Why is it that the original structure (1935) is allowed to be demolished? This is a national historic site. What good is it designating a building as such, if it can't be preserved in perpetuity? It's unfathomable. Can nothing be done to salvage it? This city is so ridiculously short sighted.
 
Yeah, exactly; why on earth is Women's College Hospital allowed to destroy such a giant part of our architectural history? It's a tragedy. Not only this enormous art deco building, but the first building they destroyed to build a hideous parking bunker.

What seems most obnoxious to me is that the bigger building isn't even being replaced by another building; it's as if they're demolishing it just for kicks, not even to use this space more efficiently.

It's bizarre not only that they were allowed to do this despite how (I thought) our heritage protection has improved, but there's been no conspicuous outcry. There should be a giant protest there every day.
 
arvelomcquaig said:
Yeah, exactly; why on earth is Women's College Hospital allowed to destroy such a giant part of our architectural history? It's a tragedy. Not only this enormous art deco building, but the first building they destroyed to build a hideous parking bunker.

What seems most obnoxious to me is that the bigger building isn't even being replaced by another building; it's as if they're demolishing it just for kicks, not even to use this space more efficiently.

It's bizarre not only that they were allowed to do this despite how (I thought) our heritage protection has improved, but there's been no conspicuous outcry. There should be a giant protest there every day.
Click to expand...

Do you have a picture of the building they destroyed for the parking bunker?

So, the original structure isn't being replaced by a new facility? What is it being demolished for then? So that no one has to bother to maintain it?

How can there be a giant protest when most people are apathetic about heritage and completely unaware that this building is soon to be no more? Send an email to sbarret3@toronto.ca (heritage preservation services) and ask him if anything can be done to save it. I already sent a message and and awaiting a reply.
 
One Nut Kruk said:
Do you have a picture of the building they destroyed for the parking bunker?

So, the original structure isn't being replaced by a new facility? What is it being demolished for then? So that no one has to bother to maintain it?

How can there be a giant protest when most people are apathetic about heritage and completely unaware that this building is soon to be no more? Send an email to sbarret3@toronto.ca (heritage preservation services) and ask him if anything can be done to save it. I already sent a message and and awaiting a reply.
Click to expand...

The old hospital is being replaced with a Phase 2 addition to the new building. I agree that new building is horrible, and should never have been built. But the old hospital was extremely inefficient and not able to be used to provide modern healthcare (floor heights not able to fit modern equipment, flow of the building, lack of space etc).
 
As someone who works there about half the time, I agree that the old building was not a great space to work in. Other than the old ground floor stairwell, it wasn't very functional.

However, the new building (Phase 1) is not the definitive building; as others have said, Phase 2 is what is going to be built where the old building is/was. I reserve judgement on the building until the final structure is complete.

Much of the character of the new building will be in Phase 2: new main entrance and atrium, etc. The current entrance to the new building is essentially a temporary one until 2015.

I need to post some photos of the demolition, which have revealed all the old (bricked up) windows on the east side of the original building.
 
Last edited:
Panontario said:
The old hospital is being replaced with a Phase 2 addition to the new building. I agree that new building is horrible, and should never have been built. But the old hospital was extremely inefficient and not able to be used to provide modern healthcare (floor heights not able to fit modern equipment, flow of the building, lack of space etc).
Click to expand...

In other words, utility trumps history and aesthetic value.
 
Why on earth does the building need to be destroyed if it isn't absolutely perfectly useful for the current owners? If it's the case that it's problematic for health care, it should be sold to another owner, not demolished.
 
arvelomcquaig said:
Why on earth does the building need to be destroyed if it isn't absolutely perfectly useful for the current owners? If it's the case that it's problematic for health care, it should be sold to another owner, not demolished.
Click to expand...

Where would Women's College Hospital go? A bit of a rhetorical question. I realize that Princess Margaret did move from Wellesley and Sherbourne to its current location so it's possible to do this. I don't know if WCH studied a change in location when they made the current plans.

I think this is why they have to post Application for development proposals so that people have an opportunity to comment on the proposal before they are 2 years into a 4 year rebuild. There is probably a problem with that system, but I believe there was media coverage of this redevelopment plan before the demolition of the old parking garage.

To be clear, I'm a bit not loving either the new building or the demo of the old one (I was born there; my kids were born there). Just I think there is a time that it's too late to change things.
 
If we are going to preserve our architectural history, we have to accomplish two things:

1) Viable enterprises that no longer have a viable building must be able to find a new location that makes sense for them.

2) The heritage structure that they are leaving behind must be useful for another enterprise.

Economics rules both statements.

To move, an enterprise must be able to afford new the property and new structure if one needs to be built.

In the case of hospitals, you are looking at the most specialized building type. Technology, both in terms of specialized furniture-sized equipment as well as high-tech wiring, piping, etc., rules in hospitals. The old buildings simply don't work any more.

Affordability of a new site also depends upon being able to sell the old one. The question becomes, if the building is no longer viable as a hospital, what can renovations make out of it that will be affordable to the new users.

So, did WCH Execs once answer questions like…
-did you explore moving?
-were there no viable new sites?
-did you look for buyers of the present property?
-were there no takers?

I don't know. Maybe someone who knows those answers would comment now.

Either way, it's far too late in the process for any email to save the existing structure in this case. Every approval required has been received, the funding is in place, this will happen no matter what. It makes more sense for those interested in preserving our architectural heritage to focus on threatened buildings that are much earlier in the process. Read threads, watch for notices of public meetings, and go to those meetings. Make your voice heard when the process gives you that chance, or be prepared to mount a full-scale revolution, because failing toppling the system, buildings will come down when the permits are in.

42
 
interchange42 said:
The tear-down is front page news.
Click to expand...
You say:

"Many have wondered whether the building could be saved or reincorporated into the new hospital, but the aging facility was considered no longer viable in an age where health care has become very high tech, and where programs are changing significantly: Women's College Hospital now operates with patient beds. Couple these changes with the financial impact of maintaining an aging structure, and heritage architecture concerns were outweighed in this instance."

I think you mean WITHOUT patient beds - as far as I know WCH has no inpatient services and deals only with day-surgery and consultations.
 
You're right, that was a typo in the article. Thanks for catching that!

42
 
Pics taken Oct 18, 2013


5qdxJeM.jpg



yQEP9Vo.jpg



RUGLYUJ.jpg
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top