St. Pauls Comox St. Tower | 11 fl | Proposed

[whatnext]

Sorry if this is jumping the gun a little, but in light of the fact that it is confirmed St. Paul's isn't going to the False Creek flats, and the news story todaythat the aging part of the hospital suffered a massive power failure on Saturday-Sunday, I thought it might be a good time to begin the discussion:

St. Paul's Hospital suffered a complete power failure late Saturday night, The Sun has learned.

The failure left the entire hospital complex in darkness for 10 seconds, until the hospital's two old emergency generators kicked in. But it was two hours before full power was restored to all patient-care areas.

Meanwhile, on Monday many of the older parts of the hospital remained on emergency power. While normal power was restored to Providence I and II - the two newer towers in the St. Paul's complex - the hospital's three oldest buildings had to revert to emergency power Monday morning, when rising power usage in them threatened to cause another failure...

...The cause of the failure, essentially, was the hospital's advanced age.

According to Bonita Elliott, acting vice-president of clinical programs and site director at St. Paul's, the power went out at 10:45 p.m. Saturday when an old electrical feeder line supplying the three older buildings failed. The failure of the bypass line, Elliott said, caused the main feeder line to fail.

"When the old bypass line failed, breakers got blown, and then that caused a domino effect back down the line that put the entire site out. "The feed line was at its end of life and beyond its life expectancy."

The failure did not endanger patients, Elliott said. For those patients on respirators, staff stood in for the short period the power was completely out and manually operated their respirators....

...Last week, The Sun reported on a confidential in-house draft proposal that St. Paul's was asked to prepare for the Ministry of Health.

The proposal called for a renovation of the hospital at its existing site over a period of seven years, at a cost of between $450 million and $610 million....

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Com...#ixzz1EiilU48s

[djh]

^^
Where's this proposal for an 11-storey structure on Comox St., that you mention in the title?

[Architype]

This is not good for a hospital, I'm glad I live closer to VGH.

I take it plans for the tower are not finalized yet.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by djh

^^
Where's this proposal for an 11-storey structure on Comox St., that you mention in the title?

...A major recommendation is the construction of a new ambulatory-care centre at the corner of Comox and Thurlow at an estimated cost of $380 million....
http://www.vancouversun.com/story_pr...99560&sponsor=

Interesting that story just ran in the Sun a few days ago (before the power failure). Watching the earthquake coverage in Christchurch, I though it was pretty alarming that the article stated:

• The Burrard Building (above the Emergency Dept) has a seismic capacity of 10 to 20% required by current by-laws.
• Only the Providence II building has sprinklers.
• Elevators fail an average of 40 times a month.
• The two emergency generators are long past their lifespan and one failed within the last year.

In other words, people needing medical care downtown after something like an earthquake are hooped.

[whatnext]

Some more detail below. I can't recall where I saw 11 floors, in some news item:
http://www.helpstpauls.com/wp-conten...04_Renewal.pdf

[Architype]

St. Pauls as it is, is a disaster waiting to happen, when a disaster actually comes.

• The Burrard Building (above the Emergency Dept) has a seismic capacity of 10 to 20% required by current by-laws.
• Only the Providence II building has sprinklers

.

[nova9]

This may be a stupid question, but should we not be looking into a replacement hospital on the current site? I mean, the downtown core is still growing, we can't lose a hospital in the area.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by nova9

This may be a stupid question, but should we not be looking into a replacement hospital on the current site? I mean, the downtown core is still growing, we can't lose a hospital in the area.

I believe that is essentially the plan, it is just taking too long.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by nova9

This may be a stupid question, but should we not be looking into a replacement hospital on the current site? I mean, the downtown core is still growing, we can't lose a hospital in the area.

The link to the plan seems to indicate they will go around the current site and demolish, first by replacing the current building and parking lot at Comox and Thurlow with an ambulatory care tower, then demolish the structure between that and the Burrard Building and potentially build up to 540k sq ft. The buildings facing Burrard are protected under heritage designation, but I'd assume they'll move all the critical functions out of them.

I was speaking to a doc who worked there and she said it was ridiculous to treat it as a heritage building, because its sole purpose is supposed to be saving lives.

[SpongeG]

the parking lot at the nw corner is where the tower will be built i believe and than the buildings to the east of that will be either rebuilt or demoilshed and replaced

my friends works at the hospital and gets info from memos and things going around there at work

[cornholio]

I think it is incredibly short sighted not moving the hospital to the false creek flats, where a modern and efficient hospital can be built that can better serve the people now and in the future, and especially in case of a disaster(and we are in one of the worst earthquake zones of the world).

Its pure politics and that is all as it was Kevin Falcon who canceled the new hospital for no reason. Keep in mind his mother has worked at St Pauls for her entire life, to me Falcon looks like some guy playing sim city.

[whatnext]

That part of False Creek is all fill, not the best soil for building a hospital on. Given the large amount of residents now downtown, plus the office workers, and in the summer a lot of tourists, it makes sense to have a hospital right downtown.

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by cornholio

I think it is incredibly short sighted not moving the hospital to the false creek flats, where a modern and efficient hospital can be built that can better serve the people now and in the future, and especially in case of a disaster(and we are in one of the worst earthquake zones of the world).

Its pure politics and that is all as it was Kevin Falcon who canceled the new hospital for no reason. Keep in mind his mother has worked at St Pauls for her entire life, to me Falcon looks like some guy playing sim city.

it has a lot to do with the nuns who started the hospital they said they would always operate a hospital on that location

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by whatnext

That part of False Creek is all fill, not the best soil for building a hospital on. Given the large amount of residents now downtown, plus the office workers, and in the summer a lot of tourists, it makes sense to have a hospital right downtown.

The specific area is actually not fill as far as I know and regardless its a non issue if there are piles driven in to the bedrock. Fill is only a issue if a building sits on it and isnt anchored to the bedrock bellow ground.

Regarding the downtown peninsula there are less than 100,000 people living there, and more importantly the west end only has 45,000 people and limited growth potential. The growth in office workers and population is on the eastern edge of downtown right next to the False creek flats location which on top of it is better located to serve the East Vancouver which holds 50% of the cities population(over 250,000). I still dont know why people forget about where a majority of the people in this city live and wher the growth is.

There is no logical argument to keep St. Pauls hospital where it is, it needs to be moved to the Flats and the St.Pauls hospital site downgraded to something similiar to Mount St.Josephs hospital. From what I remember all studies and experts have gone through all this and have come to this conclusion and had nothing to support keeping St.Pauls hospital where it is as its expensive to upgrade(and even then it wouldnt meet modern standards) and its poorly located while east Vancouver which has twice as many people as all of downtown and I would assume a higher long term population growth is undeserved. And keep in mind that downtown would still have the two largest provincial hospitals both less than 5km away from pretty much all points(and on top medical facilities and a local hospital at the old St.Pauls site).

The only thing that hapend was that Falcon yet again came in and based on a uneducated opinion and his own personal feelings thanks to his mother decided to go against all professional studies and scrap the plan. In return he will flush hundreds of millions of our tax dollars down the toilet and lower the overall populations access to hospital care(and lets hope we dont have a major disaster when St.Pauls is not only not working but more than 50% of the people in the city are no where near a hospital.

I cant see how people argue for a regional hospital on the downtown peninsula where a fraction of the the cities people live and the largest hospital in the province already sits 5 km away. On top of that St.Pauls is old, and doesnt meet modern standards anymore and is located in a horrible spots as far as a "regional" hospital goes.

[cornholio]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

it has a lot to do with the nuns who started the hospital they said they would always operate a hospital on that location

I thought we live in a secular country, nuns are the last people I would want to listen to regarding what is best for the people.

More importantly though there would always be hospital care at the St.Pauls site. I dont think anyone ever said shutting everything down there, the plan is to rebuild a new regional hospital at the flats. St.Pauls would then move most of its services to the new location but would still maintain some services and a local hospital would remain on site performing day surgeries, etc. and being able to respond to emergencies and disasters.

[SpongeG]

the hospital is run by providence health care which is a catholic organization which was started by the nuns and there still are nuns involved at the hospital my friends sees them from time to time when he works there

they are not part of coastal health and apparently don't get the same funding from the government as coastal health does - coastal runs VGH etc. which gets the bulk of the funding and there is talk that providence will join them or something in an attempt to get more government money

my friend was telling me he had heard the plans to move were squased because of an old agreement between the nuns and the city or something that cannot be undone - i don't know how true that is but they did change the plan to move and this tower idea came about

and my understanding is that they had planned on selling the burrard street location and using the money from that to build a new hospital but because they can't afford to maintain two locations so they scarpped the idea

[cornholio]

Well maybe I missed something so I will look in to it all. Last thing I remember was Falcon becoming health minister and he himself squashing the idea within what seemed like weeks of taking his position. At the same time he spun it as a informed and caring decision because his mom spent her entire life working at the hospital as a nurse.

I will though go and see if I missed something important within the last year.

Keep in mind that with this move Mount St.Joseph would also at the same time further reduce its services and most of its land can be sold and redeveloped especially when taking its location in to account. This money would also go back in to health care, plus the increased efficiency of a modern and better located hospital would also offer significant savings in operational costs.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by cornholio

The specific area is actually not fill as far as I know and regardless its a non issue if there are piles driven in to the bedrock. Fill is only a issue if a building sits on it and isnt anchored to the bedrock bellow ground.

Regarding the downtown peninsula there are less than 100,000 people living there, and more importantly the west end only has 45,000 people and limited growth potential. The growth in office workers and population is on the eastern edge of downtown right next to the False creek flats location which on top of it is better located to serve the East Vancouver which holds 50% of the cities population(over 250,000). I still dont know why people forget about where a majority of the people in this city live and wher the growth is. .

Downtown had 15% of Vancouver's population in 2006, its grown since then. Add in thousands of office workers. Then assume its summer and you have thousands more tourists. Then add in the fact it is entirely possible the bridges into downtown could be structurally unsound after an earthquake. The sole route in or out is then a narrow isthmus connecting it to Strathcona (an area which was frequently covered in water pre-European arrival.

False Creek flats was was an extension of False Creek right up to Clark until it was filled in. There's already another hospital just a few blocks away (Mt. St. Joseph)

[geoff's two cents]

Originally Posted by cornholio

The specific area is actually not fill as far as I know and regardless its a non issue if there are piles driven in to the bedrock. Fill is only a issue if a building sits on it and isnt anchored to the bedrock bellow ground.

Regarding the downtown peninsula there are less than 100,000 people living there, and more importantly the west end only has 45,000 people and limited growth potential. The growth in office workers and population is on the eastern edge of downtown right next to the False creek flats location which on top of it is better located to serve the East Vancouver which holds 50% of the cities population(over 250,000). I still dont know why people forget about where a majority of the people in this city live and wher the growth is.

There is no logical argument to keep St. Pauls hospital where it is, it needs to be moved to the Flats and the St.Pauls hospital site downgraded to something similiar to Mount St.Josephs hospital. From what I remember all studies and experts have gone through all this and have come to this conclusion and had nothing to support keeping St.Pauls hospital where it is as its expensive to upgrade(and even then it wouldnt meet modern standards) and its poorly located while east Vancouver which has twice as many people as all of downtown and I would assume a higher long term population growth is undeserved. And keep in mind that downtown would still have the two largest provincial hospitals both less than 5km away from pretty much all points(and on top medical facilities and a local hospital at the old St.Pauls site).

The only thing that hapend was that Falcon yet again came in and based on a uneducated opinion and his own personal feelings thanks to his mother decided to go against all professional studies and scrap the plan. In return he will flush hundreds of millions of our tax dollars down the toilet and lower the overall populations access to hospital care(and lets hope we dont have a major disaster when St.Pauls is not only not working but more than 50% of the people in the city are no where near a hospital.

I cant see how people argue for a regional hospital on the downtown peninsula where a fraction of the the cities people live and the largest hospital in the province already sits 5 km away. On top of that St.Pauls is old, and doesnt meet modern standards anymore and is located in a horrible spots as far as a "regional" hospital goes.

Pretty sure the issue of fill is more important in a seismically active part of the world such as ours than your post suggests. Perhaps one of our engineer SSP regulars can shed some light on that.

Moreover, downtown is much denser (by most standards the third-highest concentration of people in North America), particularly the west end, and warrants a sizeable piece of healthcare infrastructure in its own right. It could of course be downgraded, as part of your post suggests (i.e. fulfilling all of its current neighbourhood functions - emergency, longer-term care, etc. - while regionally significant stuff is dealt with elsewhere). Don't forget VGH either. For most of that East Van population you cite (it's a pretty big area), the difference in distance between VGH and the proposed False Creek flats facility would be negligible at best.

[Architype]

The buildings facing Burrard are protected under heritage designation

I think that facade conservation, if thats what you want to call it, is in order, but I agree with keeping the hospital in the downtown/Westend area where there is a high population density, also a high concentration of elderly and disabled people. We already have a hospital across the bridge (VGH).