Totally agree. Apparently part of the reasoning for putting the hospital on the left side of the property is so that patient rooms look out onto the forested area and Laurel Creek.
The hospital plan includes transportation linkage between the RTP Ion station and the new hospital.
Having a nice view from a hospital is not an unreasonable goal, but you could come up with something smart without putting it in an awful location. At the same time, if this is the best argument why is it even being moved!
The lack of transit access is part of a larger mindset problem. The terms of reference (from the province, I think) for the site selection committee required a minimum size of 50 acres. So they were always thinking of a self-contained campus, not integration into the fabric of the city. This is bad not just for transit but also neighbouring complementary uses like private clinics or restaurants. (The midwife clinic we used is across the street from the current hospital.). Given that I am pleasantly surprised it isn't any farther out to the edge of the urban area.
I think they're also considering the need to minimize elevator use, so everything *has* to be on the ground floor. Since elevators do go down, especially in emergencies.
also "system flow" is a major design consideration
ER proximity to the cardiac centre for example and having a FEW vertical towers is NOT conducive to speedy access from one to the other also easy and QUICK vehicle access TO THE ER for both ambulance and medevac helicopters often times the ER is at the front doors on the ground level and the helipad on the highest point for safety of flight crews making towers require long rides in the lift in an environment where seconds count
There was a "stakeholder input" survey awhile back. I basically screamed good transit in every available box. As mentioned in another comment, the basic requirements for site selection were such that this was always going to be a greenfield development. So having it be this much inside the urban footprint feels like a minor miracle.
Also, the existing Grand River/Midtown location is going to get renovated and still be used for hospital functions.
Yeah, and I guess I would say then. I think the fundamental requirements were misguided! Lots of cities have managed to build nice hospitals on not purely Greenfield sites
As another commenter mentioned on the proposed site, there is a hydro corridor that must be contended with, and the closest land to the station is already unavailable. I am also speculating that the residential Corrie neighborhood wouldn't want these facilities abutting their property rather than being across a roadway (maybe a NIMBY POV but still a likely objection).
The Sun Life option downtown is also highly unlikely. That property is actually quite impressive (I used to work there), and has a modern (ex-Clarica) tower built on the Renaissance-style The Mutual Life building whose façade is designated by the Ontario Heritage Trust. It was actually a pioneering example of adaptive reuse architecture in Ontario.
That said, the new facility plans look appalling. Can you imagine walking from the far lot in winter? The building sprawl just doesn't seem efficient either. Hospitals are a good use case for parking garages to keep patients and care providers indoors. Heck, if GO can do it, why can't acute care facilities?
Unfortunately I don't see an easy transportation solution here at this site. A shuttle bus is a token solution that has very little value as far as I'm concerned. I know your feelings on gadgetbahns but given this is a technology and research park, it would be fitting if they could build a transportation system that connected key park sites and the Western UW campus with iON. It won't happen, but one can dream.
this is one of those cases there are DETAILS we can not know I assume and it is not pure malice /incompetence
SUNLIFE may not be willing to part with the parking lot land AND zoning laws may require the land for the existing office "footprint"
the lands that are "ideal" next to the transit might NOT be available for a price the Hospital can afford OR NOT AT ALL and expropriation can be very costly and time consuming when commercial owners WITH LAWYERS on speed dial are involved
we absolutely NEED to keep the pressure up but also realize this MIGHT BE the BEST OPTION in a country with strong private land ownership laws
Yeah, I'm thinking like eventually when we do need new hospitals again, if we want it in a transit oriented hub, we'll need to have 50 acres empty and ready to use. Not ready to expropriate, ready to be given. But that's the tradeoff.
"a few apartment towers actually don’t generate that many trips, but big institutions like offices (which often end up colocating with hospitals for supporting businesses like medical labs) generate way more than you’d expect and from a broader area."
Agreed--per 1,000 sq ft of space, office generates 2.86x as many trips as apartments. However:
1. Can life science research labs be transit-amenable land use? They're polluting, industrial and therefore are typically in sprawling business parks. Nonetheless, San Diego's University City (a life science research cluster) upzoned for 72K new jobs, largely around 5 LRT stations.
2. Is job density superior at trip generation simply because it is a bigger activity generator? San Diego's San Ysidro station has 100K northbound border crossings daily in only 40 acres--incredibly intense activity density, even though none of these travelers are employees!
I would say a destination is a bigger draw then the source
AKA tech park VS apartment estate and only one having transit next door
the apartment dwellers are CHOSEN because of there transportation modal at the signing of the lease AKA apartments with car parking attract car driving and apartments without spots are pre attractive to NON driving so yes the apartment pre screens potential transit users
BUT the destination is attracting to BOTH CAR and NON car users and can "dial" up or down transit usability and the percentage of riders through designs like car parking availability and price plus transit availability
add in "ONE" destination sourcing from MANY starting points IE a city has 100 thousand homes but 2 Hospitals and only one has the DR required
This site and the transit discussion around it is is quite the planning and project management juxtaposition. On one hand, a large new hospital is always going to be a major trip generator that should be well served by transit from day one. On the other hand, major deviations or changes from the original plan are one of the major causes of projects going over budget all across the anglosphere. So the question the planners and decision makers on this project have to answer now is what is the priority? Do they prioritize the ION connection? Do they prioritize getting the hospital complete for a smaller price tag? I can see the argument both ways. Looking into the future, it is likely that in 20 years we will care a lot more about transit connectivity to the hospital than the price tag, and so we should prioritize the transit aspect. Either way, I think this shows that good urban places are made as a result of a chain a good decisions, and not as the result of one good decision.
The Alberta government is doing the exact same thing with the new proposed site for the stollery children’s hospital in Edmonton. Moving it from directly across from an LRT stop to ≈1.5 km away. There are even empty lots beside the closest LRT stop.
It's been a while since I read the report, but I think helicopter flight paths are a problem at this site due to the HV power lines running through there. I think all of the proposals have the helipad on the patient blocks requiring an elevator journey to the ER. In general, that's probably acceptable since GRH isn't a major trauma centre that ORNGE would be bringing patients to, but rather, they would likely be bringing stabilized patients to the helipad to fly them to a larger hospital in Hamilton or Toronto.
Ontario has been building hospitals in greenfield sites outside of communities for over a century. Grand River Hospital is on the "other side of the tracks" between Kitchener and Waterloo. Mississauga Hospital (now "Trillium Health Partners Mississauga Site" beside Hurontario and Queensway, not to be confused with "Trillium Health Partners Queensway Site," also on Queensway, formerly Queensway General Hospital) was built right between Cooksville and Port Credit. Peel Memorial Hospital is on the "other side of the tracks" from old Brampton and located between Brampton and Bramalea, and what we call "Hospital Row" in downtown Toronto was once on the outskirts of the city.
There is some hope though. Brampton Civic on Bovaird has a suburban location but it's on a main street with good transit. William Osler Health System's Etobicoke General (an isolated suburban hospital) is now relatively more accessible & connected because of the Finch West LRT, and Humber River Health has a great campus at Keele and Wilson that could be connected to the subway by extending Line 4 through Downsview to Keele and Wilson.
Kingston is currently going down the same misguided path. Two large hospitals tied to Queens medical research and training are to be relocated from downtown to the far northwest suburbs on a greenfield site at the very edge of the urban boundary.
I’ve tried to draw attention to the fact that this new consolidated site will generate ~20,000 trips per day but folks just don’t seem to register the implications.
If someone were proposing to build a 20,000 seat arena on that site and promising it would have a sold out show everyday then I think people would question the transit and parking situation. But because it’s a hospital the idea of trip generation just doesn’t register. The reaction seems to be a shoulder shrug and a “I’m sure the planners have thought about that”
This situation is compounded by the close ties to Queens, meaning a lot of researchers, students, teachers, etc need to constantly move back and forth.
This fits a broader pattern: North America gets this wrong more often than the rest of the world. I think you’re onto something when you say these decisions “scream ‘I don’t take the bus or train and didn’t seriously think about people who do,’” but the issue is bigger than any individual planner or council member. Culturally, we lack an intuitive understanding of how to design for transit. Designing for cars, by contrast, is easy—almost any meandering layout works when everyone is traveling alone at 30 mph.
Now for the unpopular part: YIMBYs insisting that the “best practice” is TOD at every stop, or that the “best practice” is zero parking, doesn’t help either.
A brief detour. I’ve worked—and still work—in IT. Before the rise of Google and Amazon, IT was dominated by rigid “best practices”: the server team had theirs, the database team had theirs, the network team had theirs, and so on. The result was often overly complex systems that worked poorly. When the industry shifted from talking about “best practices” to talking about “patterns,” the dynamic changed. Instead of being locked into prescriptive rules, we discussed, defined, and tested patterns suited to specific situations. Patterns that worked were reused; those that didn’t were abandoned. Crucially, patterns were always context-dependent.
Applied here, that means a hospital benefits from being adjacent to a highway or stroad for ambulance access, while adjacency to transit is equally important for patients and staff who rely on it. That’s where the real discussion should begin.
The same mistake is happening in Windsor and elsewhere. Mississauga is the only place the province hasn’t botched this. Ontario is ignoring its own planning rules, moving hospitals to greenfield sites far from transit and urban cores.
Totally agree. Apparently part of the reasoning for putting the hospital on the left side of the property is so that patient rooms look out onto the forested area and Laurel Creek.
The hospital plan includes transportation linkage between the RTP Ion station and the new hospital.
Having a nice view from a hospital is not an unreasonable goal, but you could come up with something smart without putting it in an awful location. At the same time, if this is the best argument why is it even being moved!
The lack of transit access is part of a larger mindset problem. The terms of reference (from the province, I think) for the site selection committee required a minimum size of 50 acres. So they were always thinking of a self-contained campus, not integration into the fabric of the city. This is bad not just for transit but also neighbouring complementary uses like private clinics or restaurants. (The midwife clinic we used is across the street from the current hospital.). Given that I am pleasantly surprised it isn't any farther out to the edge of the urban area.
I think they're also considering the need to minimize elevator use, so everything *has* to be on the ground floor. Since elevators do go down, especially in emergencies.
also "system flow" is a major design consideration
ER proximity to the cardiac centre for example and having a FEW vertical towers is NOT conducive to speedy access from one to the other also easy and QUICK vehicle access TO THE ER for both ambulance and medevac helicopters often times the ER is at the front doors on the ground level and the helipad on the highest point for safety of flight crews making towers require long rides in the lift in an environment where seconds count
There was a "stakeholder input" survey awhile back. I basically screamed good transit in every available box. As mentioned in another comment, the basic requirements for site selection were such that this was always going to be a greenfield development. So having it be this much inside the urban footprint feels like a minor miracle.
Also, the existing Grand River/Midtown location is going to get renovated and still be used for hospital functions.
Yeah, and I guess I would say then. I think the fundamental requirements were misguided! Lots of cities have managed to build nice hospitals on not purely Greenfield sites
As another commenter mentioned on the proposed site, there is a hydro corridor that must be contended with, and the closest land to the station is already unavailable. I am also speculating that the residential Corrie neighborhood wouldn't want these facilities abutting their property rather than being across a roadway (maybe a NIMBY POV but still a likely objection).
The Sun Life option downtown is also highly unlikely. That property is actually quite impressive (I used to work there), and has a modern (ex-Clarica) tower built on the Renaissance-style The Mutual Life building whose façade is designated by the Ontario Heritage Trust. It was actually a pioneering example of adaptive reuse architecture in Ontario.
That said, the new facility plans look appalling. Can you imagine walking from the far lot in winter? The building sprawl just doesn't seem efficient either. Hospitals are a good use case for parking garages to keep patients and care providers indoors. Heck, if GO can do it, why can't acute care facilities?
Unfortunately I don't see an easy transportation solution here at this site. A shuttle bus is a token solution that has very little value as far as I'm concerned. I know your feelings on gadgetbahns but given this is a technology and research park, it would be fitting if they could build a transportation system that connected key park sites and the Western UW campus with iON. It won't happen, but one can dream.
this is one of those cases there are DETAILS we can not know I assume and it is not pure malice /incompetence
SUNLIFE may not be willing to part with the parking lot land AND zoning laws may require the land for the existing office "footprint"
the lands that are "ideal" next to the transit might NOT be available for a price the Hospital can afford OR NOT AT ALL and expropriation can be very costly and time consuming when commercial owners WITH LAWYERS on speed dial are involved
we absolutely NEED to keep the pressure up but also realize this MIGHT BE the BEST OPTION in a country with strong private land ownership laws
Yeah, I'm thinking like eventually when we do need new hospitals again, if we want it in a transit oriented hub, we'll need to have 50 acres empty and ready to use. Not ready to expropriate, ready to be given. But that's the tradeoff.
If you " need " to drive, you need to park.
It's expensive.
$4 for 30 minutes. $23 cap. Adds up fast ( north end of Toronto , Humber River Hospital ).
Good article. Thank you.
Oh that. Yeah, parking lots are a huge revenue generator for hospitals
Revenue generator but also expense sink. Parking lots and garages are not cheap to build or maintain.
Only if they're parking garages. Surface parking lots are much more profitable
There's a similar story in Edmonton where they selected the new children's hospital location so close yet so far from the LRT compared to the current direct connection https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/new-stollery-hospital-site-9.6990884
"a few apartment towers actually don’t generate that many trips, but big institutions like offices (which often end up colocating with hospitals for supporting businesses like medical labs) generate way more than you’d expect and from a broader area."
Agreed--per 1,000 sq ft of space, office generates 2.86x as many trips as apartments. However:
1. Can life science research labs be transit-amenable land use? They're polluting, industrial and therefore are typically in sprawling business parks. Nonetheless, San Diego's University City (a life science research cluster) upzoned for 72K new jobs, largely around 5 LRT stations.
2. Is job density superior at trip generation simply because it is a bigger activity generator? San Diego's San Ysidro station has 100K northbound border crossings daily in only 40 acres--incredibly intense activity density, even though none of these travelers are employees!
I would say a destination is a bigger draw then the source
AKA tech park VS apartment estate and only one having transit next door
the apartment dwellers are CHOSEN because of there transportation modal at the signing of the lease AKA apartments with car parking attract car driving and apartments without spots are pre attractive to NON driving so yes the apartment pre screens potential transit users
BUT the destination is attracting to BOTH CAR and NON car users and can "dial" up or down transit usability and the percentage of riders through designs like car parking availability and price plus transit availability
add in "ONE" destination sourcing from MANY starting points IE a city has 100 thousand homes but 2 Hospitals and only one has the DR required
This site and the transit discussion around it is is quite the planning and project management juxtaposition. On one hand, a large new hospital is always going to be a major trip generator that should be well served by transit from day one. On the other hand, major deviations or changes from the original plan are one of the major causes of projects going over budget all across the anglosphere. So the question the planners and decision makers on this project have to answer now is what is the priority? Do they prioritize the ION connection? Do they prioritize getting the hospital complete for a smaller price tag? I can see the argument both ways. Looking into the future, it is likely that in 20 years we will care a lot more about transit connectivity to the hospital than the price tag, and so we should prioritize the transit aspect. Either way, I think this shows that good urban places are made as a result of a chain a good decisions, and not as the result of one good decision.
The Alberta government is doing the exact same thing with the new proposed site for the stollery children’s hospital in Edmonton. Moving it from directly across from an LRT stop to ≈1.5 km away. There are even empty lots beside the closest LRT stop.
It's been a while since I read the report, but I think helicopter flight paths are a problem at this site due to the HV power lines running through there. I think all of the proposals have the helipad on the patient blocks requiring an elevator journey to the ER. In general, that's probably acceptable since GRH isn't a major trauma centre that ORNGE would be bringing patients to, but rather, they would likely be bringing stabilized patients to the helipad to fly them to a larger hospital in Hamilton or Toronto.
Major glaring error in entire piece identitfied site not near big enuff
Ontario has been building hospitals in greenfield sites outside of communities for over a century. Grand River Hospital is on the "other side of the tracks" between Kitchener and Waterloo. Mississauga Hospital (now "Trillium Health Partners Mississauga Site" beside Hurontario and Queensway, not to be confused with "Trillium Health Partners Queensway Site," also on Queensway, formerly Queensway General Hospital) was built right between Cooksville and Port Credit. Peel Memorial Hospital is on the "other side of the tracks" from old Brampton and located between Brampton and Bramalea, and what we call "Hospital Row" in downtown Toronto was once on the outskirts of the city.
There is some hope though. Brampton Civic on Bovaird has a suburban location but it's on a main street with good transit. William Osler Health System's Etobicoke General (an isolated suburban hospital) is now relatively more accessible & connected because of the Finch West LRT, and Humber River Health has a great campus at Keele and Wilson that could be connected to the subway by extending Line 4 through Downsview to Keele and Wilson.
Kingston is currently going down the same misguided path. Two large hospitals tied to Queens medical research and training are to be relocated from downtown to the far northwest suburbs on a greenfield site at the very edge of the urban boundary.
I’ve tried to draw attention to the fact that this new consolidated site will generate ~20,000 trips per day but folks just don’t seem to register the implications.
If someone were proposing to build a 20,000 seat arena on that site and promising it would have a sold out show everyday then I think people would question the transit and parking situation. But because it’s a hospital the idea of trip generation just doesn’t register. The reaction seems to be a shoulder shrug and a “I’m sure the planners have thought about that”
This situation is compounded by the close ties to Queens, meaning a lot of researchers, students, teachers, etc need to constantly move back and forth.
This fits a broader pattern: North America gets this wrong more often than the rest of the world. I think you’re onto something when you say these decisions “scream ‘I don’t take the bus or train and didn’t seriously think about people who do,’” but the issue is bigger than any individual planner or council member. Culturally, we lack an intuitive understanding of how to design for transit. Designing for cars, by contrast, is easy—almost any meandering layout works when everyone is traveling alone at 30 mph.
Now for the unpopular part: YIMBYs insisting that the “best practice” is TOD at every stop, or that the “best practice” is zero parking, doesn’t help either.
A brief detour. I’ve worked—and still work—in IT. Before the rise of Google and Amazon, IT was dominated by rigid “best practices”: the server team had theirs, the database team had theirs, the network team had theirs, and so on. The result was often overly complex systems that worked poorly. When the industry shifted from talking about “best practices” to talking about “patterns,” the dynamic changed. Instead of being locked into prescriptive rules, we discussed, defined, and tested patterns suited to specific situations. Patterns that worked were reused; those that didn’t were abandoned. Crucially, patterns were always context-dependent.
Applied here, that means a hospital benefits from being adjacent to a highway or stroad for ambulance access, while adjacency to transit is equally important for patients and staff who rely on it. That’s where the real discussion should begin.
The same mistake is happening in Windsor and elsewhere. Mississauga is the only place the province hasn’t botched this. Ontario is ignoring its own planning rules, moving hospitals to greenfield sites far from transit and urban cores.