|
TO: Ernest Buchner
FROM: Alex Speigel
RE: Bridepoint Hospital Site
DATE: 16 January 2006
CC: Councillor Fletcher
When asked for my final comments on Friday, I declined to comment. Following the meeting,
I continued to consider the problem and would now like to express my position in writing.
I am taking the liberty of forwarding this Memo to you and Councillor Fletcher and would
ask that you please copy it to the list of attendees.
I think the discussion has been mistakenly characterized as a zero-sum game: the half round
building vs. hospital, retaining the half round building vs. the saving the Don Jail. I believe
that this is not necessarily accurate and that, based on an objective analysis of all the
factors, it is possible to achieve a win-win solution which retains the building and still
achieves the hospital's objectives of a first class facility.
Site planning:
If the new hospital building is shifted southward, the half round building can remain. The
hospital can achieve direct access to Riverdale Park to the north by extending the park
southwards to meet the north side of the hospital. If a through east west road is required
for servicing, it could be accommodated through a change of grade (ie the road passing below,
the park bridging over to the hospital's second floor)
Urban Design:
On the north, the half-round building would retain its
prominent presence facing Riverdale Park and the Don River. On the south, the mass
of the new hospital building facing Gerrard Street would have to be carefully modulated to
mitigate the height facing the street, possibly with a setback at the 6th or 8th floor to
reduce its impact on the street.
Road pattern:
If the new facilities north of the Don Jail are made slightly narrower,
the new east west road on the north can be maintained (possibly with a 9m or 12m right-of-way width)
to provide access to the half round building and, if necessary, for servicing vehicles to access
the new hospital. The new east west road on the south side of the jail can either pass "through"
hospital with the upper floors passing over, or turn south along the west side of the new public park.
Hospital Design:
The new hospital building, would remain as is, simply shifted
further south. The new facilities north of the Don Jail would need to be slightly reconfigured
to allow for the access road as mentioned above. The half-round building, since it is not
suitable as a health-care facility, would be converted to housing.
Sustainability:
The half round building represents a significant amount of
embodied energy and mass. Adaptive re-use of the structure allows for the retention
of those resources, whereas demolition is wasteful of resources and adds to landfill
problems. The issue of sustainability was not discussed at all at the meeting on Friday,
but regard for environmental impact and sustainability should be a prominent factor in all
design decisions, especially where large infrastructure projects are undertaken with public funding.
Heritage Conservation:
The Don Jail as the primary historical building is still maintained and restored. The half-round building, a fine example of modern architecture from the 60's, is retained through adaptive re-use. There would be some concern about the visual impact of the mass of the new hospital on the historic jail, but this could be mitigated by the careful design of the east façade of the new building. There is no doubt that it is more impactful to the jail building than if the hospital was sited further north, but this should be considered in relation to the other benefits that result from the retention of the half-round building.
Financial Feasibility:
The issue of financial feasibility was not discussed at the meeting on Friday, but consideration should be given to the economic value of the half-round building. If demolished, it represents an additional cost of probably $ 1 - $1.5 MM to the project. If retained and sold, for example, as a market housing building, it would probably be worth around between $ 40 - $ 60 psf. If the area of the building is 200,000 sf, this could provide between $8 MM - $ 12 MM to help finance the project. Thus a financial liability becomes a very significant financial asset.
Other issues related to process and land ownership of course need to be resolved but I believe they could be resolved if there was a willingness on the part of the various parties. In my recent experience doing residential development with Context Development, we have tackled many difficult "shared" sites with very positive results. Two projects (District Lofts, Ideal Condominiums) incorporate a public parking facility within the residential buildings. The Mozo project incorporates 3 separate ownerships on one City block which enabled the retention of the heritage buildings along King Street and involved a coordinated design between the various parties with respect to the sharing of common facilities including landscaped areas, loading, transformer vault, building and parking access. In the Radio City development, half the site was given to the National Ballet School and the residential component reconfigured on the western portion of the site. This allowed for the retention of two heritage buildings, the provision of a site to the Ballet School at no cost which enabled it to build its spectacular new facility and resulted in a very strong urban design for the entire complex that has added considerable vitality to the neighbourhood. Each example sited above represented a win-win solution. Were these projects complicated by the interrelationships that had to be juggled? Yes, of course. Was a superior result achieved that allowed for multiple benefits to flow to all parties and stronger urban design solution? Yes again.
The technical review committee was asked to comment on objective criteria of design, site planning and financial feasibility. My conclusion based on these objective criteria is that the half-round building should remain. I believe that all members of the peer review would also concur based on those criteria. If, however, there are other overriding criteria such as politics, timing and process of achieving the approvals or simply lack of will of the parties, then we should all be clear that those are the actual reasons for arriving at the "demolition" conclusion. I have a great deal of respect for the consultant team and the committed City staff that has been involved in the process; however, with respect, I feel that I have not seen sufficient evidence at this point to convince me that the "demolition" solution is inevitable.
I would suggest that, given time constraints now facing the process, that the application proceed to Council and that it be approved in such as way as to leave open the final site configuration. In that way, the approval can be obtained, the hospital can obtain some certainty, funding will begin to flow for further design work, and the details of a creative inclusive new plan can be worked out in the next stage.
As was said repeatedly on Friday, there were lots of very smart people around the table. I agree and I look forward to seeing all that brain power work towards a creative, inclusive, sustainable and financially feasible solution that we can all be proud of.
Alex Speigel
|