New Ottawa Civic Hospital [930 Carling Ave + 520 Preston St] | U/C

[acottawa]

The new MUHC hospital in Montreal is mostly 5 floors, with a few sections 9 floors. The new humber river hospital in Toronto has a large low-rise section and a small tower. I know this is a forum for people who like tall buildings, but lowrise or partially low-rise hospitals seem to be a trend.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

An interesting article, indeed. It does appear to be written with the goal of convincing people that the building must be large, low, and sprawling and that there must be a large expanse of surface parking around it; and that it all needs to be accommodated in the city core.

Apparently, a third of the ‘visits’ (presumably those in for help, not those visiting patients) came from Ottawa’s central core. I’m shocked, just shocked, to hear that most people going to that hospital came from around it. OK, that was sarcasm. Of course people would go to their closest hospital. What really surprises me is that the number is only one third. Where are the other two thirds of the patients coming from? Is there a better location for the hospital that could better balance those numbers to be half of the patients coming from inside and half coming from outside the city’s core? Would that make the most sense? Maybe not since the number of patients doesn’t tell anything about how far (and, thus how long) patients need to travel to get to the hospital.

Remember, this is the region’s ONLY trauma hospital; so it needs to be positioned to serve the entire region, not just the city’s core. If there needs to be medical services specifically dedicated to the core, then perhaps there should be a smaller, ‘Community’ hospital (like the Queensway-Carleton or the Montfort) built in the core with a full trauma centre built in the center of the region.

There is also talk that the Civic campus of the Ottawa Hospital needs to accommodate all of the research that could happen there. Maybe that research also doesn’t need to be in the core. There is, currently, space available out at the General campus; so maybe that is where research should be centered. There are strong arguments for clustering research, so let’s do that at the General. This would reduce the land requirement for a new hospital while making better use of the empty space at the General.

As for the idea that some main components of a hospital “must be next to each other because minutes matter”; there is no benefit in having to walk 50 metres on the same floor over taking a fast elevator one floor up and having only 5 metres to walk. A sprawling building is not the most efficient, distance-wise. A compact cube would have shorter average distances than a flat building of the same area. The building must be designed to be efficient, meaning that facilities that need to be close to each other are close – regardless of whether that closeness is one over the other or beside.

Parking is a requirement for hospitals; there is no question about that. The majority of people going to the hospital, be they patients, visitors, or employees, will arrive by private vehicle. There needs to be sufficient parking – but it should not be on expansive surface lots. If an acre of flat land can house about 150 parking spaces, the Civic’s claim that it needs 3,400 spaces means that it would require almost 23 acres just for parking! This is for a hospital that is planning to have 700-800 beds. I say put the parking into a structure and use less space; granted, at additional cost. (Although Canadians do have a reputation for liking to drive to places; with the Guinness World Record for the largest parking lot still belonging to the West Edmonton Mall.)

Hey, how about this crazy idea: do a real analysis of what medical services are needed and where they should be located and then check to see if there is space in the area/areas that things need to be built. And, if it turns out that there should be a single, large hospital near the Civic’s current location, I’d vote to put it on the old Sir John Carling Building’s site and have it cascade down the slope into (the temporary) Queen Julianna Park. Perhaps, use a parking structure to build up the level so that there are only a few floors of hospital above the parking, stretching onto the higher grade. If it turns out that there should be a local hospital in the core and a major trauma centre elsewhere, then find land that works specificly with that scenario.

The other two thirds are split between the north, south, east and west suburbs. Very small proportions are from any one area of the city outside the core. The trauma hospital should be central to ensure a equal distance for everyone (just as our NHL arena should be central).

I can't for the life of me think of any reason to place our trauma centre outside downtown. That is where you have the largest proportion of traumas; major car accidents, cyclists and pedestrians getting hit, possible disasters or accidents, God forbid attacks that could see a high amount of injuries or casualties. It is paramount, not only because it is the last downtown hospital, but because it is our trauma centre, to build the new Civic in the core.

I don't know enough about the research, but I agree that we certainly could move parts of it just as agriculture research can be moved elsewhere if need be.

As for the way its built, horizontal or vertical, I tend to agree that the Emergency, diagnostics, operating rooms so on and so forth, should be as much as possible on the same level. Its easier to push a bed or a wheelchair straight through to your destination (with the possibility of increasing speed in case of emergency) than it is to press the up button and wait for an elevator. Then there's maneuvering the bed/wheelchair, guy on crutches, through the flock of people getting on and off. Serivces on one or two floors, hospital rooms in a tower.

I agree with you on parking. Majority will drive, plus it is a good source of revenue for the hospital. Parking should be in multi level garages, not on one giant surface parking lot. We can't just consider building costs, but land value. Instead of a 23 acre surface lot, we could use 8 acres for parking structures and sell the other 15 acres to help fund the hospital project.

[lrt's friend]

Why don't they just buy up the Westgate site and the Royal Ottawa and have an almost continuous hospital from the existing site to the Queensway?

[Norman Bates]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Why don't they just buy up the Westgate site and the Royal Ottawa and have an almost continuous hospital from the existing site to the Queensway?

My suggestion about a year ago. I was astounded to discover that it was not one of the proposed sites.

[1overcosc]

My guess is that RioCan doesn't want to sell.

[waterloowarrior]

direct link to the NCC survey
http://nccconsultationccn.environics.ca/

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

My guess is that RioCan doesn't want to sell.

Land that is already publically owned is always cheaper.

[rocketphish]

'There is no perfect site': Public consultation for new Civic hospital begins

Elizabeth Payne, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: September 22, 2016 | Last Updated: September 22, 2016 9:20 PM EDT

After nearly two years of controversy over the site of a new $2-billion Civic hospital, the National Capital Commission asked members of the public for advice Thursday on how to select a location from 12 available federal sites.

The new process is needed to get “social licence” for the project, said NCC CEO Mark Kristmanson.

“I think that was the problem the first time around.”

But one official overseeing the selection process warned that whichever location is chosen, there will have to be tradeoffs.

“Clearly, there is no perfect site,” said Sandra Candow, chief of federal approvals with the NCC.

The project has been mired in controversy since the previous federal government announced in 2015 that it was giving the hospital 60 acres of the Central Experimental Farm land to build on.

The current federal government handed the file to the NCC, which unveiled 12 federal sites last month, including the original choice, directly across from the current hospital.

There are two other sites being considered along Carling Avenue — one just east of the corner site and one at the site of the former Sir John Carling building near Carling and Prince of Wales. There is another on farm land near Baseline and Merivale roads.

The other sites include Tunney’s Pasture, Lincoln Fields, the federal government’s Booth Street complex, two sites on West Hunt Club road near Highway 416, one on Woodroffe near Hunt Club and the Merivale Road-Woodroffe Avenue corridor.

The NCC board of directors will vote on a site on Nov. 23.

On Thursday, the NCC unveiled the criteria for selecting the best site and asked members of the public for input during a consultation at the Canadian War Museum.

It is a process Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre calls a waste of time that is pushing Ottawa further down the province’s list of “priority sites for a new hospital.” On Thursday, he tried but failed to pass a motion directing the Commons health committee to look into why the federal government rejected the original decision to put the hospital on the Experimental F arm.

The northwest corner of the Experimental Farm was carefully selected by an expert panel before it was announced in 2015, he said. “It was the best option the hospital had and that is why it was selected.”

The NCC is evaluating the 12 sites based on how well they meet the functional needs of the hospital, and how they meet local and federal interests.

NCC officials heard from numerous people concerned about the federal agency’s ability to measure the value of the agricultural research that goes on at the Central Experimental Farm.

“This is not just a corn field, this is science,” said one participant.

Kristmanson replied: “I want to assure people that public science is taken very seriously.”

Several people said they were happy to see a more transparent process for choosing a new site.

“I care very much about having robust health services, but I also care about our green space. I am very invested in making a good choice,” said retired hospital employee Mary McNamara. “I know it will be a difficult decision that won’t please everybody.”

Leslie Maitland of the Coalition to Protect the Farm, which opposes building on the farm, said the process by which the decision is made is crucial.

“They are putting forward a fair process in which everyone will have a say on the site of our future hospital. Let’s get it right.”

[email protected]

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news...nsultation-for-new-civic-hospital-begins

[passwordisnt123]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

direct link to the NCC survey
http://nccconsultationccn.environics.ca/

Thanks for this! I just submitted my feedback to them. Felt good.

My three preferred options are options # 1, 11 and 12. I think any one of those three would be acceptable and could even be superior to the current location if designed properly.

In my opinion, options 8, 9 and 10 are acceptable but less desirable than 1, 11 and 12.

I think options 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 are all so wildly inappropriate that their inclusion on this list is borderline offensive. If the Civic Hospital is moved to any one of these locations, Ottawa will become the only city of this size that I can think of with no major hospital in the downtown urban core. Additionally, as Ottawa's main trauma hospital, there is a duty of care to ensure that the Civic Hospital is centrally located so that patients from all corners of the city have a roughly equal distance to travel to receive urgent care for trauma injuries.

[rocketphish]

'It would set the research clock back to zero': Unmuzzled scientists speak out on Farm lands

Elizabeth Payne, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: September 23, 2016 | Last Updated: September 23, 2016 9:16 PM EDT

For nearly two years, Agriculture Canada soil scientist Ed Gregorich has kept his head down and focused on his work while the debate about the future home of the Civic hospital raged around him.

This week, Gregorich and Malcolm Morrison, both research scientists who call Field No. 1 at the Central Experimental Farm their outdoor laboratories, did something that hasn’t happened before: They spoke up about the impact building a hospital on the farm would have on their work and other research.

The unmuzzling of the scientists whose work is at the centre of the debate over the new hospital is just one way the issue has shifted since 2014 when the Conservative government announced it would transfer 60 acres of the Experimental Farm across from the current Civic for a new $2-billion hospital. Site selection has also begun again, with the National Capital Commission in charge.

This week marked the beginning of a public consultation process over 12 potential federal sites, something NCC CEO Mark Kristmanson said would help build “social licence” for a new hospital site.

“I think that was the problem the first around.”

Gregorich and Morrison were at an out-of-town conference in November 2014 when someone contacted them to ask if they had heard the news: “They just gave away the farm.” The scientists were blindsided.

“I was shocked,” said Gregorich.

Back then, Gregorich’s only statements on the issue were in the form of an email exchange with a superior obtained through access to information in which Gregorich asked if those making the decision understood that the work being done on the field was “irreplaceable.” They understand, his superior responded, but they don’t care.

Gregorich said he understood that he could not speak publicly about the issue in 2015.

“Let’s just say there were clear messages.”

But this summer, he felt it was important to talk about the work so that Ottawa residents better understand what goes on at the farm. So he asked his superiors and they said yes, “as long as I talk about science”. He also took part in a consultation session with the NCC.

Walking in the fields of corn, wheat and soybeans Gregorich and Morrison acknowledged it is difficult to put a value on the work that they and other scientists do.

“That is something that is hard to get across to the public and hard for people to understand. It (looks like) a big open field, but these are like laboratories for us.”

Studies done on the farm directly contribute to Canada’s multi-billion-dollar agriculture industry. Some of Gregorich’s ongoing work has also contributed to a better understanding of climate change and was contributed to the 2007 Nobel Prize for work on climate change.

Not only would building a hospital there “set the clock back to zero” on research that uses accumulated data from the field, but the impact on farm research fields would be bigger than the 60 acres needed for the hospital, Gregorich said.

Taking 60 acres for a hospital would leave about 30 acres of “orphaned” fields at the south end of the hospital lands which would be difficult to use for research — the hospital is unlikely to want manure spreading, dusty crop work and herbicide application around the edges of a health complex complete with “healing gardens”.

Gregorich says the actual impact on the farm’s research fields at that site would be closer to 90 acres.

His work includes experiments comparing tilled vs. untilled crops have provided data that were cited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and helped farmers understand the benefits and disadvantages of tilling versus not tilling their soil, among other things. The experiments have been going on since 1992.

Morrison works on soybean and other research in the same fields.

A soil carbon cycling experiment on the site is part of an international network of soil experimental plots in collaboration with three other countries. It was also the site in which Marquis wheat was developed, which has been credited with being as important to the opening the Canadian west as the railroad .

Research done at the Farm drives economic development in Canada, say Gregorich and Morrison, and it offers crucial information during a time in which global warming is a game changer for agriculture.

If the hospital goes on the site “that sets us back to zero and you lose a lot,” said Gregorich.

“We’ve got this wonderful resource we can use. If we shut it down it will take us years and years to get up to the speed where we can do things that we are doing now.”

The northwest corner of the Central Experimental Farm is just one site being considered by the NCC. There are two others on the Farm along Carling Avenue — one just east of the corner site and one at the site of the former Sir John Carling building near Carling and Prince of Wales. There is another on farm land near Baseline and Merivale roads.

The other sites include Tunney’s Pasture, Lincoln Fields, the federal government’s Booth Street complex, two sites on West Hunt Club road near Highway 416, one on Woodroffe near Hunt Club and the Merivale Road-Woodroffe Avenue corridor.

[email protected]

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news...zzled-scientists-speak-out-on-farm-lands

[rocketphish]

More than 400 attend consultation on Ottawa Hospital Civic campus

By Melissa Murray
Ottawa West News, Sep 23, 2016

Hands off the Central Experimental Farm – that was the message heard loud and clear at the public consultation on 12 potential sites for the Ottawa Hospital’s new Civic campus hosted by the National Capital Commission on Sept. 22 at the Canadian War Museum.

Among the more than 400 people in attendance for the evening presentation and question and answer period were those wearing pins made from Mason jar lids with Save CEF written in black marker.

Four of the 12 potential sites are on the Central Experimental Farm, and most participants spoke against that possibility. In favour was David McDonald, who lives just behind the existing Civic campus. He recommended the hospital be placed across Carling Avenue from the current hospital on Central Experimental Farm land.

He said he's recently seen too much of the inside of the hospital.

“When I look south and see a cornfield, I just have a hard time remembering the last time a cornfield saved my life.”

But several speakers took exception to McDonald’s characterization of the experimental farm as just a cornfield.

Bob McClelland, from Cantley, Que., wondered how the NCC will value the research field through the site review process.

“Please stop calling the Central Experimental Farm agriculture land. It’s research land, this is science, this is an outdoor lab,” he said to loud applause, noting research on the farm has contributed to a Nobel Prize.

“It’s not just a cornfield, you wouldn’t call the heart institute just a brick building.”

NCC staff noted they have received a lot of information about the work and research done on the farm over the summer, including some of the long-term projects on climate change.

Katie Ward, from West Carleton, stood among more than 20 people who lined up at microphones to ask questions, wearing a bright blue shirt that read Farming is Public Service.

“Nobody is disputing the need for a new Civic hospital … but we need to make sure that this research that supports our farmers providing food that is going to be in that hospital cafeteria gets preserved.”

Following several comments and questions from participants urging the NCC to look at the sites that don’t include the experimental farm, Kristmanson assured the crowd of the process and that public feedback will be used to determine the best site for the hospital, among other criteria.

He said the evaluation committee wants to hear which criteria are important to people to help them throughout the qualitative process.

“We’ve got the farm thing,” said Mark Kristmanson, CEO of the NCC nearing the end of the evening, urging participants to address other issues.

“We have to get it right; it does have life or death consequences later on.”

When a comment came about what the broader public would think if it knew the NCC was giving away federal land for an Ontario hospital, Kristmanson had a reply for participants.

“We’re asking you what you think should happen through an evidence-based process, not a passion-based one,” Kristmanson said.

On that note, Lianne Dwyer of Dunrobin, who sits on the board of the Agricultural Institute of Canada, wasn’t confident about the NCC’s process, saying it’s a complicated task to have completed by the end of November.

“You say you want evidence-based … but I don’t see the timeframe, and it makes me nervous,” she said.

“This may not be as legitimate a process as I’d like it to be.”

Participants in the consultation also expressed the need for the new hospital to be accessible by public transit and questioned the need for 3,300 parking spaces.

The online consultation is open until Oct. 6 and the NCC will receive a presentation on the site review process on Nov. 23, before forwarding a recommendation to the Minister of Canadian Heritage. To make comments, go to http://www.ncc-ccn.gc.ca/property-manage...hospital-site-review-public-consultation and click take the survey.


Long list of possible sites
• Tunney’s Pasture off Scott Street
• Lincoln Fields, near the Pinecrest Pathway
• The north side of West Hunt Club Road near Highway 416
• Woodroffe Avenue near West Hunt Club Road
• The Merivale Road, Woodroffe Avenue corridor
• Central Experimental Farm – Carling Avenue (west)
• Central Experimental Farm – Carling Avenue (central)
• Central Experimental Farm – Carling Avenue (east)
• Booth Street complex

Draft Selection Criteria
• Size of site supports the hospital’s functional needs
• Site is within the urban area and close to amenities
• Site is configured to permit flexibility for location of facilities
• Optimal distance from other hospitals
• Emergency access to arterial roads, major roads, major highways and air ambulance
• Scope of constructability issues, such as soil conditions and potential demolitions, proximity and synergies with complementary functions, health services and academic institutions

-With files from Jennifer McIntosh

Melissa Murray is a reporter with the Ottawa West News. She can be reached at [email protected] .

http://www.ottawacommunitynews.com/news-...ltation-on-ottawa-hospital-civic-campus/

[rocketphish]

Federal report casts doubt on future value of experimental farm's climate science

Andrew Duffy, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: September 25, 2016 | Last Updated: September 25, 2016 6:14 PM EDT

A controversial new federal report suggests that most of the climate change studies at the Central Experimental Farm will wrap up by March 2018.

The report was prepared by Environment and Climate Change Canada in response to a series of questions submitted by the commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.

It was recently published on the website of the Auditor General of Canada, but at least one federal scientist insists that it is plain wrong.

The report says that eight scientific studies are underway at the Central Experimental Farm that deal with specific issues related to climate change. According to the study, two were completed in March 2016, one is to be completed in March 2017 and five more in March 2018.

Three other studies that address climate change issues are planned for the site, but have yet to be launched. One of those studies could be conducted elsewhere, the study says, but two others are specifically designed to take advantage of the unique characteristics of the soil at the farm and the detailed, historic knowledge of its land management.

“Overall,” the study concluded, “the impact of closing down studies on the site are more relevant to scientific knowledge supporting the agricultural productivity and economy than scientific knowledge on environment and climate change.”

The authors of the study said they could not assess the value of the climate science that would be lost by transferring 60 acres of the farm to the National Capital Commission for the construction of a new hospital: “At this point, the value of this foregone knowledge cannot be assessed, nor the acceptability of this knowledge not being created.”

A federal scientist who works at the Central Experimental Farm, however, called the study deeply flawed and insisted Friday that its authors do not understand the nature of climate studies.

Ed Gregorich, a soil scientist whose research contributed to the 2007 Nobel Prize awarded the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said the report’s conclusions are based on a poor understanding of the way climate change research is funded — usually in renewable, three-year blocks.

“Climate change research is not ending at all,” he said. “I have one that will go beyond 2018, but our funding cycle is three years.”

Gregorich said long-term research on the field is valuable because it’s built on a base of historical knowledge. If that research is moved, he argued, its value is lost.

“Climate change science is going to continue, but if we move, that changes everything because you start from zero. Then you don’t have the data that you have accumulated that you can use to validate models,” he said. “We are trying to address big questions here and you need this type of long-term information.”

Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre said Friday the government report leaves little doubt that eight of the climate studies now underway at the farm would be completed before any shovel goes into the ground for a new hospital.

“The argument we’ve been hearing from the friends of the farm is that this is critically important to environmental and climate change research. But this document says explicitly the contrary.”

Poilievre has asked federal officials to explain what specific research will be scuttled by the hospital proposal that could not be moved to another part of the farm, or to a new site. He is still waiting for that breakdown.

“I don’t see any irreplaceably precious research happening — certainly not any that would justify blocking the construction of a public hospital,” he said.

Leslie Maitland, co-chair of the Coalition to Protect the Experimental Farm, said the value of the farm’s climate change research is “pretty obvious.”

“We’re losing unique studies that have been underway for decades,” she said. “Meanwhile, we just had the driest summer in Eastern Ontario in decades, and farmers are desperate for the information and the strategies that the Experimental Farm can provide for them to cope with a changing climate.”

Maitland’s coalition petitioned the federal government in January under Sect. 22 of the Auditor General Act, demanding answers to a series of questions about the former Conservative government’s decision to transfer a parcel of farm land to the NCC for a new hospital in Ottawa.

The current government handed the file to the NCC. Last week, the NCC held a consultation session to solicit public opinion about 12 potential sites for a new Civic campus of The Ottawa Hospital. Four of the 12 sites being evaluated are on the farm, a national historic site that dates to 1886.

The NCC board of directors will vote on a site in late November

— With files from Elizabeth Payne

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news...ue-of-experimental-farms-climate-science

[rocketphish]

Talk to the hand, Skippy... talk to the hand.

Hospital site more valuable than farmland, Poilievre tells NCC

Andrew Duffy, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: October 4, 2016 | Last Updated: October 4, 2016 11:48 AM EDT

Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre says using part of the Central Experimental Farm to build a new hospital offers more value to the public than the environmental science that would be lost to the project.

In a written submission to the National Capital Commission, Poilievre urges the Crown corporation to endorse the plan first unveiled by the former Conservative government in November 2014.

“I hope that the NCC will conclude that the decision made two years ago was the right one, and allow The Ottawa Hospital to get on with building this important new hospital,” he wrote.

The NCC is accepting public feedback until Thursday as it completes its review of potential building sites for the new, $2-billion Civic campus of The Ottawa Hospital. Four of the 12 sites being evaluated are on the Experimental Farm, a national historic site that dates to 1886.

More than 3,000 people have already expressed their views through an online survey.

Poilievre, a former cabinet minister, said the NCC board must ultimately answer the question: Does the research being done at the farm outweigh the value of a new hospital?

In his letter, he contends the farm’s supporters have yet to provide specifics about what research will be lost. “It is clear that the greater good would be served by using a small portion of the farm — roughly six per cent — to build a new state-of-the-art hospital facility,” he argued.

He said the 92-year-old Civic is in desperate need of replacement.

Ed Gregorich, a federal soil scientist, has said that long-term research on the farm is invaluable because it’s built on a base of historical knowledge that’s unavailable anywhere else.

Poilievre said the previous Conservative government used an expert panel to examine many of the same 12 sites now being considered by the NCC, and concluded that the Experimental Farm was the best place for a new hospital since it is centrally located with good access to Highway 417, and close to both the Royal Ottawa Hospital and the University of Ottawa Heart Institute.

The Carleton MP argued that no site will make everyone happy.

“Since the NCC’s review process began, almost every site has seen at least one person or organization complain about some aspect of the potential site — whether it’s Lincoln Fields or the Farm. We are building a G7 nation’s capital,” he argued, “and it will require a vision that serves current and future residents well into the next century.”

The NCC board of directors will vote on a site in late November.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news...luable-than-farmland-poilievre-tells-ncc

[kwoldtimer]

Chalk or cheese? In 500 words or less, please discuss which is more important and why.

[rocketphish]

NCC survey doesn't ask public to name favoured site for new Civic

Don Butler, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: October 4, 2016 | Last Updated: October 4, 2016 5:03 PM EDT

The National Capital Commission‘s survey soliciting public views on the location of The Ottawa Hospital’s new Civic campus doesn’t directly ask participants which of the 12 potential sites they favour.

The online survey, which will remain active on the NCC’s website until Thursday, asks numerous questions about the criteria the NCC should use to decide which site would be the best choice.

But the closest it comes to asking participants which site they favour is a question that reads: “Do you have any comments regarding any of the specific sites you would like to share with the NCC?”

That didn’t satisfy Citizen reader Doug Bibby, who emailed the newspaper Tuesday after completing the survey.

“The problem that I found with the survey was that it did not ask which location I would choose,” Bibby said in his email. “They asked a lot of questions about rationale, but never a location.”

Leslie Maitland, a spokeswoman for a coalition of groups that oppose use of Central Experimental Farm land for the hospital, called the NCC’s decision not to directly ask survey participants to name their preferred site “a bit of a head-scratcher.

“Maybe they should have said, ‘Which site do you favour and why?'” she said.

Canadian Heritage Minister Mélanie Joly asked the NCC to review of all possible locations for the hospital last spring and advise her of its chosen site by the end of November.

NCC spokesman Nicholas Galletti said the survey’s question about the sites “is open-ended precisely to attract any views or information the public may have on the sites. We are specifically looking for any information that would help inform the assessment of each site.”

Galletti said many survey participants have provided their views on preferred sites, and many have also suggested sites other than the 12 identified by the NCC.

Maitland said people have been asking her how to answer to survey’s criteria questions in a way that makes it clear they oppose use of Experimental Farm land.

She has been advising them to use the survey’s “comment” section to discuss the sites they favour and provide their reasons.

“From that perspective, (the survey) really does feed into the win-win narrative that we’ve been promoting,” Maitland said. “You can do both. You can protect a national resource and you can also get the best hospital location.”

After the survey closes on Thursday, the results will be compiled and shared with an evaluation committee that will make a recommendation to the NCC’s board of directors next month.

[email protected]
twitter.com/ButleDon

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news...blic-to-name-favoured-site-for-new-civic

[rocketphish]

Listen to Pierre Poilievre speaking, if you can stand it, on CBC's All In A Day this afternoon about why he thinks new Civic Hospital campus should be on Central Experimental Farm:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/pro...e-on-central-experimental-farm-1.3793131

[lrt's friend]

I heard Pierre on CFRA a few days ago talking about this. It was all political spin. The evil Liberals dared to second guess the Conservative decision. How wonderful the Conservative analysis was. No mention that there was no public consultation. That all the research was going to end shortly, although it is now known that it is on a standard renewable cycle. How little of the CEF is affected, not mentioning that this is the second sell off of CEF property. I consider this the slippery slope to destroying one of the most unique and distinctive features of the City of Ottawa.

[Richard Eade]

I filled out the survey AND sent in an e-mail of my comments because the 1,000 characters allowed in the survey didn’t provide space for an analysis of each location.

Of course, the study is a bit of a sham anyway. Apparently the first thing the NCC did was to “verify” the hospitals need for 60 acres, including 3,300-3,600 parking spaces. I asked how that verification was done. The answer shocked me (although it probably shouldn’t have): The answer was – “We asked the Hospital what they thought that they might need.”

I expect the ‘study’ will recommend the original plot of land since that is the one that the Hospital wants and the ‘study’ simply asked the hospital what it wanted. Adding a bunch of ‘list-fillers’ won’t make a difference to the outcome.

[rocketphish]

The next big fight around a new Civic hospital — and yes, it involves parking

Elizabeth Payne, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: October 6, 2016 | Last Updated: October 6, 2016 6:48 PM EDT

When Ottawa’s new Civic hospital is complete, it will be encircled by more parking spots than almost any new hospital in the province. And the majority of those 3,400 proposed spots could be surface parking, stretching over 15-20 acres, along with access roads. An average Costco parking lot, by comparison, contains about 600 spots. The vast parking lots at the Canadian Tire Centre have more than 6,500 spots.

There are early signs that parking will be the next battle on the road to a new $2 billion super hospital in Ottawa. It is a controversial issue, partly driven by provincial funding policy. And Ottawa is not alone.

In communities across Ontario, critics are lining up against what they say are hospital plans that promote sprawl and run counter to modern planning philosophy, which encourages denser development. In Windsor, where critics oppose plans to build a new hospital on the edge of the city rather than downtown, the proposed hospital has been called “a parking lot with a hospital attached.”

In Ottawa, where the new hospital will be centrally located, architect Barry Padolsky calls the plans to locate it on 50-60 acres with 15-20 acres for parking and access roads an “American suburban model. It has an enormous footprint.” He argues that the new hospital should be built near the LRT or the O-Train and encourage use of public transit rather than parking. The fact that four of the sites being considered for the new hospital are located on the Central Experimental Farm makes the prospect of acres of paved parking lots a tough sell, given the criticism around selection of a site for the hospital.

Critics of new hospital planning are not the only ones for whom parking is touchy, though. Parking is both emotional for patients and visitors — as well as area residents — and a tough financial issue for already squeezed hospitals.

This week, after years of pressure from hospital patients and visitors, the province froze hospital parking fees and told hospitals that charge more than $10 a day to offer 50 per cent discounts for longer stays. Patients and visitors have long complained that they already pay taxes for health care and high parking costs function as a further tax.

Parking revenues are not a huge amount of money compared with hospital budgets. But hospitals have come to rely on it to buy equipment and pay for other capital expenses. In 2015-16, parking revenue at the Civic campus totalled $3.93 million. Provincial changes to parking rates limit parking as a revenue stream. Provincial policy also helps determine hospital land use. The province pays the majority of the cost of new hospitals — in Ottawa, a $400-million fundraising campaign, the hospital’s biggest, will raise funds for the community’s share of the $2 billion hospital. But the province does not pay for parking structures.

The Ottawa Hospital has not yet determined whether all parking will be on the surface or in parking structures. But information it has prepared on the issue notes that building parking structures will add significantly to the cost of the hospital: $16 million for surface parking, $100 million for above-ground parking and $291 million for underground parking. “Funding solutions would be required to implement the more expensive parking options,” said the online document about parking at the new hospital.

David Musyj is the chief executive of Windsor Regional Hospital which is planning for 3,000 surface parking spots at its new hospital. Surface parking was an obvious choice, he said.

Trying to raise money in the community for a parking garage, he said, would be impossible. “It’s like saying ‘We could have had two MRIs, but instead we built this parking garage where we could have had surface parking.’ Sometimes you have no choice.”

That is one of the multiple issues facing The Ottawa Hospital, said chief operating officer Cameron Love. Another sticking point, he said, is that parking space is needed to reduce pressure on patients and visitors (hundreds of whom were issued parking tickets on Ruskin Street, beside the hospital, in 2015), and to provide parking for staff, most of whom currently park at sites leased by the hospital.

The Civic hospital currently has about 1,200 spots for visitors, which Love said are not enough. “There is no questions there is not near enough parking. We do not have the capacity to manage patients.” In addition, according to a hospital spokesperson, the hospital leases about 1,200 parking spots for staff off-site.

Love said mass transit will be an option for some staff, “but most patients, families and visitors are not going to take a transit system (to the hospital).”

Love and Windsor’s Musyj noted that designs for new hospitals make parking much more user-friendly for patients and families, with parking lots designed in hubs that put patients and visitors close to the part of the hospital they are using.

Once the land is chosen, Love said, there will be a more detailed consultation on parking, among other things, which could trim the number of parking spots, something Mark Kristmanson — the head of the NCC — has hinted will happen. “We are very open at looking at options for parking.”

But no matter what the final figure is, Love contends the area needed for a hospital — between 50 and 60 acres — will not change significantly, and that it should not impact the selection of a hospital site.

A key to designing new hospitals, said Musyj, is leaving enough room for eventual expansion.

“If you have the ability to do so, you need to build the hospital on a site that allows for future regeneration. The last thing any of us want is that in 30 years or less when you are looking at expanding that you put yourself in a situation that you have to move.”

But, at a time when the federal government has introduced a carbon tax, Padolsky said encouraging more people to drive is a false economy.

“I think to have The Ottawa Hospital sit around its corporate table imagining it is in the 1950s is irresponsible,” he said. “The hospital is really out of step.”

[email protected]

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news...vic-hospital-and-yes-it-involves-parking

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I heard Pierre on CFRA a few days ago talking about this. It was all political spin. The evil Liberals dared to second guess the Conservative decision. How wonderful the Conservative analysis was. No mention that there was no public consultation. That all the research was going to end shortly, although it is now known that it is on a standard renewable cycle. How little of the CEF is affected, not mentioning that this is the second sell off of CEF property. I consider this the slippery slope to destroying one of the most unique and distinctive features of the City of Ottawa.

I don't know in this case I see his point. Those in the hospital community talk about the years of delay this has caused. It seems to be 2006 all over again to some extent.

If you are a fan of the CEF then this might be worth it but I think for most of the city it is easily expendable.