Toronto Michael Garron Hospital, Toronto East Health Network | ?m | 8s | Infrastructure Ontar | Diamond Schmitt

someMidTowner said:
Note that in the November press release above, Hoskins' is the only pre-prepared quote that doesn't refer to the hospital by its donor name
Click to expand...

Good catch - I wonder if it is because the Minister already felt uncomfortable with the idea at that point, but haven't gone through cabinet with the policy change yet.

Honestly though, I am not even sure if naming necessarily the best way to create impact - in this particular situation, a statue with description in a public space at the hospital might be something that actually generate more lasting impact. People tend to read these things - a new hospital name that people probably won't use, not so much.

AoD
 
Last edited:
People will be calling it East General for quite a while to come (while a minority has likely switched over already). A family member who was there for attention recently certainly wasn't switching over, and I had no interest in "correcting" her. This is the kind of change that will take years to filter through the population that will use the hospital.

42
 
I think the concerns about naming are legitimate. Which is not to suggest 'naming' in this fashion has to be banned.

Lets start with the least serious issue. That act itself of renaming for a donor.

Would everyone be equally comfortable if 'Ashley Madison' had effectively purchased naming rights to the hospital?

If the answer is no; then you've agreed that at least some guidelines are in order.

There is the further concern, that name changes come at a cost, both in dollars (hundreds of thousands minimum for signage, website, letterhead, uniforms and so on) but also in
confusion by patients, or other medical professionals; more so if naming rights are to be regularly up for auction (think O'Keefe Centre, no Hummingbird Centre, no Sony Centre).

Should naming rights only be allowed once per 25 years? I'm not sure. But I certainly don't think it wise to endlessly re-sell them.

***

I think the more serious issue, however, is that private funding can often come with three deleterious side effects.

The first, is how much is invested in fundraising and paying fundraisers, and servicing large donors.

This can be many millions of dollars, per hospital, per year. The amount of $ being diverted from case is often shockingly high, and doesn't pay for itself as handsomely as one might think.

The second is that donors can cause a skewing of priorities, this is more typically an issue with research-focussed donations, but is by no means limited to them.

The third is that the private money can cover up a shortage of essential government support. The challenge with that is that when (no if) that private support abates, the system will find itself with crises galore.

I'll add a bonus one, straight waste of dollars.

The example I will give is MRIs and CT Scanners. The province doesn't pay for these, instead foisting on hospitals to fundraise for them.

Aside from the inherent inequality in that system (poorer community waits longer, to get less care); there is the additional issue that the hospital is then buying one scanner only and has no negotiating
power with the vendor.

That may mean, for instance, than an MRI could be upwards of $4,000,000

If that same device were ordered by the province, as part of a bulk tender for all hospitals, say ten at a time.

The probable savings would be at least $500,000 per device, or $5,000,000 which could be reinvested back into patient services.

****

None of the above precludes the notion of recognizing an exceptionally generous donation.

But I think it does suggest that there ought to be some limitations how that is done.
 
I'm in agreement that hospitals should not be renamed outright; the arguments make sense.

Short of that though, fundraising at hospitals is heavily entrenched and won't be quelled by the proposed ban on hospital name changes. We do pump a lot of public money into hospitals every year, but hospitals typically have teams of people looking for bequests of all sizes, typically to improve the facilities. You'd need a revolution in increased funding to put and end to that.

42
 
Request for Proposals Closed for Michael Garron Hospital - A Division of Toronto East Health Network - Phase 1 New Patient Care Tower Project
August 17, 2017
TORONTO - The request for proposals stage has closed for three companies to submit their bids to design, build and finance the new patient care tower project at Michael Garron Hospital.

Based on a fair and open request for qualifications process that began in June 2016, the following companies were invited to submit formal proposals:

EllisDon Infrastructure Healthcare (EDIH)

  • Design Build: EllisDon Design Build Inc.
  • Design Team: B+H Architects and Diamond Schmitt Architects
  • Financial Advisor: EllisDon Capital
PCL Partnership

  • Design Build: PCL Constructor Canada Inc.
  • Design Team: Parkin Architects Limited and WZMH Architects
  • Financial Advisor: TD Securities
Walsh Toronto East Health Partners

  • Design Build: Walsh Canada
  • Design Team: Perkins + Will and Cumulus Architects
  • Financial Advisor: Walsh Infrastructure Canada Ltd.
Over the next several months, Infrastructure Ontario and Michael Garron Hospital will evaluate the proposals and a successful proponent is expected to be announced in late 2017. Construction is expected to begin in early 2018.

The project involves the construction of a new eight-storey patient care tower and three-storey building connecting to the existing hospital at five levels, including the new main entrance. The project also includes the demolition of some existing wings and selected renovations to the existing hospital. Approximately 550,000 square feet of the hospital will be redeveloped, including:

  • Replacement of the oldest beds in the medical/surgical and rehabilitation units
  • Replacement of the mental health inpatient units for adult and child/youth care
  • Consolidation of ambulatory care and ambulatory procedures
  • Creation of underground parking, a new main entrance and landscape area
  • Accommodation of other administrative and support services needed to support the clinical services
The project also involves renovation of approximately 100,000 square feet of select areas within the existing hospital in addition to other infrastructure upgrades.

The redevelopment project will enable the delivery of efficient, accessible, high-quality patient care, while replacing some of the oldest spaces in the hospital.

Quick Facts
  • IO and the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care are working closely with Michael Garron Hospital to redevelop the hospital, which will remain publicly owned, controlled and accountable.
  • The project is expected to achieve a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED®) Silver certification for design excellence and sustainability.
  • The project is being delivered under IO's Alternative Financing and Procurement model, which transfers risks associated with design, construction and financing of the project to the private sector.
 
EDIH got the project - from IO:

http://www.infrastructureontario.ca/Preferred-Proponent-Selected-Michael-Garron-Hospital-Phase-1/

Michael_Garron_Hospital_Rendering.png

(IO)

Handsome enough.

AoD
 
thethrows said:
I still don't understand why the Coxwell frontage needs to disappear. Seems like it could work with the new extension and that it would cost more to destroy it.
Click to expand...

They actually did save the original hospital in this proposal, which is not the Coxwell frontage, but 'D' wing. Coxwell came much later.

The reasons for removal are straight-forward, the first is that the new wing needs to be built and operable before you could close/renovate/restore A/B wings (Coxwell)

But once you replace the capacity of A/B wing, you no longer require it.

The actual hospital space in A/B is barely functional. It's simply not laid out in a manner consistent w/any contemporary facility. Re-doing it to comply w/current standards would nullify any historical value that remains in the interior, with the possible exception of the lobby, and would be prohibitively expensive. (in fact, I'm not entirely sure it's do-able even then.

But even if you get past that, there is standard strategy for hospital redevelopment; that is to leave one portion of the site vacant/passive (green space/surface parking etc.) at any given time; so when the need comes up to rebuild again, you have somewhere to build new on.

That 'blank spot' in the new plan, is where A/B wing were.

Truly the Coxwell frontage isn't that remarkable. Even the lobby is ho-hum give or take some decent stone work and a dash of stained glass.

I think they've done decent by moving to preserve the original building.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top