|
From: Jane Burgess
To: Councillor_Fletcher@toronto.ca
Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006
Subject: Follow-up from Bridgepoint Meeting
BOTH BRIDGEPOINT'S PROGRAM & THE OLD
RIVERDALE HOSPITAL FIT ON THE SITE AS PROPOSED
1. Both buildings fit on the site in the present proposal. Michael McCelland
clearly said the problem was "limiting distance"... this is an Ontario
Building Code term which dictates the % allowable of unprotected openings
when facing walls of two buildings are close to each other. No details were
given but there are means to allow this to happen: fire-rate the wall, limit
the number of large openings, put a sprinkler system over the window etc. The
impact on Bridgepoint would be some fire-rating of on exterior wall and loss
of most of the windows on the stretch immediately across from the closest
portion of Riverdale. For the old Riverdale hospital it would mean either
sprinklers or the one angled face of glazing would have to be made solid.
These are detailed calculations and are usually negotiated with the chief
building official. If there was a will it could happen with no major impact.
2. The existing lane south of old Riverdale would have to be widened to the
south instead of the north. This too could be accomplished, it would mean
removing some area of development from behind the old Don & it couldn't be
widened the entire way until the Toronto Jail was vacated ...but I am
not sure security will allow work on the Old Don until the Toronto Jail is
vacated. This wasn't addressed, in fact no phasing was given. Again, if
there was a will this could happen with little impact on the present
proposal, the area is probably within the margin of error mentioned.
3. Using Old Riverdale hospital: Parcel B indicates it is to be developed
for Senior health care housing... what could be more appropriate for
this than the Old Riverdale hospital? There is enough GFA within the building that block C would not have to be developed but this area could serve as
ancillary space , drop off etc, for Old Riverdale. This would require the
City had a will to help with this development.
- - ZONING - -
Bridgepoint's, Michael's, presentations indicate what was most important was
the continuation of hospital / health facilities on the site. Blocks D & E
should only be zoned for health facilities, public in need housing, open
space and below grade parking. Any other use on this site is not in keeping
with the cultural landscape, and inappropriate. As it was inappropriate for
the museum being in an institution domain to introduce condominiums so it is
inappropriate for private development on this very public site. If this
zoning is not put in place then how is the hospital going to expand on this
site twenty years from now? The same way they did at MARS, they will be back
to tear down all of the jail except the facade and go up in the air for 18 /
20 storeys. The land needs to be reserved for hospital expansion.
It is strange that Bridgepoint would continually refer to this site as
crowded and then proceed to propose to hem themselves in with non health
related development. It was also very odd that Michael continually repeated
that there were problems about building farther south on the property yet
Bridgepoint is asking for zoning for 8 storeys.
There is no where near enough parking in the area already and this proposal
will add to the problem. The new small parking lot the local business
community just got on the south side of Gerrard will be overrun. While
awaiting future hospital need the hospital and city could jointly develop an
underground parking garage across the Gerrard frontage. Once open the small
lot on the south side could be sold to help finance the garage.
The proposal as it stands effectively removes public roadways. The
intersection at Gerrard and Broadview, already one of the worst in the city
will become impossible. Some form of the Don Jail Roadway must remain.
CONTRAVENTION OF HERITAGE LAWS AND POLICIES
1. The development of block E is in contravention of the Intervention Design
Guidelines for the site. These guidelines form part of the OHF easement and
in all likelihood are included in the agreement of sale with ORC. The OHF
hasn't been approached by Bridgepoint at this time and since the foundation
holds an easement on the property this plan can't proceed without their
agreement anyway. (It may be in contravention of the City's easement I am not party to the terms.)
2. As Catherine pointed out the Ministry of Health in not funding the work
in the Old Don Jail In not attempting to preserve the old Riverdale
Hospital the Ministry of Health is in contravention of the new Ontario Heritage Act as well as
government policy. It would be hoped now that the Ministry of Culture has
become aware that the Riverdale hospital is being threatened by a government
ministry some renegotiations will be underway.
3. From was said at Councillor Fletcher's meeting Preservation
Services haven't even undertaken a significance study on the Old Riverdale Hospital even
though they have been requested to do so by the Preservation Board. (The Board seems
to have been inappropropriately advised by staff to defer their request and now
the Board sees no way of getting it back on their agenda unless requested to do
so by the city.) The Preservation Department doesn't seem to be doing even the
most rudimentary requirements of its job in not undertaking the study.
It as if the city wants to stick its head in the sand and be able to say
after the fact that it never knew how important a building it was when it allowed
its demolition. This department was set up under Mel Lastman's regime and
the same players are is operating exactly as it did under the last mayor.
Jane Burgess
Stevens Burgess Architects Ltd.
40 St. Clair Ave. E., Suite 301
Toronto, Ontario
M4T 1M9
|