Toronto St Michael's Hospital Patient Care Tower & Emergency Department | ?m | 17s | St. Michael's | NORR

I don't think Bilked was saying that we have to "save everything". It is perfectly valid to question the need to demolish a nice, historic building. While I appreciate that hospitals have very specific space needs, and limited health dollars, often rendering it very difficult, if not impossible, to retrofit older buildings (College Wing was sold to MaRS, Women's College redevelopment, Toronto East planning to demolish most of the one nice building on its site, the Riverdale Half-Round, etc. etc.), I think it's fair to scrutinize the hospital's plans. I don't think at the end of the day it means that we always save the heritage structure (in fact, we seem to rarely do so), but I think it's great that people ask the questions.
 
Skeezix said:
That's some pretty uninspired architecture. The windows at grade are never going to be that transparent (unless the hospital decides to leave the ground floor vacant), so they're essentially just replacing a largely blank brick facade with a largely blank glass facade at street level.
Click to expand...

Nothing St Mike's built was inspiring, the old and the new. They all look incredibly boring and replacing brick with glass is not going to change that. They look worse than most of our boring glass condos.
 
Interestingly, the HIA basically states that the 1999 zoning approvals for the hospital contemplated the demolition of the Shuter Wing, and in balancing hospital needs with heritage protection, St. Mike's is demolishing the Shuter Wing and saving the Bond Wing.
 
St. Mike's is a jumble of a dozen buildings and additions though those marked as only four wings by 2000 for wayfinding purposes - Shuter, Bond, Queen, Victoria (renamed Cardinal Carter). The 1980s Cardinal Carter wing is the only wing that was built as one single unit (albeit in two phases), until the 2000s addition was built on top. The rest don't really fit together very well. The Shuter and much of the Bond wing - built between the 1910s and 1950s - is decrepit and used mostly for offices and clinics. Thankfully not for inpatient care.

As long as the historic Bond Wing is maintained (at least the 1930s "E" wing) - it has a beautiful lobby that was the old main entrance - I don't really care about the rest.
 
Skeezix said:
I don't think Bilked was saying that we have to "save everything". It is perfectly valid to question the need to demolish a nice, historic building. While I appreciate that hospitals have very specific space needs, and limited health dollars, often rendering it very difficult, if not impossible, to retrofit older buildings (College Wing was sold to MaRS, Women's College redevelopment, Toronto East planning to demolish most of the one nice building on its site, the Riverdale Half-Round, etc. etc.), I think it's fair to scrutinize the hospital's plans. I don't think at the end of the day it means that we always save the heritage structure (in fact, we seem to rarely do so), but I think it's great that people ask the questions.
Click to expand...

Of course it was a valid question which is why I offered my own reasonings.


St Mike's has an incredibly small footprint by comparison. I don't think it would be prudent for them to sell or partner with someone that would convert the space to be used for private research if they could even find one. I think they would be hard pressed to find a institutional investment partner for such a confined site with limited build out possibilities. I also think a not for profit would face a fair bit of backlash retrofitting an older building for more than the cost of a new one.
 
ShonTron - those are good points. At one point, I recall St. Mike's saying that these two projects (Shuter/Bond and Queen/Victoria) were part of an effort to rationalize and modernize the ground floor of the hospital - the existing condition has a hospital that occupies an entire city block, but whose entrances are largely hidden and unwelcoming and whose ground floor is a disconnected maze. Beyond hospital needs, there is a public planning benefit to improving the connections between the hospital and the city outside its doors. (Which is another reason why the ground floor treatment of the new Shuter building is underwhelming.)
 
maestro said:
Of course it was a valid question which is why I offered my own reasonings.


St Mike's has an incredibly small footprint by comparison. I don't think it would be prudent for them to sell or partner with someone that would convert the space to be used for private research if they could even find one. I think they would be hard pressed to find a institutional investment partner for such a confined site with limited build out possibilities. I also think a not for profit would face a fair bit of backlash retrofitting an older building for more than the cost of a new one.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone here was suggesting they be forced to go an find an institutional partner, and I wasn't disagreeing with you. I was just saying that asking questions ≠ advocating that we save everything.
 
For example, an institutional partner/player is a necessity in a MARS type situation and the vast majority of MARS is new construction. Aside from that, you took the meaning of "can't save everything" way too literal.
 
I didn't take anything too literally. I was saying that decisions such as these should be scrutinized.

And, honestly, nobody was even alluding to a "MaRS type situation". I'm not sure why you keep going there.
 
ShonTron said:
The Shuter and much of the Bond wing - built between the 1910s and 1950s - is decrepit and used mostly for offices and clinics. Thankfully not for inpatient care.
Click to expand...

6 Bond is inpatient, perhaps others?

In other news, the pre-admission facility will re-open on May 10 on 10 Donnelly. Lots of pics here on St. Mike's Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.1146834282014805.1073741875.116986731666237&type=3

I believe the accessible ramp for the Cardinal Carter entrance will be closing in a week.
 
So, is there going to be a new ambulance bay? The existing one is so small for how busy it is. Also, the delivery area is right next to the current ambulance bay. The trucks sometimes stick right out over the sidewalk forcing pedestrians and cyclists to have to go into the car lane just to get by. I hope the current and future construction addresses these issues!

Edit:

From the Parking Study!

Together, the New Shuter Wing and Patient Care Tower (under construction) will permit the removal of the existing Shuter Street loading area which is located adjacent to the existing ambulance garage in the Cardinal Carter Wing (northwest corner of the hospital). The removal of the Shuter Street loading area will permit the expansion of the ambulance garage to approximately twice its current size. The expanded facility will continue to accommodate emergency ambulance activity as well as emergency ambulance lay-over parking (ambulances/crews that are not actively engaged in transferring a patient from the vehicle to the Emergency Department) and police vehicle parking (4 parking spaces). Emergency ambulance lay-over parking and police vehicle parking activity currently occurs within the undersized south curb lane of Shuter Street and frequently blocks the adjacent eastbound bicycle lane. The expansion of the existing ambulance garage will help to minimize emergency ambulance layover and police vehicle parking activity on Shuter Street and will help to minimize interference with the eastbound bicycle lane.

As for the loading area?

The basement (Level B2) will also accommodate 4 loading spaces for delivery/service vehicle activity. The provision of loading spaces on Level B2 of the Shuter Wing, together with the new loading spaces that will be constructed as part of the Patient Care Tower, will serve the Hospital’s current and future loading needs. Locating the New Shuter Wing loading facility below grade (rather than within the ground floor as per the original Phase 2 concept) offers significant advantages to the design and operation of the Hospital including:

Frees up valuable ground floor space from a vehicular use that would have sterilized the Shuter and Bond Street frontages.
  • Permits the horizontal expansion of the Emergency Department and uses valuable ground floor for space for healthcare patient focussed activities.
  • Permits the Shuter and Bond Street frontages of the new Shuter Wing to be animated and engages the adjacent public sidewalks through the use of building entrances, lobbies, windows and interior public spaces.
  • Together with the new Patient Care Tower, transfers the Shuter Street loading area activity away from the existing ambulance garage.
 
Last edited:
Skeezix said:
I didn't take anything too literally. I was saying that decisions such as these should be scrutinized.

And, honestly, nobody was even alluding to a "MaRS type situation". I'm not sure why you keep going there.
Click to expand...

Stop giving me the run around.

You brought up Mars as a example of what could be done and then continued with it. I'm just responding to that. I wasn't dismissive of the heritage content brought up by the original poster either. All I said was that it isn't practical to keep it by using the little knowledge I have and examining the situation. You decide, once again, to rant on nothing just because my original response didn't suit your ideals. Now I have to look for an ignore button.
 
Nobody has given you the run around and nobody has ranted. Please calm down. If you think my list of examples of other heritage hospital buildings (which, by the way, was in support of your original point) meant anyone was suggesting a MaRS-type scenario, then I can't help you. Maybe you should hit the ignore option, so we are not forced to engage in anymore of these bizarre discussions. All I said was decisions such as this should be scrutinized and the OP was asking good questions. Sorry for having somehow offended you.

I'm going to stop participating in this discussion with you now.
 
Today

IMG_5993.JPG
 

Attachments

  • IMG_5993.JPG
    IMG_5993.JPG
    981.5 KB · Views: 974
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top