November 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.

Hospital entrance (2005)

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.      --Martin Liefhebber, 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 tenure. 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.      --Alex Speigel, 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 residential condominium.      --George Baird, 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 current needs.
        First: 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.
        Second: 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.
        Third: 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 for housing.
         Fourth: 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.

Preservation-friendly, park-friendly plan (2001) by Perkins Eastman Black Architects

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

Toronto Architectural Conservancy

e-mail: steve(at)torarchcons.org