should absolutely stay committed to its public health mission. Start mixing private development in their and you'll only be introducing NIMBYs.

 

[Rover]

The Shattuck Campus could be a good alternative to Long Island, and could also take on some of the facilities currently located on the "Methadone Mile."

Either way, the City and Commonwealth are in dire need of more psychiatric, homelessness, and addition treatment facilities. I'm as pro-development as anyone on this forum, but the Shattuck Campus should absolutely stay committed to its public health mission. Start mixing private development in their and you'll only be introducing NIMBYs.

Something like this you have to use for housing IMHO. 13 acres in the middle of the city isn't the best use for a homeless or methadone facility.

Think of it this way. Long Island will never be used for residential housing, but the treatment facilities already exist. This site can (with a change in state law - get on that Mahhhty) be used for housing, so why would you have a treatment facility take it over instead?

 

[JumboBuc]

This site can (with a change in state law - get on that Mahhhty) be used for housing, so why would you have a treatment facility take it over instead?

You realize this would never--and I mean never--fly politically. It's a total non-starter. Period.

And of all people in public service today, Martin Walsh is the very last one who would expend political capital pushing for a law that strips a commitment to public health (i.e., addiction and psychiatric treatment) from a Commonwealth-owned property. Do you know anything about this guy?

 

[Reznor]

How about some age restricted condos/townhouses or long term care facilities? Both of which are in demand as population ages in US.

It would quiet the NIMBYs a bit and still stay close to mission of land/institution.

 

[Lrfox]

The Shattuck Campus could be a good alternative to Long Island, and could also take on some of the facilities currently located on the "Methadone Mile."

Either way, the City and Commonwealth are in dire need of more psychiatric, homelessness, and addition treatment facilities. I'm as pro-development as anyone on this forum, but the Shattuck Campus should absolutely stay committed to its public health mission. Start mixing private development in their and you'll only be introducing NIMBYs.

I agree 100% "Methadone Mile" and Long Island were two of the first thoughts that came to my mind. In fact, there may be no better site to construct these types of facilities since there's precedent (you already have psychiatric and corrections facilities on site) and there aren't any immediate residential neighbors.

I could see this having a trickle-down effect. In addition to moving more psychiatric, homelessness services, and other treatment facilities, you could potentially incorporate administrative offices for DMH (and/or DPH) into the redeveloped Shattuck site (still public health related). If you moved the DMH functions out of the Lindeman (Administration, shelters, treatment clinics crisis services) to the Shattuck site, you could free up that chunk of the State Services Center for redevelopment which would be perfect for mixed-use development.

 

[Lrfox]

How about some age restricted condos/townhouses or long term care facilities? Both of which are in demand as population ages in US.

It would quiet the NIMBYs a bit and still stay close to mission of land/institution.

Long-term care facilities might fly, though the focus is more on community-based placements. EOHHS is really pushing "community-based recovery and treatment." A big piece of that is housing (in many cases, in conjunction with HUD) for people with mental illness and substance misuse conditions. You could definitely see some residential unites (fairly standard apartments) for individuals and families with co-occurring conditions. I'd be surprised if you didn't, to be honest.

 

[Rover]

Long-term care facilities might fly, though the focus is more on community-based placements. EOHHS is really pushing "community-based recovery and treatment." A big piece of that is housing (in many cases, in conjunction with HUD) for people with mental illness and substance misuse conditions. You could definitely see some residential unites (fairly standard apartments) for individuals and families with co-occurring conditions. I'd be surprised if you didn't, to be honest.

Which would be a reasonable use of the land. Although again I'm curious if all 13 acres are needed.

 

[clayville]

Reviving this with updates... and an idea:
The planning process to date has focused on re-purposing the site into a sort of 'recovery campus' model with, so far, two of the 13 acres dedicated to "low-threshold supportive housing" (75-100 units minimum) with wrap-around supportive services, and with additional vendor-provided private-public partnership services that may include: behavioral, substance use and mental health care, and an emergency homeless shelter (much of which is there now in outdated facilities). Some of the early proposals under consideration seem to add up to around 700,000 sq. ft, in as many as 18 or so buildings. The extensive presentations and meeting notes so far (three public meetings) can be found here:
https://www.mass.gov/shattuck-campus-planning

Obviously there is a chronic need to expand capacity within the city and state for all such services. I hope this doesn't come across as NIMBYism (in my mind, it's actually the opposite since I'm quite local to what I'm about to propose, and with the additional caveat that I'm no expert in these issues), but... It seems to me that in the 21st century, and as noted above, there's a real movement away from "isolated" institutional care and services that can be stigmatizing and difficult to access, and toward community-based recovery and treatment - providing supportive housing in settings that are within the communities these clients/patients hope to re-enter.

Shattuck Hospital spent most of its 70-year life life serving infectious disease patients where isolation was considered a virtue. It's not exactly a 19th century asylum hidden away in the countryside, but I'm not so sure that siting these currently proposed services along a relatively isolated edge of Franklin Park is in the best interests of the patients/clients when the Commonwealth owns potential alternate sites nearby that are closer to transit and actual "community". Crumbling 500 Arborway and the "temporary" (and now 20 year-old) Arborway Yard site, for instance, seem like they might be better choices for the patients. Isolating these services and facilities "in" Franklin Park seems to run counter to current best practices. And potentially, if those alternate sites were utilized instead, there might be multiple benefits. Access to these services - for patients, staff and vendors - could be improved closer to the Forest Hills transit hub. It might go a long way towards resolving some of the state's 'broken promises' to Jamaica Plain over the Arborway Yard site. The 13 acres that were carved out of Franklin Park's "Heathfield" in 1949 could be returned to the park. And most importantly - as I understand it - better health outcomes could result from providing these services in a more "community-based" setting.

I guess I'm suggesting that the planning process shift its focus from "how to replace an obsolete 12-story hospital on this site" to "how do we provide state-of-the-art, community-based care and services for this under-served population". What am I missing?

 

[Arlington]

Public health == walkable housing, active recreation, tree canopy. All proven good for health

 

[whighlander]

Public health == walkable housing, active recreation, tree canopy. All proven good for health

Arlington:

This could be an opportunity to donate some new landscaping to the local community -- I think the land it is on was once destined for Park land

Make it the 7 to 9 acre Lemuel Shattuck Memorial Wellness Garden with:

• interpretative paths for
  • seeing impaired,​
  • mobility impaired,​
  • elders with other health issues,​
• and restorative plantings and pathway [Olmstead-style] for just anyone who wants quiet, low key relaxation on the edge of the busy city

Throw in a couple of acres [2 or 3] set aside for the Victory Gardens II -- optimized for people living nearby without any garden-able land and also optimized for disabled veterans and others with mobility issues

Set aside a couple of well screened acres [2 or 3] for some dozen or so town homes optimized for mobility restricted elders and veterans in the lower income category-- paid for by the fund to which all the developers are contributing in lieu of building affordable units

 

[JumboBuc]

‘The community deserves better’: Shattuck closure in Franklin Park stirs fight over green space vs. social services - The Boston Globe

With the aging Lemuel Shattuck Hospital slated to close in three years and city officials considering sweeping changes at Franklin Park, tensions are mounting over the fate of the state-owned property.

www.bostonglobe.com

A dispute is brewing over what to do with the Shattuck Hospital Campus. Some want to redevelop it for non-profit services including addition treatment and supportive housing, while others want to return it to Franklin Park and move any services that would go there to the Arborway Bus Yard instead (despite no plans from the MBTA to give that site up).

This is an interesting situation where many groups that are usually on the same side of development issues now find themselves on opposite sides. It's easy for activists to agree that redevelop-able lots should be used for "parks or housing for the homeless." But here they have to choose between the two, and that's pitting allies against each other.

 

[Equilibria]

‘The community deserves better’: Shattuck closure in Franklin Park stirs fight over green space vs. social services - The Boston Globe

With the aging Lemuel Shattuck Hospital slated to close in three years and city officials considering sweeping changes at Franklin Park, tensions are mounting over the fate of the state-owned property.

www.bostonglobe.com

A dispute is brewing over what to do with the Shattuck Hospital Campus. Some want to redevelop it for non-profit services including addition treatment and supportive housing, while others want to return it to Franklin Park and move any services that would go there to the Arborway Bus Yard instead (despite no plans from the MBTA to give that site up).

This is an interesting situation where many groups that are usually on the same side of development issues now find themselves on opposite sides. It's easy for activists to agree that redevelop-able lots should be used for "parks or housing for the homeless." But here they have to choose between the two, and that's pitting allies against each other.

Dukakis and Weld are being flat-out irresponsible here, as the MBTA not only doesn't have plans to leave Arborway - they've been promoting it as a mission-critical facility.

It's also worth noting that the argument for parkland isn't being made by the local community but by the Emerald Necklace Conservancy, supported by two former governors. Local officials have been more circumspect.

 

[clayville]

The covenant that transferred the City park land to the State in 1949 specifies that it must be used for health purposes. Most of the medical facilities at Shattuck now are transferring to the "Newton Pavilion" in the South End.

The Supreme Court's 1999 "Olmstead Decision" has come to mean through subsequent court rulings, that health services for substance use disorder must be provided in the "least restrictive, most accessible" setting possible. Though these two sites are not even a mile apart, one is isolated on an otherwise unoccupied park edge across the street from a cemetery, while the other is adjacent to booming recent housing construction and a transit hub. That explains the politics here, but the fact remains that access for patients, clients, employees, and vendors would all be better at the Yard site.

Twenty years ago the MBTA said the Arborway Yard was a temporary solution and vowed to give some 7-10 acres back to the City. They have not lived up to that promise (context to the conflict that matters to the local community). Nor does MBTA appear they're fast-tracking conversion from a natural gas to an electric fleet. If they did, such facilities on the Yard site could take up far less of the site footprint by building up instead of flopped into the blighted industrial heat-island sprawl there now. Dukakis's and Weld's point (beyond those made in the Globe article) is that with leadership and a far-sighted and unified planning process from the Governor's office, these two chronic examples of Commonwealth foot-dragging could be tackled at once, providing better health outcomes and access for all. It shouldn't be MBTA that dictates the outcome here.

I'd also argue, for what it's worth, that the Emerald Necklace Conservancy (now based in JP) IS part of the local community and is supported by much of the local community... and as the article states, at least the Garrison-Trotter Neighborhood association supports the call for a grander vision too. The South End isn't happy with them, but the ENC is doing the work for which they were built: preserving, protecting and promoting the Olmsted landscape in Boston. In my view they shouldn't be blamed for raising a hand over a planning process that has utterly failed to seriously consider an alternate site - certainly not one with neighbors.

 

[Suffolk 83]

The covenant that transferred the City park land to the State in 1949 specifies that it must be used for health purposes. Most of the medical facilities at Shattuck now are transferring to the "Newton Pavilion" in the South End.

The Supreme Court's 1999 "Olmstead Decision" has come to mean through subsequent court rulings, that health services for substance use disorder must be provided in the "least restrictive, most accessible" setting possible. Though these two sites are not even a mile apart, one is isolated on an otherwise unoccupied park edge across the street from a cemetery, while the other is adjacent to booming recent housing construction and a transit hub. That explains the politics here, but the fact remains that access for patients, clients, employees, and vendors would all be better at the Yard site.

Twenty years ago the MBTA said the Arborway Yard was a temporary solution and vowed to give some 7-10 acres back to the City. They have not lived up to that promise (context to the conflict that matters to the local community). Nor does MBTA appear they're fast-tracking conversion from a natural gas to an electric fleet. If they did, such facilities on the Yard site could take up far less of the site footprint by building up instead of flopped into the blighted industrial heat-island sprawl there now. Dukakis's and Weld's point (beyond those made in the Globe article) is that with leadership and a far-sighted and unified planning process from the Governor's office, these two chronic examples of Commonwealth foot-dragging could be tackled at once, providing better health outcomes and access for all. It shouldn't be MBTA that dictates the outcome here.

I'd also argue, for what it's worth, that the Emerald Necklace Conservancy (now based in JP) IS part of the local community and is supported by much of the local community... and as the article states, at least the Garrison-Trotter Neighborhood association supports the call for a grander vision too. The South End isn't happy with them, but the ENC is doing the work for which they were built: preserving, protecting and promoting the Olmsted landscape in Boston. In my view they shouldn't be blamed for raising a hand over a planning process that has utterly failed to seriously consider an alternate site - certainly not one with neighbors.

Hi Mr NIMBY!

 

[Equilibria]

The covenant that transferred the City park land to the State in 1949 specifies that it must be used for health purposes. Most of the medical facilities at Shattuck now are transferring to the "Newton Pavilion" in the South End.

The Supreme Court's 1999 "Olmstead Decision" has come to mean through subsequent court rulings, that health services for substance use disorder must be provided in the "least restrictive, most accessible" setting possible. Though these two sites are not even a mile apart, one is isolated on an otherwise unoccupied park edge across the street from a cemetery, while the other is adjacent to booming recent housing construction and a transit hub. That explains the politics here, but the fact remains that access for patients, clients, employees, and vendors would all be better at the Yard site.

The services would probably be better provided in the Burnham Building, too, or Fenway Park. Those sites aren't available, either.

Twenty years ago the MBTA said the Arborway Yard was a temporary solution and vowed to give some 7-10 acres back to the City. They have not lived up to that promise (context to the conflict that matters to the local community). Nor does MBTA appear they're fast-tracking conversion from a natural gas to an electric fleet. If they did, such facilities on the Yard site could take up far less of the site footprint by building up instead of flopped into the blighted industrial heat-island sprawl there now. Dukakis's and Weld's point (beyond those made in the Globe article) is that with leadership and a far-sighted and unified planning process from the Governor's office, these two chronic examples of Commonwealth foot-dragging could be tackled at once, providing better health outcomes and access for all. It shouldn't be MBTA that dictates the outcome here.

The MBTA is moving as quickly to adopt battery-electric buses as they can, given the maturity of the technology and manufacturing environment. I'm also dubious that a BEB fleet will take up "far less space". The purpose of a bus yard is to store and maintain buses - the amount of space that takes is related to the size of a bus. BEBs aren't smaller than CNG vehicles. "Building up" is something the MBTA could do with CNG buses too - it's expensive to deck and stack facilities.

It should absolutely be the MBTA that dictates the future of MBTA property. DPH should dictate how the health services are best provided.

I'd also argue, for what it's worth, that the Emerald Necklace Conservancy (now based in JP) IS part of the local community and is supported by much of the local community... and as the article states, at least the Garrison-Trotter Neighborhood association supports the call for a grander vision too. The South End isn't happy with them, but the ENC is doing the work for which they were built: preserving, protecting and promoting the Olmsted landscape in Boston. In my view they shouldn't be blamed for raising a hand over a planning process that has utterly failed to seriously consider an alternate site - certainly not one with neighbors.

There is no alternate site. There is an attempt to place a generational handicap on bus service from people who would like to foist critical infrastructure on some other neighborhood, somewhere else. The definition of NIMBY.

 

[clayville]

Hi Mr NIMBY!

FWIW, the Arborway Yard is way closer to my place than Shattuck - I walk past it on my way to Franklin Park almost daily.
My argument is more of a YIMBY one - build for the best health outcomes for the patients/clients you purport to serve, integrated into the community they hope to re-enter, closer to transit: at the Arborway Yard.

What the Commonwealth is doing instead is off-loading their homeless/substance use disorder problem to a developer, doling out a 99-year lease so said developer can create a "health campus" and recoup through rents. Anyone reckon that might turn out as hoped?

 

[Arlington]

For peak bus service at 8am to be increased by 1 bus, peak bus yard storage (at 3am) must increase. Buses Operating at Peak == Buses you gotta put somewhere overnight (ideally from a yard an easy drive to where routes begin)

If the state no longer wants to do health on the site isn’t it pretty much up to the city alone what happens next?

incidentally, as you may recall from my position at Assembly, I favor housing on the margins of parks (on parkland if necessary) to increase the access to and political support for high quality greenspace

 

[JumboBuc]

Pitch:

• Re-build a new Shattuck campus at the more accessible Arborway Yard
• Move the MBTA Arborway Yard facilities to what is currently the Shattuck campus
• Deck over the MBTA yard with park space

 

[stick n move]

State designates Boston Medical Center team as redevelopment partner for Shattuck Hospital campus

“BOSTON — The state has designated Boston Medical Center and its partners for the redevelopment of the Shattuck Hospital campus on Morton Street in Jamaica Plain, officials said Wednesday.

Boston Medical Center will begin refining its proposed redevelopment plans based on considerations such as public feedback and funding availability, officials said…

The Commonwealth’s vision for this site, which is statutorily deed-restricted for public health use, is an innovative campus that promotes health, reduces barriers to treatment, integrates physical and behavioral health care with supportive housing, and prioritizes connections to the natural environment,” state officials said in a statement on Wednesday.”

“The BMC Team’s initial proposal includes two facilities with 326 treatment beds, 200 units of permanent supportive housing, 205 units of family supportive housing, 120 emergency housing beds, and seven-plus acres of green and open space…”

https://news.google.com/articles/CBMingFodHRwczovL3d3dy5ib3N0b24yNW5ld3MuY29tL25ld3MvbG9jYWwvc3RhdGUtZGVzaWduYXRlcy1ib3N0b24tbWVkaWNhbC1jZW50ZXItdGVhbS1yZWRldmVsb3BtZW50LXBhcnRuZXItc2hhdHR1Y2staG9zcGl0YWwtY2FtcHVzL1hWS0o3UlZDV0JDN05HSkRFWEsyQ1NTT0pJL9IBrQFodHRwczovL3d3dy5ib3N0b24yNW5ld3MuY29tL25ld3MvbG9jYWwvc3RhdGUtZGVzaWduYXRlcy1ib3N0b24tbWVkaWNhbC1jZW50ZXItdGVhbS1yZWRldmVsb3BtZW50LXBhcnRuZXItc2hhdHR1Y2staG9zcGl0YWwtY2FtcHVzL1hWS0o3UlZDV0JDN05HSkRFWEsyQ1NTT0pJLz9vdXRwdXRUeXBlPWFtcA?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US:en

“In 2026 the Commonwealth plans to relocate all medical and psychiatric services at Shattuck Hospital to the East Newton Pavilion.”

Existing building

Proposal

https://www.mass.gov/doc/newton-pavilion-community-project-overview-9212021/download

https://www.mass.gov/shattuck-hospital-relocation