Riverdale from Canadian Building News, 1964. Panda photo
Riverdale Hospital in
Toronto Archives exhibit:
"Work in Progress
Toronto's Architectural Record"
Exhibit & lecture series information
Riverdale photo from exhibit
Riverdale Hospital in new book
* * *
* * *
LIEFHEBBER article on Riverdale Demolition, May 2007
* * *
demolition completely erases
all gains from major environmental initiative.
Citizens for Riverdale Hospital have been denied
Leave To Appeal the OMB decision at
the Ontario Divisional Court.
Please support the efforts of Citizens for Riverdale Hospital.
A charitable tax receipt is issued for all donations.
Make cheques out to "TAC-Riverdale". Send cheques
(or well-concealed cash, noting that it is earmarked for
P.O. Box 7162, Station A
Thanks for your support! Our magazine is coming!
OMB gives "Acute Condo Shortage" as reason to demolish.
(In fact density on the contested Riverdale Hospital
site is to decrease
in the developer's plan, nor will condos occupy the parcel).
update Jan. 17th, 2007
Planner Lewinberg claims to have never thought
of saving Hospital!
CRH update Dec. 28th, 2006
CRH update Nov. 5th, 2006
CRH update Sept. 29th, 2006
our posters and flyers
* * *
pdf version (1.5M)
* * *
* * *
McGregor's info page
1) NDP fumble: NOW letter,
March 23rd, 2006
catch Bridgepoint hi-jinx (NOW magazine, March 16, 2006)
3) Residents Fight Land
Swap (National Post, March 11, 2006)
Letter in Now Magazine, February 16th,
Re: Now Magazine (Feb. 9th-15th, 2006) "Throwing a curve
Kudos to NOW Magazine for seeing the trees from the condo
towers concerning the preservation of the Riverdale Hospital
("the best example of modern architecture in the country").
I just wish you could have shown readers what's behind the
glass tile mosaic in the front foyer in Photograph # 4...on
the other side is the rotunda room...all shiny wood with
great acoustics and an accessible stage that seats a hundred.
I know this because our drama ensemble from Community Head
Injury Resource Services (better known as the CHIRS Players)
performed a three act play celebrating Brain Injury Awareness
Month a little while ago. There are not that many accessible
stages for Toronto artists with disabilities... what kind
of a message are we sending to disabled artists when City
Council not only deems it necessary to cut down Riverdale's
old growth trees but trash its cultural legacy by further
marginalizing its vibrant disability culture.
shame... this kind of developer driven destruction has got
you feel as strongly as I do concerning the preservation
of this amazing building, I urge concerned NOW readers to
sign this petition to save the half-round: http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/savethehalfround.
Torontonians can build a campaign of social change by working
together to protect the former Riverdale Hospital from the
wrecking ball ... do I hear an OMB challenge, neighbours?!
Empowered community action enables citizens to question
private interests that continue to discredit Toronto's cultural/
historic legacy and whom refuse to compromise on this issue.
Isn't this what building a thriving culture & local
democracy is all about?
Send a message to Mayor Miller and City councillors that
urban densification doesn't have to trump our architectural
treasures and sacred green spaces: preserving them is what
makes a livable city... something Jane Jacobs & Co.
taught us when they defeated the Spadina Expressway in the
Toronto Architectural Conservancy letter
Post, February 17th
The 'half round' is the first place
I ever stepped
into with my nursing student uniform on many years
ago. I sure would like to step into it again some day
if it was housing. Why are there so many reasons
that we can't create housing in this City?
Cathy Crowe, Street Nurse, Jan. 29th, 2006
Now Magazine, Feb. 9th
National Post, Feb. 2nd
Toronto Star, Jan. 26th
Toronto Star, Jan. 24th
January 30th, 2006
Dear Councillors and Mayor,
RE: Bridgepoint Health Peer Review incomplete.
A group of architects conducted an analysis (a Peer Review) of the Bridgepoint site for the City. The group was of the majority opinion that the Bridgepoint proposal could be improved by the retention of the “half-round” building.
To properly follow-through on this Review process, the City must now ascertain the technical viability of this recommendation. Bridgepoint’s architects and architects from the Ministry of Health must be involved in a follow-up workshop in order to offer advice and comment on technical matters that were left as open questions during the Peer Review process.
Without this final step, the Peer Review would seem to have been pre-ordained to failure.
Thank you for your attention,
VP, for the Toronto Architectural Conservancy
Peter Carruthers, Chair, Heritage Toronto, on procedural problems.
January 18th, 2006
Alex Speigel, Architect, Context Development on the Site Plan problems.
January 16th, 2006
Jane Burgess, Architect, on the Heritage problems.
January 16th, 2006
"The design of this building is of such a high caliber
that it is probably of national significance."
The replacement facility, a 200 foot-high 600 foot-long slab,
will sit on City land. It will tower above East and West
Riverdale Parks and the Don Jail. It will be six times the
permitted height. It will crowd Riverdale Hospital (1963)
the new building will not tread on the
footprint of the Riverdale Hospital and the whole thing will
be built before demolition occurs.
There has never been a Request for Proposals issued for
Riverdale Hospital (1963). There has been zero due
diligence by Bridgepoint in securing a suitable re-use.
The proposal is HUGE
and can be viewed in PDF form here.
(The pdf is also huge!)
It involves divesting of parkland to accommodate a specific
developer's project (shouldn't that plum go to the highest
bidder?), setting up of development parcels that will
crowd the hospital, demolition of historic buildings, insensitive
treatment of the Don Jail, and immense new construction
on and over a valley crest. Are ravines important to Toronto?
Maybe not so much...?
There are environmental and technical
questions about such a large construction on this valley
site; questions about the shadows of the new building
on parkland; questions from the housing community about
why the Riverdale Hospital (1963) building, City-built and
sitting on City land, is not being re-used as co-op or non-profit
housing (there being a net loss of affordable housing on the site, as Bridgepoint bought and
closed a City Home apartment and offers only condos as replacements),
and, of course, huge heritage questions about tearing
down such a fine building to make a "development parcel".
So is it actually "impossible" to save the Riverdale Hospital,
as Bridgepoint claims, or simply inconvenient? The building
is to be demolished to accommodate an access road. The
tightness of space on the site is the result of the cram
of new condos/mixed use/unidentified buildings pell mell
into a valley park. The city grid, rational default of modern
post-Jane Jacobs planners, is here installed to the detriment
of heritage and nature. The City of Toronto Planners working
this file along with consultants Urban Strategies have simply
ignored the peculiarities of the site, as if they would
think nothing of straightening out the pesky warren of Greenwich
Village. I could put a $50 bill in a Jacobs book in the City's
Planning library and pick it up next decade.
that's the big problem with the proposal as it sails unimpeded
through City Hall: Bridgepoint is taking this precinct which
has been Public Land, both park and institutional, for Toronto's
entire history and privatizing it. It now falls to the Province
to impose some discipline on the hospital's Board. The mandate
Bridgepoint is pursuing is very ambitious; the need for
and ability to establish a healthcare campus the size of
what they envision may be real... or not. The plan is unclear
enough to demand a very cautious approach, even from advocates.
If the entire precinct is to be various healthcare-uses
the community deserves to know. A large
expansion of a formerly modest hospital enterprise would
generally be unwelcome by a host community. The problems
are compounded here by the historic buildings and parkland
which comprise the majority of the site. If the use is to
be a mix of retail, condos and healthcare, then the problems
don't go away, they get worse: Why are we giving parkland
to condo developers?
Whatever the full scope of the project the Riverdale Hospital (1963) is not a liability on the site. It can and should be re-used.
institution devoted to public health, with many options and means at its disposal, must be cognizant of the example it sets when it
chooses to not re-use a sound resource. Lead by example. It's not just for the "little guy" to recycle.
January 16th, 2006:
Alex Speigel's site plan sketch:
Alex Speigel, Architect, Context Development on the Site Plan issues.
City lands and City assets at play:
... and the result: a landmark gone, shuffled
for condos and roads.
And a hospital on a park, 6 times the permitted height.
Wrong. Wrong. and WRONG
We suggest that you write
Premier Dalton McGuinty
T.A.C. Recommendations to Council, November 14th, 2005
Layton and Churley letter, November 27th, 2005
The Toronto Preservation Board has signed off on a
massive development plan promoted
by the Bridgepoint Health Centre. The plan will see
the demolition of the landmark semi-circular RIVERDALE
HOSPITAL building (1963, Chapman & Hurst) and
a renovation of the Don Jail into office space. Other
small out buildings will be venerated. A large modern
landmark with a rich history will be lost. It is a
terrible blow for the heritage of Toronto.
The planning (Staff Report pdf)
and heritage (Staff Report pdf)
status of the proposal, was approved
by Toronto East York Community Council (Agenda pdf) on Tuesday
November 15th, 2005. Your urgent intervention is needed
to extend the life of the important and viable Riverdale
Hospital (1963) building. The message is simple: This
building is an architectural landmark, it is
structurally sound, and it sits on City-owned land.
It was commissioned by the City and built with public
funds. If Bridgepoint Health doesn't want it, it
should be re-used for housing. The owner (Toronto)
or the lessee (Bridgepoint) should issue a Request
For Proposals. This is a tremendous opportunity for
a great building to get a propitious and architecturally
suitable use in a second life.
Riverdale is well-suited to residential reuse according
to no less an authority than Context Development (Globe
& Mail, June 17th). To replace Riverdale Hospital (1963)
with residential buildings under those circumstances
would be a disgrace.
Residential re-use was studied by Perkins Eastman
Black Architects and Yolles Engineering. According
to their Master Plan (2001) Riverdale Hospital (1963) is suitable
for a residential retrofit. Proceedings from the a
Peer Review process (2005) conducted by the City are unanimous:
the "half-round" building (as Bridgepoint refers to
it) should and can be saved and re-used. Here are
excerpts from the Peer Review (June 2005) report:
As a result of Bridgepoint’s Planning Team deeming
the ‘Half Round’ building as incompatible, it
is consistently proposed to be demolished. It
is this conclusion which is short-sighted. Recently
to overcome this dilemma, Bridgepoint Hospital
and the City Planning Office hired an outside
panel of experts, including myself, for an all
day design session. The panel were unanimous
in indicating that it would be a mistake to
demolish the building and to that end, proposed
a variety of options.
(...) In summary, the hospital’s needs could be met
and the building preserved by the following: Slide
the proposed Hospital south by about 40 feet, so that
the ‘Half Round’ bldg is not crowded out. The
revised Hospital placement can benefit the Riverdale
neighbourhood more effectively as the Gerrard face
would be carefully designed, as opposed to be left
to some speculative building at a future date where
the outcome would be speculative as well. All residents
know that Gerrard has not had the benefit of good
planning and design along its length, in particular
in Riverdale. The future speculative building ("Building E")
will block views from the new Bridgeport building.
The 4 storey based can be redesigned. The one
storey steep slope at the south end can enable possibilities
usually not afforded by a flat site.
Current (Oct 2005) Bridgepoint proposal by Urban Strategies and ERA Architects
All the above is based on that the community, City
politicians and administration have a desire for its
continued use. It's my opinion that it can not afford
to think otherwise. By all standards the ‘Half Round’
Building is very new and to demolish it would mean
the loss of good, maybe not ideal, space. Its replacement
value is in the range of $25M. Its demolition will
cost not less than $2M. Alternatively the public can
consider the possibility to receive upwards of $10M
from private interests to use the building for a Life
Care programme. Toronto’s Baycrest facility proves
that this alternative is very appropriate. In closing,
I would indicate that the decision as to whether or
not to demolish, needs to have a wider context, to
take into account the fact that the building is owned
by the public and the public’s interests should be
served. While ethically; it is no longer considered
‘business as usual’, to remove significant trees,
it is similar with a good building. The negative implications
of building destruction is now well understood in
terms of an embodied energy audit. It should be the
goal to find a suitable use for our much loved building
as the resulting environmental impact exponentially
multiplies the cost to the community. Please note
that I have not discussed the historical and cultural
value of the ‘Half Round” building as I trust this
will be covered by others.
Architect (MRAIC, OAA), Resident, Simpson Ave.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
(...)1. I continue to believe that the semi round building represents a significant resource
that is very worthwhile to retain. In addition to the obvious “green” benefits of
adaptive reuse, the building has historic and iconic value due to its unique geometry
and prominent siting over the Don Valley. Additionally, I believe it has significant
value as a residential building, either as market condos, seniors housing or life-lease
2. If the building is retained, it will of course impact the rest of the design and place
certain constraints on the design of the site. I think it is possible that the constraints
can be dealt with creatively so that a win-win situation is achieved without undue
compromise to the other demands of the site: efficient functioning of the hospital;
retention and enhancement of the old jail; publicly accessible parkland along Dundas;
and, adequate road infrastructure. This seemed to be the consensus at the
workshop, but now we have an initial response by the consultants advising that it is
more of a challenge than originally thought. The current thinking seems to have
shifted from a “win-win” to an “either-or” scenario.
3. The extent to which a ‘win-win” can be achieved without compromising the other
factors rests within the “details” of the design. How can the addition to the jail be
designed to reduce its footprint? How can the podium of the hospital be modified to
make it more site specific and less generic. How can the road pattern be
accommodated to allow good public access, ambulance access and servicing access
to the hospital? Can parking for the retained tower be provided under the hospital
or the site adjacent to Broadview? Without fully understanding the complexity of the
design work done to date, it is difficult to comment whether this is in fact possible.
In my initial look at the site, I think it should be quite possible to achieve this, but I
don’t have sufficient detail to be able to say this definitively.
4. In terms of the massing issues and the urban design of the site. I think there is
sufficient open space to the west and the north of site to allow for the full build out
as contemplated by the full scheme. I also think the hospital is better suited by
having a street presence, a “front door” on Gerrard, rather than it being internalized
and eventually obscured by a future market building, whatever that may be.
5. The future market building as contemplated along Gerrard will not only obscure the
presence of the hospital, but also be of limited commercial value, unless perhaps as a
medical building. The semi-round building has considerable more commercial value
as a residential site due to its location on the park, its views and its unique design.
6. In order to make a strong argument for the retention of the building, I think an end
use needs to be more clearly articulated. A market condo would generate significant
funds which could then be used to finance other City priorities or offset some of the
development costs of this project. If social housing funds were available, a social
housing scheme geared to seniors would benefit from the proximity to the hospital
infrastructure. A “middle of the road” solution might be a life lease tenure which
would realize some value, but also provide a social benefit. I understand this is
difficult issue, since the land is owned by the City and leased to the hospital
specifically for hospital uses.
7. There are, indeed, challenges to designing the site so as to retain the building and
achieve a win-win situation. It is the better solution, but also the more difficult one. It
will require that the community articulate a strong position, that all stakeholders and
consultants approach the project creatively and that strong leadership is provided to
achieve excellence in the design of this landmark project.
Architect (OAA), Context Development.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I regret that the current proposal presumes the demolition of the
existing hospital building. But I noted in the last meeting I attended
that Councillor Fletcher was not enthusiastic about a scenario that
would see the existing hospital building preserved in the form of a
Dean, Faculty of Architecture and Landscape Design, University of Toronto
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
(...) The strategic placement of the new facility to create a street presence has not been adequately addressed and, therefore, the proposed plan is seriously flawed.
The plan indicates that the proposed new hospital, which is to be a larger Signature Building, is to be situated behind a site designated to contain a future development. (This) prevents the creation of a street presence or open forecourt for the hospital along Gerrard Street.
The utilization of the historical Don Jail façade does not provide an adequate design solution for the new hospital entrance.
The location of the future development site will result in a building of over which there is no control resulting in undetermined architectural features, such as, sign, masonry, materials, etc. The final outcome will be a new health care facility hidden behind a building of unknown design.
It is my opinion that the fundamental design principles require the new hospital to be a large signature
building with a strong street presence and/or a forecourt. The current planning provides an opportunity for
this to successfully occur provided the master plan is altered so as to relocate the future development site.
In addition the design of the hospital façade visible to the Don Valley Backway creates a wonderful opportunity
for the kind of design presence similar to that of the Getty Museum in relationship to the freeway in Los Angeles.
--J. E. Sievenpiper,
Architect (OAA, F.R.A.I.C.)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
(...) I was disappointed with what was presented. In particular I was disappointed in the failure to retain the 1/2
round building and still found the vehicular and public routes awkward. The plan is still relying on an interior pedestrian
connection from the neighbourhood to the park beyond, and the routes shown lack clarity and would be confusing to visitors not
familiar with the area. (...)
-- Half-Round Building
(...) given that there was more or less
unanimous agreement from the invited outside experts and the local councilor that the 1/2 round building was
important to retain, I was very surprised to hear from Mr. McClelland that it had continued to be a low priority
consideration for the consultants. The 1/2 round building is an important community landmark, has strong heritage
value and is a built resource that should not be squandered.
I am puzzled by the argument that heritage preservation has been satisfied by re-use of the jail and the implication
that it is somehow greedy to ask for all important buildings on the site to be recognized and re-used;
that the public must choose between the jail and the former hospital.
The new Provincial Policy Statements read:
2.6.1 - Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved.
2.6.3 - Development and site alteration may be permitted on adjacent lands to
protected heritage property where the proposed development and site alteration has been evaluated and it has been
demonstrated that the heritage attributes of the protected heritage property will be conserved.
These would surely be good grounds for any community member to appeal a plan that did not conserve the
former Riverdale Hospital, and given the number of people interested in the preservation of this landmark
I believe the City should not agree to any plan until the conservation of the existing Riverdale hospital
matter has been provided for.
What I understood was that Councillor Fletcher would like to keep the option of reuse of the hospital open
and preferred it to be used for social housing or some other social purpose, Given that the federal and provincial
governments are moving forward on putting monies back into social housing programs it seems entirely possible that
by the time the new hospital is built, there would be monies available. My sense is that the Councillor's resistance
to condo use should not be interpreted as willingness to lose the building.
heritage and park-friendly plan (Cathy Nasmith Architect)
-- Site Planning
For the record I am including the sketch of the site I prepared before the charrette. The idea of moving the building west
still has not been fully explored and offers a lot of advantages. It allows for preservation of the 1/2 round building,
provides access all around the hospital and an address for the hospital on Gerrard, and creates sufficient space for a public
street through the site to the park beyond. It provides more normal connections into the neighbourhood. Presuming the
ground floor plan could be adjusted somewhat, the building excavation and footings need not compromise the Don Valley
embankment. The ability to connect the hospital directly to the jail is compromised but could be achieved above
or below grade. Of course there are many other variations that could emerge.
--Cathy Nasmith, Architect
There are in fact several other viable options already developed by Perkins Eastman Black Architects. Bridgepoint has
shelved them in order to build "Building E", a speculative (probably condo) building on Gerrard, again on City parkland.
One of many massing
options by Perkins Eastman Black (1999-2004)
There is still a request outstanding from Spring 2005
of the City's Preservation Board that they Designate
Riverdale Hospital (1963). The Toronto Architectural
Conservancy made the request and has supplied supporting
research. This building must be Designated in order
that it may be considered at all in Bridgepoint's
plans. The initial request and subsequent ones have
never been acknowledged, nor appeared on any agenda.
In the end Preservation Board heard the proposal on
Bridgepoint's terms at Bridgepoint's convenience.
The plan was accepted unanimously in a matter of minutes.
Board members claim the deciding factor was the unsuitability
of the Riverdale Hospital (1963) building to Bridgepoint's
This is incidental to the Board's purview. The Don
Jail is unsuitable to Bridgepoint's current needs
tenfold. That argument (purred without fail by those
profiting from a development) may convince Council
but it cannot be a yardstick used in initially determining
heritage value. Heritage has to be considered separately
and that's exactly and uniquely what the Preservation
Board is supposed to do as a LACAC under the Heritage
Act: offer heritage advice to Council that is clear
and on topic. That demonstrably didn't happen here
and our case still stands: that this building still
deserves Designation and a place in the future of
this neighbourhood it has helped to define.
No one is asking Bridgepoint to remain in the building
and no one is asking that they not build a new hospital.
The medical arguments against Riverdale Hospital (1963) are thus all
besides the point.
Their new hospital
actually won't even touch the Riverdale Hospital (1963) building.
The demolition will accommodate a new residential
building ("Building B"). This is a gratuitous environmental
and architectural waste. Riverdale should be re-used
Bridgepoint complains that their new building, though
not actually on Riverdale's footprint, is too close
to allow retention of the latter. This again is a
poor argument out of a mess of their making. They
propose another condo or residential tower
on City land to the South ("Building E"), as well
as roads galore, all of which force them to crowd
the enormous bulk of the hospital into a little quadrant
on the edge of the valley.
This speaks to the larger problems of the plan. The
schematics of the grid and towers, so suitable for
say, Regent Park, are so out of place on a valley
crest and literally leaning against a site of National
historic importance. The current curvaceous Riverdale
hospital looks like a work of genius in the way it
addresses the valley, park and Broadview, relative
to this proposed crowd of hospital and non-hospital
towers. It is an inelegant clump divided by roads
at every turn. Car-free may be going too far but this
is an excess of roads. As well, much of the "community-friendliness"
is artificial. There is no real effort to open the
hospital to the City. It remains hidden behind the
clutter of new towers, even farther from both the
Broadview and Gerrard streetcars, and with more confusing
points of entry, including the "symbolic entrance"
of the Don Jail which is not actually the entrance.
The hospital is cut-off from the one new amenity,
a square in front of the Don Jail. Wheelchairs will
have to navigate across the traffic that currently
takes the Don Jail Roadway as a shortcut. So much
promise. So meager the result.
park-friendly plan (2001) by Perkins Eastman
November 14th, 2005
RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL:
1) Council defer any actions on the Designations and request further advice on potential heritage retention on the site. Council should give notice that the Official Plan Amendment, Rezoning, and land transactions are at present excessive, inappropriate and do not deliver a result that works well with the complexities of the topography, extant buildings and surroundings of the site, nor are they in the interests of the Citizens of Toronto. The minutes of the Preservation Board meeting (Nov 3rd, 2005) have yet to be circulated. Any approvals at all today would be premature given the scope of this private and quasi-public redevelopment of City parkland and City landmarks.
2) Council challenge Bridgepoint to provide a lower new hospital, casting less shadow on parks and heritage buildings. Stretching the new hospital southwards towards Gerrard St. E. would solve these problems and give the new hospital a true entrance, rather than a confusing series of symbolic and hidden entrances.
We note that the reasons against this move of the new hospital southwards are not compelling. Here they are in total:
The relocation of the hospital mass south is not possible for the following reasons: The new hospital and Half Round Hospital building would need to be served by a new public street that would run along the north and west sides of the hospital. This street could not be built before the new Toronto (Don) Jail is relocated. The Don
Jail Roadway would likely remain in its current configuration, which would affect the ability to create a new park in front of the historic Don Jail. In addition, the shift south would eliminate the site for the planned Long Term Care facility.
-- ERA Architects and Urban Strategies to Preservation Services (Jan 2005).
To rebut the above briefly: The new and existing buildings can be served by connections from roads to the south of the Jail without compromising the "Half Round" building nor waiting on the new jail to be vacated. The New Don Jail Road instead of terminating at St Matthew's Road would turn south at the point where it met the new hospital. The new park remains intact and the new Long Term Care can immediately go into the "Half Round" building or on the Cityhome site with a slightly altered footprint to Urban Strategies "C" building. A shift southwards is an under explored key to making this project work.
3) Council demand a more appropriate massing of the new building: a true valley building. For an example see the enclosed plan (Attachment A) from the Bridgepoint Master Plan: A Village On The Park (2001) by Perkins Eastman Black.
4) Council insist on the re-use of the Riverdale Hospital (1963) building. Particularly since the proposed new hospital facility does not even touch
the Riverdale Hospital building, demolition would be a needless waste of a City asset. The excerpts from the
City Peer Review 2005 (enclosed as Attachment B) and Bridgepoint Master Plan: A Village On
The Park (2001) Volumes 1 and 2 by Perkins Eastman Black (too large to be excerpted herein.
Please refer particularly to the Yolles Partnership Structural Assessment sub-chapter, Volume 2 page 18)
provide detail on viable re-use and siting solutions that allow the re-used and the new to co-exist.
5) Council authorize a Designation Study of Riverdale Hospital (1963) and investigate the process by which their advisory body on heritage (the Preservation Board) ignored repeated official communications from the Toronto Architectural Conservancy. The Conservancy is an established non-profit organization working in this field since 1933, recipient of numerous municipal awards, and an uncompromised party with a research and publishing record on this specific site.
Coming incredibly soon:
ACT, The Toronto Architectural Conservancy
Magazine, April 2008, featuring Riverdale
Hospital articles by Pleasance Crawford, Olga Pugliese,
Dave LeBlanc, Mary Smith and more, including biographies
of the Principals, a look at the site,
a patient's appreciation, a history
of Metro's finest architectural commission and then
BLAST OFF with THE COMPLETE STORY OF ROUND
STRUCTURES IN TORONTO with dozens of contributors
as your guide.
Globe and Mail, Friday June 17th 2005.
An article by Dave LeBlanc features a site visit with architect Howard Chapman.
Globe and Mail, Saturday July 9th 2005.
Oliver Moore details some objections to the proposal heard at the June 22nd meeting.
National Post, Saturday November 11th, 2005.
Argument for demolition of Riverdale: bad plumbing?
Dominion Modern curator John Martins-Manteiga talks to Peter Kuitenbrouwer.
Globe and Mail, Saturday November 26th, 2005.
Toronto Modernism to be demolished at accelerated pace.
Eye Weekly, December 8th, 2005.
History vs Healthcare? Or not...?.
National Post, Wednesday, January 18th, 2006.
Debate swirls around hospital's fate at Council meeting.
Toronto Star, Jan. 25th, 2006.
Riverdale Hospital for wrecking?
Toronto Star, Jan. 26th, 2006.
Keep historic half-round around as it is
National Post, Feb. 2nd, 2006.
Demolition plan roundly criticized
Now, Feb. 9, 2006.
Development arguments wanting for logic
National Post, Feb. 17th, 2006.
Demolition is environmentally unconscienable
National Post, March 11th, 2006.
Locals want to know: Why give land away?
Now, March 16th, 2006.
Citizens catch Bridgepoint hi-jinx
Now, March 23rd, 2006.
Progressives on Council fumble the Bridgepoint scheme