This 10-Story Timber Build Broke the Rules—The Hive w/Ryan McClanaghan

What if the celebrated sustainability of your mass timber project is built on an incomplete carbon ledger? If you’re in a rush to use mass timber purely as a climate solution, you could be overlooking a critical detail: only about 35% of a harvested tree ends up in the building. The rest—bark, branches, roots—rarely factors into standard carbon accounting, even though its fate can dramatically alter a project’s true environmental impact. So, how do you get the whole picture?

As Varun Kohli puts it, “that [material is] rarely tracked in typical LCA models. But that carbon matters.” For architects, engineers, and developers committed to rigorous sustainability, understanding where biogenic carbon hides—and how to account for it—has become a new frontier in responsible design.

‍

Carbon & Mass Timber

Did you know that most LCAs for mass timber often omit a substantial portion of the carbon emissions? While mass timber is widely celebrated for its environmental benefits, only about 35% of each harvested tree ends up in structural use; the rest—bark, branches, and roots—typically escapes both construction and carbon accounting. This can lead to a misunderstanding of the true carbon accounting of mass timber projects.

Varun Kohli, Director of Sustainability at Corgan, underscores the significance of this gap: “It’s often left behind or burned, releasing carbon that’s rarely tracked in typical LCA models. But that carbon matters.” For practitioners committed to rigorous sustainability, perhaps a more comprehensive approach is needed.

Why is carbon accounting for mass timber in the spotlight?

A single report from the World Resources Institute (WRI) set off a chain reaction within the sustainability community, exposing blind spots in conventional mass timber embodied carbon calculations.

Kohli recalls, “That report basically pointed out the fact that our industry might have been ignoring a portion of the embodied carbon or carbon emissions calculations, mostly associated with the forestry practices.” This realization shifted the Corgan Team’s focus toward slash management—the fate of the non-structural parts of the tree—and its substantial role in a project’s carbon profile. By scrutinizing these overlooked emissions, the team identified a critical variable that can account for up to a quarter of a tree’s total carbon.

The Birth of the Mass Timber Carbon Calculator

Recognizing the need for actionable data, Corgan’s research evolved from a white paper into a practical digital tool: the Mass Timber Carbon Calculator. This resource enables design teams to quantify the biogenic carbon impact of their projects with far greater specificity, incorporating variables such as building size, wood species, and transportation distances.

Kohli explains, “You can pick the size of your building, the square footage, the number of floors, and tell the tool whether you’re using both beams and columns or just one component.” This granularity allows users to see how each design decision influences the project’s carbon footprint.

The calculator transforms carbon accounting from a static report into an interactive design parameter, supporting more informed material sourcing and project planning. By making carbon impacts visible early in the process, it encourages teams to weigh environmental consequences alongside structural and economic considerations.

Understanding Slash Management Practices

The carbon fate of mass timber hinges not just on what is built, but on what is left behind. Slash management—whether through burning, masticating, or leaving material to decompose—directly affects the amount and timing of carbon released back into the atmosphere.

Kohli notes, “Up to 25% of a tree’s carbon is tied to how its leftover parts are handled.” For example, burning slash results in immediate carbon emissions, while leaving it on the forest floor can allow for partial sequestration or slower release. This nuance is often absent from standard LCA models, yet it is pivotal for teams seeking to minimize embodied carbon.

By integrating slash management scenarios into the calculator, the tool equips architects and engineers to ask more pointed questions of their suppliers and to specify timber with a clearer understanding of its full carbon story.

A Win-Win Proposition: Sustainability Meets Cost Efficiency

The implications of the calculator extend beyond environmental stewardship; they also intersect with project economics. By visualizing the impacts of sourcing decisions—things like slash management practices, carbon metrics, and even transportation distances—teams can identify opportunities for both emissions reduction and budget optimization.

Kohli observes, “If you’re transporting it closer to where the project is, you might also be saving cost.” The tool’s ability to map sourcing options against both carbon and other metrics enables a more holistic evaluation of project trade-offs. This dual lens strengthens the business case for sustainable choices, aligning environmental and economic objectives in project delivery.

Designing for the Future

The development and deployment of the Mass Timber Carbon Calculator highlight the necessity of industry-wide collaboration. Kohli stresses, “We’re trying to make it so visual and easy for you to assess that from day one when you’re thinking about mass timber.” By making the tool open and inviting feedback, Corgan aims to foster a shared platform for advancing best practices.

“We’re honest that we share what we know. At the end of the day, I still want to go back to my original thought of integrating sustainability and design.” This openness is not just a matter of transparency; it is a strategy for accelerating collective progress. Continuous refinement, informed by real-world use and peer input, is essential for keeping pace with the evolving demands of sustainable design.

The Future of the Carbon Calculator and Industry Standards

With regulatory frameworks tightening around embodied carbon, tools like the Mass Timber Carbon Calculator are becoming indispensable for compliance and leadership alike. Kohli notes, “We’re hearing about that coming in New York. The UK is gearing up towards something like that as well.” The tool’s adaptability positions it to support teams as standards shift and expectations rise.

Future iterations are already in development, aiming to expand the calculator’s capabilities and further embed sustainability into the design workflow. Kohli cautions, “If you don’t put your first foot forward correctly, then you’re just kind of fixing that right along the design process.” Early, accurate carbon accounting is no longer optional—it is foundational.

The Mass Timber Carbon Calculator marks a shift from aspirational sustainability to accountable practice. By illuminating the full carbon cycle of mass timber, it enables the industry to move beyond partial narratives and toward genuinely responsible building. As the sector confronts the realities of climate impact, such tools will be central to reconciling design ambition with environmental necessity.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. How does the Mass Timber Carbon Calculator differ from standard LCA tools currently used in the industry?  The calculator uniquely incorporates emissions from slash management—the fate of non-structural tree parts—offering a more complete picture of biogenic carbon than most LCA models, which often overlook these factors.
   ‍
2. What specific variables can users adjust within the Mass Timber Carbon Calculator to reflect their project conditions?  Users can input building size, square footage, number of floors, wood species, transportation distances, and specify which timber components (beams, columns, or both) are being used.
   ‍
3. Why is slash management considered a critical variable in mass timber’s carbon profile?  How leftover materials like bark, branches, and roots are handled after harvest can determine up to 25% of a tree’s total carbon impact, directly influencing the amount and timing of carbon released.
   ‍
4. How does the calculator help teams balance sustainability goals with project costs?  By mapping both carbon and other impacts of sourcing decisions—such as transportation distances—the tool helps teams identify options that can reduce emissions and potentially lower expenses.
   ‍
5. What approach is Corgan taking to ensure the calculator remains relevant as industry standards evolve?  Corgan is keeping the tool open to feedback and ongoing improvement, allowing it to adapt as new regulatory requirements and best practices emerge.

‍

What is mass timber, and why is it gaining traction in construction?

In this video, Victor walks you through the exciting rise of mass timber – from engineered wood products like CLT and glulam to full‑scale multi‑story buildings. Learn how mass timber:

‍

- Offers 4–5× the strength-to-weight ratio of concrete

- Enables faster, Lego-style offsite construction (18-story Brock Commons built in just 70 days!)

- Provides natural fire safety through char-layer protection

- Reduces carbon footprints by storing CO₂ and cutting embodied emissions

‍

Whether you're curious about eco-friendly skyscrapers, modern architecture, or climate solutions, this beginner-friendly guide explains everything in plain terms.

‍

What you’ll learn:

‍

• The basic definition of mass timber (CLT, glulam, etc.)

• Strength, seismic, and fire benefits over concrete

• Case studies like Brock Commons and UBC Forestry Building

• Health + well-being perks: stress reduction with wood interiors

• Tips on building with mass timber — resources from the Mass Timber Group

Client satisfaction in mass timber projects often comes down to what you don’t hear.

Acoustics are one of the top post-occupancy complaints in buildings, especially when exposed systems amplify the problem. And with mass timber - this can’t be ignored.

In mass timber buildings, acoustics are often overlooked until it’s too late - when the client is frustrated, complaints start piling up, and your team is asked to explain why a premium building sounds like a budget one.

The irony? The very things that make mass timber so desirable, its sustainability, openness, and exposed finishes, also make it harder to control noise.

This isn’t just a minor inconvenience, it’s a design liability.

“What you don’t want is to be hearing everything going on outside your walls,” says Aedan Callaghan with Pliteq.

And neither do your clients. Solving for sound requires remembering, and maybe a bit of rethinking, of the fundamentals - all without compromising the architectural or environmental intent that brought you to mass timber in the first place.

‍

Breaking Down the Basics: Airborne vs. Structure-Borne Sound

Not all noise is created equal - distinguishing between its sources is fundamental to effective acoustic design. Callaghan clarifies the two principal categories: airborne sound, such as voices or music, and structure-borne sound, like footsteps or mechanical vibrations.

Airborne sound is quantified by the Sound Transmission Class (STC), a number rating that reflects a wall assembly’s ability to block noise passing through the air. Structure-borne sound is measured by the Impact Insulation Class (IIC), which gauges how well a floor or ceiling assembly dampens impact-generated vibrations.

“The higher the [STC or IIC] rating, the better job it does at preventing you from hearing that type of noise,” Callaghan explains.

Recognizing these distinctions is the first step toward specifying assemblies that genuinely improve acoustic comfort.

The Unique Acoustic Behavior of Mass Timber

The drive for exposed timber aesthetics introduces a paradox: the very qualities that make mass timber appealing can compromise its acoustic performance. Unlike concrete, mass timber’s lower density and the frequent omission of suspended ceilings create new transmission paths for sound.

“Ironically in mass timber, the mass isn't actually all that high… about one-fifth the weight of the same thickness concrete,” says Callaghan.

Traditional assemblies rely on suspended ceilings as acoustic buffers. In mass timber, with its exposed CLT ceilings, designers must rethink their approach—and build quiet from the top down.

Practical Acoustic Solutions for Mass Timber Projects

Solving for Sound, Layer by Layer

To deliver acoustic performance that lives up to design expectations, project teams must approach mass timber differently.

Here are four key areas of focus:

1. Floor Systems: Building Quiet from the Top Down In mass timber construction, exposed CLT ceilings are part of the appeal—but they come at an acoustic cost. Unlike traditional wood or steel systems, which often include a suspended ceiling cavity to house resilient channels or insulation, exposed timber ceilings eliminate that layer entirely. That means the burden of acoustic performance shifts upward—to the floor assembly above.

This challenge is compounded by mass timber’s relatively low density compared to concrete. Without the mass or the decoupling benefits of a dropped ceiling, structure-borne impact sounds (like footsteps, dropped items, or appliance vibrations) can easily travel from floor to floor unless the system above is properly engineered.

The fix? You need to introduce mass and isolation above the CLT, and do it in a way that doesn’t undermine the benefits of timber construction—namely speed, sustainability, and moisture sensitivity. A few widely used strategies include:

• Acoustic mats that isolate the finish floor or topping layer from the CLT substrate.
• Topping layers that add mass, like traditional concrete, lightweight Gypcrete, or newer dry solutions like compressed gypsum fiber board.
• Floating floors or decoupled subfloor assemblies that minimize direct mechanical connection to the CLT.

Aidan Callaghan recommends a composite dry system, combining isolation and mass without the downsides of wet trades:

• GenieMat FF – a post-consumer recycled rubber isolation underlayment laid directly over CLT to absorb vibration and prevent transmission.
• GenieBoard – a dry, high-density recycled gypsum fiber board that adds acoustic mass without introducing water into the building envelope.

“You’re trying to keep the timber as dry as possible. GenieBoard gets rid of the cure time and moisture challenges—and still meets code,” Callaghan says.

In side-by-side performance testing, this dry system matched traditional 2" concrete topping assemblies in acoustic performance while offering major construction benefits:

• Eliminated wet trades and cure time
• Reduced floor weight by 10 psf
• Enabled thinner foundations and CFS wall framing
• Shortened schedules by 7–10 days

2. Wall Assemblies: Separate to Isolate

When it comes to blocking airborne noise—voices, music, or television—wall assemblies are your primary line of defense. But not all walls are created equal. Standard single-stud assemblies with drywall on both sides typically fall short, allowing sound vibrations to travel through the rigid connections between materials.

The result? Code minimum STC ratings—and clients who hear far more than they should.

To improve isolation, the key is to introduce separation within the wall structure, either by decoupling layers or adding mass and damping between them. The most effective solution in high-performance multifamily and commercial projects is the double stud wall: two parallel stud walls with a 1" air gap between them and drywall applied to each outer face.

“When the sound gets into that first wall, there's an air gap preventing it from getting into that second wall,” explains Callahan.

This configuration minimizes rigid connections across the wall, allowing it to achieve STC ratings of 60–63—often enough to meet or exceed expectations for luxury residential, hospitality, and institutional settings.

For projects where space is at a premium and thicker wall assemblies aren’t viable, alternatives like resilient isolation clips (e.g., GenieClips) can decouple one side of the drywall from the framing without sacrificing square footage. These clips absorb and damp vibration, reducing the transfer of airborne sound while preserving the wall’s footprint.

No matter which path you choose—wider assemblies or resilient mounting hardware—the principle remains the same: disconnect the structure to block the sound.

3. Flanking: The Silent Saboteur

You can specify the highest-performing wall and floor assemblies on paper—but if flanking isn’t addressed, the sound will find another way in.

Flanking paths are indirect routes that sound takes around acoustic separations. In mass timber buildings, the most common culprit is the continuous CLT structure—a beautiful, solid surface that also acts as a bridge for vibration. Sound can travel over, under, or around rated walls via uninterrupted timber panels, undermining even the best acoustic assemblies.

Think of it like water slipping through the cracks—except in this case, the cracks are the architectural connections between timber elements.

Callahan emphasizes that flanking can completely undermine the performance of even top-tier assemblies, making them ineffective in real-world conditions if not addressed holistically. That’s why it’s critical to design with flanking in mind -not after the fact, but as part of the core acoustic strategy.

Several best-practice approaches include:

• Interrupting CLT panels at unit boundaries, where possible
• Using spline joints or acoustic gaskets to reduce sound transfer
• Designing bulkheads or dropped soffits at transition zones
• Alternating ceiling treatments (e.g., exposed vs. acoustic finishes) between adjoining spaces
• Performing detailed junction reviews with your acoustic consultant and timber fabricator

“If you've ignored flanking, you're not actually getting what you paid for with that upgraded assembly,” warns Callahan.

The fix isn't always complicated but it must be deliberate. Addressing flanking is about ensuring the building performs as designed, especially in exposed systems where structural continuity is visually celebrated but acoustically risky.

4. When to Act: Earlier Is Quieter Timing matters. Callahan recommends engaging acoustic teams no later than early design development (DD) to ensure integration of acoustic strategy into structural and architectural design. Late-stage fixes are costlier and often less effective.

The Importance of Considering Acoustics Early

Acoustics can't be value-engineered in after the fact. Callahan emphasizes the importance of bringing on acoustic consultants during design development (DD):

“The earlier that you can bring all these decisions forward, the better it is for the project as a whole.”

Early coordination allows for optimized junction details, accurate acoustic targets, and the ability to realize whole-building efficiencies like lighter foundations and thinner floor plates.

Case in Point: Multi-Family Building in New York

In a recent mass timber project in New York, Pliteq’s dry system replaced a conventional concrete topping with:

• 10 psf weight savings
• 2" less rebar and slab thickness
• 16% less cold-formed steel (CFS) wall material
• Acoustic performance equal to traditional assemblies
• Construction schedule shortened by 7–10 days

Despite a slightly higher installed cost for the GenieBoard system (~$1–2/sf), the overall project cost came out lower—thanks to structural and scheduling efficiencies unlocked by the lighter, dry floor assembly.

Conclusion

Acoustic design in mass timber construction is no longer a fringe concern. It’s a core pillar of performance, occupant satisfaction, and project success.

From floor isolation mats and dry subfloors to flanking mitigation and early consultant engagement, the path to quieter mass timber buildings is paved with proven, practical solutions. And with recycled materials like GenieBoard and GenieMat FF, those solutions don’t have to come at the cost of sustainability.

As Callaghan puts it: “We’re using end-of-life materials to stop you from hearing the guy upstairs snoring.”

That’s acoustic performance with a conscience.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. How do airborne and structure-borne sound differ in mass timber buildings, and how are they measured? Airborne sound (like voices or music) is measured by Sound Transmission Class (STC), while structure-borne sound (like footsteps or vibrations) is measured by Impact Insulation Class (IIC). Mass timber’s lower density and lack of drop ceilings make these harder to control.
   ‍
2. What specific wall assembly is recommended for improved acoustic separation? A double stud wall with a 1" air gap can achieve STC 60–63. For tighter spaces, resilient isolation clips like GenieClips can help decouple drywall while maintaining acoustic performance.
   ‍
3. Why are traditional concrete toppings often replaced in mass timber buildings? Concrete introduces moisture and weight. Dry systems using GenieBoard avoid both while matching performance, saving time, and reducing foundation and framing loads.
   ‍
4. How does the absence of ceilings impact sound performance in mass timber? With no suspended ceilings to absorb or block noise, floor assemblies above must do all the work, making floor design critical for both airborne and impact sound.
   ‍
5. What’s the best time to bring in acoustic expertise? Early design development (DD). Waiting until construction begins limits options and costs more. Early decisions enable flanking control, optimized assemblies, and potential structural savings.

‍

What if the most beautiful architecture in North America - those iconic towers lining Manhattan, the stately facades of Washington D.C., the storied blocks of Chicago and San Francisco - became relics of a vanished era, their interiors dark and empty?

“There’s a hollowing out,” Douglas Hayden observes, naming these four cities the “four horsemen of the office apocalypse.” The question is no longer whether these buildings will fill up again, but what entirely new purpose they might serve in a post-office world.

This is not a slow-moving crisis; it’s an inflection point. For those willing to rethink the DNA of urban real estate, the glut of vacant office space is less a problem than an opening. The challenge: how to transform these stranded assets into vibrant, revenue-generating environments that meet the evolving demands of city life. The answer, as Hayden and his team at Arthroto see it, lies in a radical convergence of adaptive reuse, prefabrication, and mass timber - an approach that promises not just speed and efficiency, but a reimagining of what urban buildings can be.

‍

The Four Horsemen of the Office Apocalypse

A single metric - office occupancy - now dictates the fate of entire downtowns. In cities like New York, Washington D.C., Chicago, and San Francisco, the collapse of in-person work has left once-bustling office towers eerily vacant. Doug Hayden, founder of Arthroto Industries Inc., labels these cities the “four horsemen of the office apocalypse,” underscoring the scale of the crisis.

What is going to happen? How do you revitalize these cities, especially with all these empty office buildings? Hayden asks, framing the urgent dilemma facing urban planners and developers. The challenge extends beyond simply filling space; it demands a fundamental rethinking of how these buildings serve the city in a post-pandemic era.

Adaptive reuse emerges as a pragmatic response. By converting obsolete office stock into residential and hospitality uses, developers can address both urban decline and the persistent demand for quality city living. This strategy leverages financial incentives while offering a path to reinvigorate downtown cores.

Seizing Opportunity: The Birth of Arthroto

A municipal incentive in Calgary catalyzed a new approach to urban renewal. Doug Hayden founded Arthroto to systematically transform vacant office buildings into mixed-use residential and hospitality assets - a move that reframes urban decay as a resource.

Calgary’s program set a clear precedent: they would give anybody that owned an office building $75 a square foot for every square foot converted into residential or a hotel. This direct financial support has drawn developers to the table, and Arthroto is structured to maximize the impact of such incentives.

Arthroto’s model is not simply about occupancy; it’s about urban reinvention. By acquiring distressed properties and converting them into vibrant, service-rich environments, the company addresses both housing shortages and the need for dynamic city centers. This approach lays the groundwork for a new urban typology, where former office towers become engines of community life.

The company’s focus on adaptive reuse sets the stage for a deeper transformation in construction methodology - one that prioritizes speed, quality, and sustainability.

‍

Prefab Revolution Advantages

Few construction strategies deliver both speed and quality, but Arthroto’s adoption of prefabricated interiors and building systems achieves measurable gains on both fronts. By eliminating drywall and standardizing components, the company has reduced new build times by up to 70 percent.

When you’re doing an office interior prefab, the real advantage is you get a better product faster, Hayden explains. This acceleration translates directly into earlier occupancy and improved project economics.

Prefabrication’s impact extends to lifecycle performance. Streamlined assembly not only expedites delivery but also results in interiors that are easier to maintain, adapt, and upgrade. Arthroto’s process challenges entrenched construction norms, offering a replicable model for efficiency and quality in urban redevelopment.

This shift in construction practice dovetails with a parallel evolution in structural materials - one that further amplifies the benefits of adaptive reuse.

‍

Mass Timber: Structural Lightness and Sustainability

A single material choice can unlock new possibilities for aging office towers. Arthroto’s integration of mass timber introduces a lightweight, renewable alternative to steel and concrete, enabling vertical expansion without extensive retrofitting.

Mass timber is a lighter structure, notes Mitchell Brooks, director of design at Arthroto. This property allows for additional floors atop existing buildings, sidestepping the prohibitive costs of reinforcing legacy structures.

The environmental implications are equally significant. Mass timber construction reduces embodied carbon and supports a lower-impact building lifecycle. As regulatory and market pressures mount for sustainable solutions, Arthroto’s use of mass timber positions its projects at the intersection of innovation and responsibility.

Yet, the adoption of new materials and methods is rarely frictionless - especially in an industry governed by tradition and regulation.

‍

Overcoming Industry Resistance

Every innovation in construction collides with a thicket of codes, conventions, and skepticism. There are over 20,000 building codes across North America, Hayden observes, highlighting the regulatory complexity that can stall progress.

The inertia of established practice remains a barrier. Developers and contractors often hesitate to embrace prefabrication or mass timber, citing unfamiliarity and perceived risk. Financing structures and union requirements add further layers of complexity, particularly in established markets.

Arthroto’s strategy is to demonstrate, not just advocate. By delivering successful projects that showcase the tangible benefits of new methods, the company aims to shift industry perceptions and create a template for broader adoption.

This pragmatic approach to innovation is mirrored in Arthroto’s market focus, where hospitality and senior living offer both demand and opportunity for differentiation.

‍

The Hospitality Experience

A shift in urban demand has made experience-driven hospitality a key lever for revitalization. Arthroto’s emphasis on transforming obsolete office buildings into hotels and senior living facilities responds directly to this trend.

People still want to travel. People are still wanting to get out and see the world, Brooks notes, pointing to the resilience of the hospitality sector. This persistent demand creates an opening for developers to deliver environments that blend service, comfort, and urban connectivity.

Arthroto’s developments prioritize the guest experience as a core value proposition. By partnering with leading amenities providers and focusing on design quality, the company ensures that its projects offer more than just accommodation - they deliver a sense of place and community. In a competitive market, this attention to experiential detail is a decisive advantage.

‍

Expanding the Vision

The momentum behind adaptive reuse and sustainable construction is not confined to a single market. Arthroto is actively pursuing projects in cities such as Nashville and Memphis, aiming to replicate and refine its model at scale.

We think there’s a real shortage of quality experiential places to stay, Hayden asserts, underscoring the persistent gap in urban hospitality offerings. As demographic and economic shifts reshape cities, the demand for flexible, sustainable, and service-oriented spaces will only intensify.

Arthroto’s synthesis of adaptive reuse, prefabrication, and mass timber construction signals a new direction for urban development. By aligning financial, environmental, and experiential priorities, the company is not only addressing the immediate crisis of office vacancy but also establishing a framework for resilient, adaptable cities.

The trajectory of Arthroto’s work suggests that the future of urban revitalization will be defined less by grand gestures and more by the cumulative impact of technical rigor, material innovation, and strategic collaboration. In this landscape, the most durable transformations will be those that reconcile the demands of the present with the possibilities of the built environment’s next chapter.

Frequently Asked Questions

How did Calgary’s municipal incentive program influence Arthroto’s approach to office-to-residential conversions?  Calgary’s program offered $75 per square foot for office space converted to residential or hotel use, directly motivating Arthroto to structure its business model around maximizing the impact of such financial incentives.

What measurable benefits did Arthroto achieve by using prefabricated interiors in their adaptive reuse projects?  By standardizing components and eliminating drywall, Arthroto accelerated build times, enabling earlier occupancy and improved project economics.

Why did Arthroto choose mass timber for structural interventions in aging office towers? Mass timber’s lighter weight enables vertical expansion without major retrofitting, while also reducing embodied carbon and supporting a more sustainable building lifecycle.

What were the main obstacles Arthroto encountered when implementing prefabrication and mass timber construction?  Arthroto faced a complex regulatory environment with thousands of building codes, as well as industry resistance due to unfamiliarity, perceived risk, and challenges related to financing and union requirements.

Why does Arthroto focus on hospitality and senior living in its adaptive reuse projects?  Ongoing demand for experience-driven hospitality and senior living presents an opportunity to create service-rich environments that help revitalize downtowns and distinguish Arthroto’s developments in the market.

‍

‍