Toronto Women's College Hospital | 70.1m | 10s | P.E.B.

12 May 2013:

rps20130512230851492.jpg
 
urbandreamer said:
9 March 2013: I'm really fond of the way the concrete "bunker" look contrasts with the aA towers. Seriously. I don't like the glazing though...
Click to expand...

Indeed, the only reason I've grown to like this building is because of the contrast with Burano. If the new foyer of WCH achieves some of the light character promised by the renders, a similar positive contrast may be achieved.
 
The top of this building is brutal. I noticed that in the rendering they "forgot" to include the random vents that have been punched haphazardly into the walls.
 
Demolition on the old building began on June 5 or so; I have some pictures I'll put up later. The new building has some kinks getting worked out, but has had patients for a couple of weeks now.
 
From today (June 28)
IMG_1658[1].jpg
IMG_1659[1].jpg
IMG_1655[1].jpg
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1658[1].jpg
    IMG_1658[1].jpg
    96.5 KB · Views: 526
  • IMG_1659[1].jpg
    IMG_1659[1].jpg
    96 KB · Views: 535
  • IMG_1655[1].jpg
    IMG_1655[1].jpg
    94.1 KB · Views: 530
Silence&Motion said:
I just noticed that the Art Deco section of Women's College Hospital is a registered heritage property (http://www.historicplaces.ca/en/rep-reg/place-lieu.aspx?id=7738&pid=0). How did they get permission to demolish it?
Click to expand...

Because it's the SITE not the building that is recognised.

The heritage value of Women's College Hospital National Historic Site of Canada resides in its association with the struggle and contribution of Canadian women within the medical profession. This value is reflected in the site's prominent location and landmark 1935 high-rise building, the complex's phased construction and large scale, and its accommodation of a wide range of research, teaching and treatment activities.

Listed or designated buildings are under the Provincial and Municipal governments.
 
Okay, I see. I thought that the "landmark 1935 high-rise building" included in the description meant that the building was also recognized. I guess not.
 
Ughhh. Who on earth is running Women's College? I hadn't realized that the main building will be demolished, and only to clear room for a park, too? How is this possible? How does this make any sense? Is a park more beneficial to the hospital than a big building? And a parking garage bunker is going to replace the buildings? I don't understand the logic at all. And why wouldn't the building be protected by heritage designation? What a disaster. Looking back through the thread, I just learned they destroyed another big old building in this renovation. This must be the most historically destructive downtown development in a long time.
 
arvelomcquaig said:
Ughhh. Who on earth is running Women's College? I hadn't realized that the main building will be demolished, and only to clear room for a park, too? How is this possible? How does this make any sense? Is a park more beneficial to the hospital than a big building? And a parking garage bunker is going to replace the buildings? I don't understand the logic at all. And why wouldn't the building be protected by heritage designation? What a disaster. Looking back through the thread, I just learned they destroyed another big old building in this renovation. This must be the most historically destructive downtown development in a long time.
Click to expand...

Ideally I would have liked to see them demolish only the postwar extensions and revive the original Art Deco building behind. It wouldn't have even gotten in the way of those new bunkers they're building on the eastern side of the property.

f1244_it3017.jpg
 
Regrettable - I believe some of the early proposals for the project saw the retention of the Art Deco building. That said, I can certainly understand why they don't want to preserve it - these structures are turned into mostly admin spaces where they are kept (presumably because they are unsuitable for use as patient spaces due to code or other issues).

AoD
 
Not that I like what's being constructed here, but it's understandable that this outdated (technologically speaking, not stylistically or heritage-value-speaking) building is being felled. Medical buildings are like computers - one could technically use a 486 with Windows 95 today just as doctors and nurses can use buildings from 70 or 80 years ago - but in both cases, it makes even the simplest tasks that much more difficult. And in a field like patient care where the quality of service (keeping people alive) trumps the value of the building (again, beautiful structure, unfortunate circumstance) it becomes sort of obvious that the original WCH would not be long for this world.

What would you do arvelo? Increase all of floor heights by two to three feet as per the current standard? Cannibalize it to install necessary electrical and fiber-optic infrastructure? 'Historically destructive' yes, but only as a facet of a far more complex problem.
 
I agree with everything that has been said, which is why I'm not totally broken up about it (I'm far more heartbroken about 376 Dundas East, for instance). It's not the greatest example of Art Deco in the city, or even among the hospitals.

Still, it would make me feel better if we could at least say that it was being replaced by something aesthetically worthwhile.
 
Keep in mind, there will be a second phase one day !
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top