[UtakataNoAnnex]

It w as really not suitable for a modern hospital. The best that could have happened would have been a facadectomy of the Bond Street wall.

I get that. It still irks me that other options weren't considered in the preservation of it before bulldozing it all down 1960/70's style.

 

[DSC]

I get that. It still irks me that other options weren't considered in the preservation of it before bulldozing it all down 1960/70's style.

I have no idea if other options were considered, they may well have been.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

The only part of the historical hospital complex worth preserving, really, is the 1930s Bond Street wing. It’s a beautiful entrance.

The northeast side of the hospital (what used to be known as the Shuter Wing) was a jumble of rooms, with sections haphazardly put together between the 1910s and 1950s. We had bigger hospital losses, like several sections of TGH and Women’s College, and soon-to-disappear TEGH.

Yeah - the old building looks rather compromised already and whatever remains is a pale reminder of what was. Also agree re: TGH - Bell wing for one (which got replaced by the current Clinical Services Building) - though the structure is fundamentally unsuited to modern medical needs. What I do have an issue is how piecemeal redevelopment tend to produce confusing, hard to navigate complexes.

AoD

 

[Northern Light]

Admittedly tangential, but this discussion has me thinking of the 'heritage' building at the heart of Toronto Western.

Most people don't even know it's there, it's barely visible from the outside, and much of its 'historiocity' inside has been removed, altered and/or covered.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

I have no idea if other options were considered, they may well have been.

...as it is equally plausible they could have chosen the road of less resistance first. Never know with these things outside the speculation, I guess.

What I am open to in my shoot-from-the-hip opinion on this is "good reason"...something I opened up with in the concern. That is, dealing this is a hospital that needs critical space for helping mend people will ultimately trump any concerns about preserving elder structures. So it's a case of priorities...and however the hospital determined what course they take and what part of the building kept or removed is not really important here. I just find it frustrating that we ended up with a building with heritage value is being vapourized in the process, for right or wrong. Sorry. >.<

Admittedly tangential, but this discussion has me thinking of the 'heritage' building at the heart of Toronto Western.

Most people don't even know it's there, it's barely visible from the outside, and much its 'historiocity' inside has been removed, altered and/or covered.

And they're planning to obscure that even more...at least from that angle.

 

[AlexBozikovic]

Not to excuse them of their track record, but Heritage Planning is jurisdictionally limited in its ability to regulate and enforce conservation on Provincial ministries or prescribed public bodies..

Well, they’re trying that now with Ontario Place and the Science Centre. HPS staff have decided that these are battles worth fighting.

They have also chosen not to touch any of the TDSB properties.

Hard to speak to what happens behind closed doors. But when you have hundreds of modest shops being protected - and zero public schools - something is badly out of balance. IMHO.

 

[Parkdalian]

It's sad it has been torn down, but hospitals are one area where I think current needs overrides historical concerns. I'd rather be treated in a brand new hospital than a renovated 19th century building. When it comes to hospitals, renovating 19th century buildings can only work for the administrative parts of the hospital (or letting them get sold and reused by someone else).

 

[Northern Light]

It's sad it has been torn down, but hospitals are one area where I think current needs overrides historical concerns. I'd rather be treated in a brand new hospital than a renovated 19th century building. When it comes to hospitals, renovating 19th century buildings can only work for the administrative parts of the hospital (or letting them get sold and reused by someone else).

Sure; but again, it was an option to shift the administrative functions into the heritage space at one point. Regrettably, other choices were made.

Also, it's possible to save the facades and build new in behind if required. I also wouldn't oppose reconstruction of same, if done properly.

 

[PL1]

It's sad it has been torn down, but hospitals are one area where I think current needs overrides historical concerns. I'd rather be treated in a brand new hospital than a renovated 19th century building. When it comes to hospitals, renovating 19th century buildings can only work for the administrative parts of the hospital (or letting them get sold and reused by someone else).

As someone who works in a hospital (pathology), I completely agree. Renovating 70 year old buildings doesn't always yield optimal space. There are always surprises when walls are opened up (asbestos, inaccurate wiring, etc). And at some point, modern infrastructure doesn't fit in older buildings. It costs quite a bit of money to do studies to discover if it's even worth doing renovations, and in my experience, the costs of the main project are always much higher than originally anticipated, so the plans get kicked down the road or cancelled.

Build new, and keep a few select design/architectural details. Or take photos. (I was based at WCH during that rebuild).

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

As someone who works in a hospital (pathology), I completely agree. Renovating 70 year old buildings doesn't always yield optimal space. There are always surprises when walls are opened up (asbestos, inaccurate wiring, etc). And at some point, modern infrastructure doesn't fit in older buildings. It costs quite a bit of money to do studies to discover if it's even worth doing renovations, and in my experience, the costs of the main project are always much higher than originally anticipated, so the plans get kicked down the road or cancelled.

Build new, and keep a few select design/architectural details. Or take photos. (I was based at WCH during that rebuild).

Sadly, modern infrastructure doesn't even necessarily fit into newer buildings - there is fairly obnoxious looking ventilation duct on the south exterior facade of the TGH Clinical Services Building added just a decade or so after completion.

As to preservation of existing building elements - I like the sentiment, but execution is a mixed bag (just thinking those disembodied window arches at the outdoor public space at Woman's...not so impressed).

AoD

 

[PL1]

Sadly, modern infrastructure doesn't even necessarily fit into newer buildings - there is fairly obnoxious looking ventilation duct on the south exterior facade of the TGH Clinical Services Building added just a decade or so after completion.

AoD

Speculation here, but recent/upcoming increases in stringency for allowed concentration of volatile hazardous compounds may require increased ventilation.

Or a new, unanticipated use of the space necessitated increased ventilation.

Or they screwed up when building!

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Speculation here, but recent/upcoming increases in stringency for allowed concentration of volatile hazardous compounds may require increased ventilation.

Or a new, unanticipated use of the space necessitated increased ventilation.

Or they screwed up when building!

I think it was the middle - I could be wrong but I think it was their guided therapeutics OR project.

AoD

 

[Northern Light]

Sadly, modern infrastructure doesn't even necessarily fit into newer buildings - there is fairly obnoxious looking ventilation duct on the south exterior facade of the TGH Clinical Services Building added just a decade or so after completion.

Is this the lovely feature of which you speak so highly?

As to preservation of existing building elements - I like the sentiment, but execution is a mixed bag (just thinking those disembodied window arches at the outdoor public space at Woman's...not so impressed).

AoD

For those who aren't sure what AoD is mentioning here:

You have some stone arches that went around doors in the original building and these were 'preserved' and placed in the landscaping.

I object to calling this 'preservation'; it's not really even a 'Memories of' PC Sauce.

Complete and utter de-contextualization.

The point should never be to save a singular feature in isolation, unless that has unique value (works with) the new build.

The object is to save the feeling that the quality/heritage elements evoke. To inspire a sense of pride/continued legacy, in staff, patients and donors.

That doesn't mean retaining an entire building whose functional value is low; it does mean trying to retain one complete facade, and/or one complete original lobby (even if a new larger lobby space is built beside it.

It means keeping a grand staircase, even if you need to add elevators beside it. etc

But think in complete thoughts. You don't preserve for its own sake, you preserve to hold on to what people love about a place to ensure that love continues to be evoked even as the institution or brand is renewed for the times.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Is this the lovely feature of which you speak so highly?

Nope, it is this:

I don't speak highly of the TGH built environment in general - it's far from the worst, but by no means inspiring or even coherent. The CSB (by HOK, I believe) in particular is ho-hum; the atrium is a nice touch, but the exterior expression of the building is IMO clumsy - so all in all, as annoying as that extraneous exterior ventilation duct is (taken from a purely aesthetic context - given the need is probably undeniable and a priority in a healthcare setting), it's hardly smearing on Mona Lisa.

On preservation - incidentally UHN did also preserve the original entrance to the Bell wing at the CSB atrium (and to better effect than what Woman's did).

AoD

 

[Northern Light]

I don't speak highly of the TGH built environment in general - it's far from the worst, but by no means inspiring or even coherent. The CSB (by HOK, I believe) in particular is ho-hum; the atrium is a nice touch, but the exterior expression of the building is IMO clumsy - so all in all, as annoying as that extraneous exterior ventilation duct is (taken from a purely aesthetic context - given the need is probably undeniable and a priority in a healthcare setting), it's hardly smearing on Mona Lisa.

AoD

LOL, Alvin, my tongue was firmly in my cheek on that one.

I understood what you meant, I was merely confirming that I correctly identified the conspicuous vent.