How to repurpose the Royal Vic
Kristian is asking how we should repurpose the Royal Vic, which truly is a one-of-a-kind baronial building. Of course there’s a cry for upscale condo development, but I’d need to know what the terms of the original establishment say. This building was constructed under the auspices of two fierce Scots-Canadian magnates, whom I’m pretty sure would’ve intended the building’s use in public service in perpetuity, and while such things have been broken, it isn’t always easy – or even a good idea.
The condo notion also raises the issue whether we want lots of wealthy people driving their massive derpmobiles all over the mountain. The hospital building basically leans against Mount Royal from the south, so condo development would mean a lot of tunneling out of parking spaces and other damage done to the mountain’s fabric. We do not want this. This would be short-sighted and stupid.
I think the smart option is staring us in the face. We know that within the next 10-20 years a hell of a lot of baby boomers will need long-term places to live out their lives, whether in assisted living situations or full-on 24/7 dementia-type care. The building may not be suitable to 21st-century high-tech medical practice, but it’s already subdivided into spaces that would be perfect for the lower-demand warehousing of the elderly. We’ll have to face the leading edge of that wave soon, and the Vic will become available just as we do.
jeather 10:46 on 2012/10/11 Permalink
Having elderly — many of whom are semi-mobile — stuck at the top of a really steep hill so they cannot get out for a walk or to purchase their own milk sounds like a disaster in the making. (It is also the case that a not insignificant number of them have their own cars.) Why not the much longed-for social housing? No need for extra parking. (Like anyone would approve it. But still.)
Dave M 10:49 on 2012/10/11 Permalink
I can’t find any reference confirming it online, but I’m pretty sure I’ve heard that the contract terms dictated that if it’s not used for educational or medical purposes, ownership reverts to the heirs of the original donors.
Blork 10:58 on 2012/10/11 Permalink
I was thinking the same thing as jeather, but I think Kate is proposing this be used for the highly immobile. A nursing home, in other words, as opposed to “assisted living.”
That said, l think it would be a pretty grim place to end one’s days, especially given that if it were to be re-purposed for that use on the public purse then the renos would likely be minimal.
I recently visited a retirement complex in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia in which there were three connected buildings, each one designed for the subsequent level of assistance needed. The first was simply an apartment complex for retired people, no different from any other apartment building except for the absence of young people (aside from visitors). The next was “assisted living” apartments, in which the people lived somewhat independently but they had access to an on-site infirmary (for minor health issues), a social centre to keep them active, and I think an optional on-site dining area for people who did not want to (or chose not to) prepare their own meals. The last one was a full-on nursing home, where the residents rarely left the building (or even their beds, in some cases).
There’s something very efficient about that arrangement, in that it’s pretty easy to transition from one to the next. Although it might also give a foreboding sense, as you are constantly reminded of your decline and what’s coming next. I couldn’t help but joke that the only thing missing was a graveyard at the end of the third building.
Kate 11:44 on 2012/10/11 Permalink
As it stands, we ask the sick to go up the hill to both the Vic and the General. The new MUHC will change that, but it’s been the case for more than a century with the Vic.
If the Vic became a sort of “cité de la vieillesse” it could have a dedicated shuttle bus for the more mobile folks to bring them to and fro to McGill metro at least – much like the Alouettes game shuttle now. But yes, I can see a whole wing of the place used for people who are bedridden or close to it.
jeather, I agree with you on social housing, both that it would be a great alternative option AND that such an outcome is unlikely. Too many people are dead set against giving anyone something they don’t “deserve” – consider the attitudes toward Habitations Jeanne-Mance, “those poor people don’t deserve to live in nice places close to downtown.”
jeather 12:08 on 2012/10/11 Permalink
Well, just because it was a bad idea in the past doesn’t mean that we should double down on this bad idea. And of course having to head to the hospital occasionally, when you are sick, is rather different from being expected to live there all the time and being stuck there because it is too steep for you to walk in. My paternal grandparents lived in one of those communities; my maternal great-aunt lives at another. Many of their friends live at different ones. They would not want to live on a hill, downtown, right near a pile of students. If we’re talking only about people who are bedridden, well, fine, though generally these places have progressive wings. But taking mobility away from people because it’s convenient for us to stick them someplace is cruel. If you live there and want to just go for a 10 minute walk — as most doctors will recommend, if not in the winter — where can you go? Nowhere. The streets are too steep. The mountain isn’t flat enough. So instead you have to wait for a bus, and then wait for the bus on the other end, and this is . . . not ideal.
I’m all for more assisted living homes, but the Vic isn’t the right place for them. I think something like social housing, or a homeless shelter, or a rehab clinic, or anything that doesn’t involve people who already have mobility issues, would be better (assuming that it is allowed under the terms of the bequest, and assuming that anyone would approve of these).
I agree, however, that turning it into condos would not be a good choice.
Marc 12:22 on 2012/10/11 Permalink
@ Dave M: You are correct, that deed held by decendants of the RVH founders is still binding. I distinctly remember that from a story on CFCF a number of years ago.
k-g 12:26 on 2012/10/11 Permalink
Such deed requirements can be reversed with a quick piece of provincial legislation.
Dhomas 13:33 on 2012/10/11 Permalink
I’ve found a passage in a book called “Statutes of the Province of Quebec”, published in 1888, mentioning the deed of Royal Victoria Hospital signed by George Stephen and Donald Smith: goo.gl/yncnb. I can’t quite make out if there is a clause in there stating that the land would be returned to the original owners if it is no longer to be used for medical purposes. Since the hospital was founded in 1893, this statute may have only been defined later.
Tux 13:53 on 2012/10/11 Permalink
I don’t think the hill thing really matters much. Plenty of the elderly at Westmount One brave walking up and down Cote St Luc, and that walk is tiring even to young 30 year-old me! Those that don’t walk as well get taken into town for shopping and whatnot by the staff in cars. I think you’re good as long as public transit serves the place and there’s parking.
Richard 14:23 on 2012/10/11 Permalink
“Warehousing”? Surely we can do better than that.
steph 15:53 on 2012/10/11 Permalink
Can’t we just let the vegetation take over? Why do we have a need for always giving spaces ‘people purposes’.
C_Erb 17:12 on 2012/10/11 Permalink
@steph: Because we have an ever-growing population. If this building isn’t used for “people purposes”, a field or piece of forested land on the edges of the city will.
walkerp 17:57 on 2012/10/11 Permalink
I’m with Steph on this one. Stop the dependance on growth.
Chris 19:41 on 2012/10/11 Permalink
walkerp, for that, we need to stop growing the human population (which I am all for). Free condoms for all!