The biggest particle therapy center in the world is being envisioned right now in Canada. It won’t be a proton therapy center. It will incorporate multiple particle types, including carbon and potentially helium, alongside proton therapy. This project is a prime example of where particle therapy is heading, and it’s raising questions many institutions haven’t had to consider yet.
We’re also fielding new questions about location. A potential client recently asked about building a carbon therapy center in the heart of a major downtown core. These two developments—expanding beyond proton therapy and building in dense urban environments—are pushing us to think differently about particle therapy facility design.
If you’re a hospital or university leader considering a particle therapy center, you need to understand what sets these buildings apart from the proton therapy centers that have become more common over the past two decades. The differences go far beyond the physics of the particle beam.
Let’s get into it.
What Is Particle Therapy?
Proton therapy is one type of particle therapy. It’s the most established, with dozens of centers operating across the globe. But protons aren’t the only particles that can treat cancer.
Carbon ion therapy uses heavier particles that can penetrate deeper into the body and reach tumors that protons can’t. Helium therapy sits between proton and carbon in terms of particle weight and penetration. Each particle type has different clinical applications, and each has dramatically different implications for building design.
There are only a handful of particle therapy centers worldwide that go beyond proton therapy. Most of these facilities incorporate carbon ion therapy. Some are now considering helium. The field is evolving rapidly as research demonstrates clinical benefits for certain tumor types that don’t respond as well to proton therapy alone.
Institutions exploring these options often want multiple particle types in a single facility. The clinical rationale is compelling—different cancers respond better to different particles, and having multiple treatment options under one roof expands the patient populations you can serve.
But the building implications are substantial.
Carbon and Helium: Bigger, Heavier, More Expensive
We’re currently working on Mayo Clinic’s particle therapy center in Florida, which includes carbon ion therapy. The project is teaching us how carbon differs from proton therapy in ways that fundamentally change building design.
The construction philosophies are similar to proton therapy. You still need massive concrete shielding, precision engineering measured in millimeters, and seamless integration between building systems and equipment. But everything is bigger, heavier, and more expensive.
Carbon ion equipment has a much broader radius than proton equipment. The gantries are significantly larger—so large that in some cases, facilities use fixed beam rooms instead of rotating gantries because the structural complications become too complex. A rotating gantry for carbon therapy can weigh substantially more than the 100+ ton gantries used for proton therapy.
The shielding requirements are different, too. Carbon ions produce different secondary radiation than protons, requiring adjustments to shielding design and thickness. The mechanical systems need higher capacity. The structural support needs to handle greater loads.
We’ve started calling carbon therapy “proton plus” because it’s literally bigger all around. Everything you’ve learned about proton therapy center construction applies to carbon, but with increased scale, weight, and cost.
Helium therapy sits between proton and carbon in terms of equipment size and building requirements. It’s lighter than carbon but heavier than proton. The centers and hospitals planning to incorporate helium are doing so alongside both proton and carbon, creating comprehensive particle therapy centers that can match treatment modality to tumor type.
Equipment Vendors and Cost Implications
One significant difference between proton and carbon therapy is vendor availability. Multiple manufacturers can provide proton therapy equipment, creating competition that helps control costs and gives institutions options for equipment selection.
For carbon therapy, there are far fewer vendors who can provide the equipment. This limitation increases costs and reduces your negotiating position. You have fewer choices, which means less flexibility in equipment specifications, delivery timelines, and long-term support.
The limited vendor landscape also affects how you approach building design. With proton therapy, we can design centers that could accommodate equipment from multiple manufacturers if an institution decides to switch vendors during future upgrades. With carbon therapy, your vendor choice during initial planning may determine your options for decades.
This is why institutions pursuing particle therapy beyond proton often master plan for multiple phases from day one. You want to understand the full scope of your vision—even if you’re building in phases—so the initial design doesn’t limit future expansion.
Master Planning for Multiple Particle Types
Hefei Ion Medical Center in China exemplifies the value of comprehensive master planning. The facility was originally built with three proton therapy gantries, but was master planned from the beginning to include carbon therapy in a future phase.
China wanted Hefei to function as a particle therapy hospital rather than an outpatient center, so the space includes 40 inpatient beds alongside multiple treatment modalities. The second phase—home to China’s first carbon therapy center—was designed into the initial site plan even though it won’t be built for years.
This approach means that when Hefei is ready to add carbon therapy, we can confidently reverse engineer the expansion. The site accommodates it. The infrastructure supports it. The operational flow integrates it. Nothing about the original building prevents the planned expansion.
If you’re considering particle therapy beyond proton, we strongly advise planning all phases of your project from day one. You don’t have to build everything immediately, but you should design with the full vision in mind. Adding carbon or helium therapy as an afterthought to a facility designed exclusively for proton therapy creates the same challenges we’re solving in upgrade projects—trying to modify buildings that weren’t designed for change.
Building Particle Therapy Centers in Downtown Cores
The question of building in dense urban environments has come up repeatedly as more institutions explore particle therapy. A potential client recently asked about constructing a carbon therapy center in the heart of a major downtown core. The short answer is yes, it’s possible. The longer answer is that it comes with major implications you need to plan for from the beginning.
Massachusetts General Hospital sits in the center of Boston, surrounded by an operating hospital, narrow streets, and neighboring buildings, including a hotel across the alley. When we started its upgrade, we faced immediate logistical challenges.
Where do cement trucks queue while waiting to pour concrete for 14-foot-thick walls? How do you bring massive equipment components through streets designed for horses and carriages? How do you store materials on a site with no staging area? How do you coordinate construction activity around a hospital that operates 24/7?
Every decision requires more planning than it would on a greenfield site. Construction takes longer. Costs increase. But it’s absolutely achievable with the right logistical planning from day one.
In San Francisco, the UCSF Proton Therapy Center faces similar urban density challenges. The site is one mile south of UCSF Mission Bay in the Dogpatch district. Simply bringing materials to the site presents complications that wouldn’t exist in suburban or rural locations.
Our New York Proton Center in Harlem was surrounded by buildings that required careful consideration, including historic structures that couldn’t be damaged by construction vibration or heavy equipment movement. We had to plan truck routes that could handle the weight and dimensions of equipment while respecting neighborhood constraints.
The pattern across these urban projects is consistent: confronting challenges early and creating detailed logistical plans from the beginning makes the difference between success and chaos.
Urban Construction Considerations
Building a particle therapy center in a downtown core requires addressing questions that don’t come up on greenfield sites:
Warehousing and storage become critical. Where do materials get delivered if there’s no on-site storage? How far away can your warehouse be before transportation costs and timing become prohibitive?
Equipment delivery routes need planning months in advance. Which streets can handle the weight of components? Which bridges need to be avoided? What time of day can deliveries happen without disrupting traffic?
Concrete delivery and pouring require detailed sequencing. You can’t line up dozens of cement trucks on narrow city streets. You need staging areas, timing coordination, and often special permits for extended pours that might block streets temporarily.
Noise and vibration restrictions affect when and how you can work. Residential neighborhoods, hospitals, and historic districts all have limitations on construction activity that extend timelines.
Utility coordination becomes more complex when you’re tying into existing urban infrastructure that may be decades old and inadequately documented.
Greenfield sites let you build roads, create staging areas, and control the entire construction environment. Urban sites require working within existing constraints while meeting the same technical requirements for precision and quality.
The key difference is the planning horizon. Urban projects need logistics mapped out much earlier in the process. What might be a week-long delay on a suburban site to solve an unexpected delivery challenge becomes a month-long delay in a downtown core where you can’t just bring in equipment whenever you’re ready.
Cost Implications of Urban Construction
Building in major cities is expensive. Labor costs are higher. Material transportation adds costs. Extended timelines increase financing expenses. Permitting and regulatory compliance become more complex and time-consuming.
But for many institutions, urban locations are necessary. You need to be where your patients are. You need integration with your existing hospital campus. You need proximity to your research facilities and clinical teams.
The construction costs for particle therapy centers are already substantial—$250+ million for facilities incorporating multiple particle types. Urban locations can add 20-30% to those costs through logistics, extended timelines, and higher labor rates.
This doesn’t mean you shouldn’t build in urban cores. It means you need realistic budgeting from the beginning that accounts for location-specific challenges. The institutions that struggle with urban projects are usually the ones that budgeted for suburban construction and tried to force those numbers onto urban sites.
What This Means for Your Planning
If you’re considering a particle therapy center that offers more than proton therapy, start by understanding the scale differences. Carbon therapy is “proton plus” in every dimension—bigger equipment, heavier loads, more substantial structures, higher costs, and fewer vendor options.
Master plan for your full vision from day one, even if you’re building in phases. Don’t design exclusively for proton therapy if you know you’ll want carbon or helium later. The modifications required to add particle types after initial construction will cost far more than designing flexibility into the original building.
If you’re considering an urban location, plan logistics from the beginning of the design process, not when you’re ready to break ground. Work with architects and construction teams who have experience with dense urban environments and understand how to navigate the challenges these sites present.
The Mayo Clinic Florida project is teaching us how carbon therapy differs from proton. The Canada project will teach us how to integrate multiple particle types at an unprecedented scale. These lessons will inform the design of particle therapy facilities for the next generation.
Looking Ahead
Particle therapy is expanding beyond proton therapy. The clinical benefits of carbon and helium for certain tumor types are becoming clearer through research and early treatment experience. More institutions will explore comprehensive particle therapy centers that offer multiple treatment options.
At the same time, more of these facilities will need to be built in urban cores where major medical centers are located. The combination—larger, more complex particle therapy equipment in dense downtown environments—illustrates the next frontier in particle therapy facility design.
At Jessen Proton, we’re working on projects that push both boundaries. We’re learning how carbon and helium change building requirements. We’re solving the logistical puzzles of urban construction. We’re master planning facilities that can evolve through multiple particle therapy phases.
Whether you’re planning proton therapy alone or a comprehensive particle therapy center, whether you’re building on a greenfield site or in a downtown core, the lessons we’re learning now will shape your project’s success.
Questions about particle therapy facility planning? Contact us to discuss how our experience with the next generation of particle therapy centers can inform your project.
