Architectural Comparative Analysis Report by Margot de Man

ARCHITECTURAL COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS REPORT for the POE of Bridgepoint Active Healthcare

CHERYL ATKINSON B.E.S., B.Arch., OAA, RAIC Assistant Professor:

Department of Architectural Science, Ryerson University

Research Assistants, Graphics

RYAN ALEXANDER MARGOT DE MAN

Department of Architectural Science, Ryerson University Department of Architectural Science, Ryerson University

Contributor

CELESTE ALVARO Ph.D. Research Scientist:

Bridgepoint Collaboratory for Research and Innovation, Bridgepoint Active Healthcare Adjunct Professor: Department of Architectural Science, Ryerson University

JUNE 16 2014

Graphic Design

John Kim M.Arch.

TABLE OF CONTENTS I Introduction + Definitions

4-5

I Executive Summary

6-7

I Comparative Building Overview: Graphic Summary Bridgepoint Active Healthcare BAH 10-11 Bridgepoint Health BH 12-13 West Park WP 14-15 I Site +Context General Context Urban Context The Sites Meaningful Views Adjacent Green /Social Spaces Acoustic Context Nature: Greater Context Nature: Immediate Context

18-19 20-23 24-25 26-27 28-29 30-31 32-33 34-35

I Building Typology Scale + Building Area 38-39 Typical Floor - Parti Drawings 40-41 Circulation 42-43 Travel Distances 44-45 I Program+ Amenities Comparative Summary Amenity Spaces Bridgepoint Active Healthcare Bridgepoint Health West Park

BAH BH WP

48-49 50-51 52-59 60-63 64-67

I Fenestration Fenestration Overview 70-71 Daylight and Views 72-73 Typical Double Patient Room: Daylighting 74-75 Typical Double Patient Room: Views 76-77 Typical Patient Lounge: Daylighting 78-79 Typical Patient Lounge: Views 80-81 I Room Data Sheets I References

82-107 108

FUNDING ACKNOWLEDGMENT This report is a component of a larger Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) led by Dr. Celeste Alvaro. Dr. Alvaroâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s research is funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Partnerships for Health System Improvement via the Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research and the Rx&D Health Research Foundation (Fostering Innovation in Healthcare Initiative). Additional funding was provided by the Health Capital Investment Branch of the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care. Funding for the architectural research was also supported by the Ryerson University URO Scholarship Program 2013

TEAM ACKNOWLEDGMENT In addition to Dr. Celeste Alvaro and Cheryl Atkinson, the core research team includes: RenĂŠe Lyons, PhD, Bridgepoint Chair in Complex Chronic Disease Research, TD Scientific Director, Bridgepoint Collaboratory for Research and Innovation, Professor, Dalla Lana School of Public Health and Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto; Paula Gardner, PhD, Assistant Professor, Department of Community Health Sciences, Brock University, Affiliate Scientist, Bridgepoint Collaboratory for Research and Innovation, Assistant Professor (status), Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto; Gregory Colucci, OAA, MRAIC, Principal, Diamond Schmitt Architects; Clifford Harvey, OAA, MRAIC, former Senior Architect, Health Capital Investment Branch, Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care, current VP Planning, Facilities and Support Services, North York General Hospital; Tony Khouri, PhD, PEng, former Chief Facilities Planning & Redevelopment Officer, Bridgepoint Active Healthcare, current VP Facilities and Capital Redevelopment, Mount Sinai Hospital; Kate Wilkinson, MA, Director, Quality and Patient safety, Bridgepoint Active Healthcare; Stuart Elgie, OAA, MRAIC, Principal, Stantec Architecture; Mitchell Hall, OAA, MRAIC, Principal, KPMB Architects; Andrea Wilkinson, PhD, Postdoctoral Fellow, Bridgepoint Collaboratory for Research and Innovation, Deyan Kostovski, AMA., Knowledge Translation Strategist, Strongbow Strategies.

ADDITIONAL ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Special thanks are extended to the research assistants and trainees involved in various phases of data collection and analysis including: Genedith Estrada, Linda Eum, Sara Gallant, Martha Harvey, Sylvia Hoang, Oksana Kachur, Emmanuel Loloy, Cassandra Mackey, Navin Malik, Ashley Martins, Maya Nikoloski, Sandra Oziel, Carolyn Steele-Gray, Rachel Thombs, Roy Tobias, Jenini Subaskaran, Carolyn Van Lier, and Ashley Ward. Appreciation is extended to the patients, staff and leadership at Bridgepoint Active Healthcare; Cris Gresser, Clinical Specialist, Health Capital Investment Branch, Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care; David Garlin and our collaborators at West Park Healthcare Centre; and Nene Brode in the Department of Architectural Science, Ryerson University.

Cover Photos: Tom Arban

COMPARATIVE OVERVIEW

INTRODUCTION

This report documents, compares, and analyses selected architectural design elements across three healthcare facilities under study in the in- progress, pre- and post- occupancy evaluation of Bridgepoint Active Healthcare. The larger program of research is a multi-year, multi-method program of research assessing the impact of architectural design on health outcomes in the context of the Bridgepoint Hospital redevelopment, led by a team of social scientists. The study utilizes a quasi-experimental research design with mixed quantitative and qualitative measures, and a control facility to compare patient, staff, and organizational outcomes across these healthcare facilities. The primary objective is to evaluate the impact of building design on well-being and improved patient outcomes for people living with multiple health conditions. As a key component of the overall research program, this report details the environmental conditions, both built and natural, of the New Bridgepont Active Healthcare (BAH) long term, chronic care hospital, and its predecessor, the recently demolished 1963 Bridgepoint Health (BH) facility, against the control hospital used for this POE study, West Park Healthcare Centre (WP).

PG. 4

DEFINITIONS

These definitions are for the purposes of this study Amenity Space: All other non-clinical support spaces specifically for enhancing quality of life for patients (spiritual care, therapy pools, physiotherapy/gym, patient dining spaces, hair salon, cyber café) Design Parti: Organizing planimetric diagram for the program and circulation design concept Gross Floor Area: Program space including building envelope, stairs, elevators, service spaces Horizontal Circulation: Halls and corridors Meaningful View: A view to trees, parks, activities of people and animals, movement of traffic, sky, clouds Net Floor Area: Program floor area space excluding building envelope, stairs, shafts, elevators, service spaces and shafts

This architectural documentation and analysis addresses the nonclinical spaces and design components that the architects targeted at the outset, as having potential to reduce stress, and impact in-patient psychosocial well-being during their treatment and stay.

Outdoor Amenity : Built exterior recreation space intended predominantly for patient use (i.e. roof terraces and porches, and immediately adjacent outdoor spaces (excludes gazebo garden in traffic circle at West Park)

Primary design objectives aimed at improving both in-patient and outpatient experience and quality of life were: • improved patient privacy (for both hygiene and social reasons) • improved quantity, quality and variety of patient amenity programs • improved opportunity for social integration between patients and staff • improved integration and connection to the local community • improved access to daylight and view for all spaces • improved connection to the natural environment • improved clarity of wayfinding • improved quality and variety of spaces and activities to create more calming and aesthetically pleasing environments, and to encourage patient mobility

Patient Lounge: Dedicated interior lounge spaces

Patient Care: Patient rooms and rooms dedicated to patient care

Public space: Common areas for unregulated use by visitors and members of the public including entry level lobbies and waiting areas, retail ( café, pharmacy etc.), auditoria, cafeteria, library. Staff Amenity: Dedicated staff lounge spaces Staff Work Areas: Nurse stations and ancillary support areas for immediate patiennt care Vertical Circulation: Stairs, elevators BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

COMPARATIVE OVERVIEW

BRIDGEPOINT 2013 (BAH) 14 St Matthews Rd, Toronto, ON M4M 2B5 Stantec Architecture; KPMB Architects; HDR Architecture; Diamond Schmitt Architects 480 In-Patient Capacity + Visually prominent, high-rise, 12-storey, “commercial” looking building + Rectangular plan with double loaded corridor wrapping a central service core + Single/double occupancy rooms with en-suite WC and shared en-suite showers + 2 patient lounges, 1 physiotherapy space, 1 patient dining area per floor + 2-storey podium housing administration, and common amenity spaces + Large central rooftop green space, 2-5th level terraces, 4-main level terraces + All glass curtainwall building (clear and spandrel glass) + Urban location in a park setting

Tom Arban

BRIDGEPOINT 1963 (BH) 14 St Matthews Rd, Toronto, ON M4M 2B5 Chapman and Hurst 580 In-Patient Capacity + Mid rise, 9-storey, “residential” looking building + Crescent shaped double loaded corridor with central core + Double/triple/quad patient rooms with remote WC and bathing + 1 Patient lounge and physiotherapy space per floor + 2-storey podium housing administration, and common amenity spaces + Large central rooftop terrace and lower level patio + Brick cladding with continuous concrete balconies + Glass curtainwall building (clear and spandrel glass) + Urban location in a park setting

WEST PARK 1980 (WP) 82 Buttonwood Ave, Toronto, ON M6M 2J5 Armstrong and Molesworth Architects 312 In-Patient Capacity + Low rise, 4-storey “residential” looking building + 2 separate 2-storey pods with central core and T-shaped plan + Double, and quad patient rooms with en-suite WC and shared remote bathing + 1 patient lounge and physiotherapy space per floor + 2-story podium housing administration, and common amenity spaces + Large central rooftop terrace and miscellaneous outdoor gardens + Brick cladding with wood trim and sloping shingled roofs + Suburban location in a park setting

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

PG. 5

INTRODUCTION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction The identified domains of this study are psychosocial wellbeing (i.e. psychological well being as a function of interactions with the social environment), including depression, connectedness, mood, stress reduction and functional health (pain, mobility) for in-patients and staff. This architectural documentation is focused on the locations where the patient surveys and interviews were conducted. These are the “nonclinical” in-patient rooms, support, therapy, amenity, and outdoor recreation and social spaces of the three hospitals. The construction of the new Bridgepoint Active Healthcare (BAH) facility created a unique opportunity for a structured comparative Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) addressing these criteria, because the site and population studied are similar, pre and post construction. The third control facility, West Park, was selected as an analogous facility in the same city. The key building differences between facilities are summarized graphically in the Comparative Building overview on pages 8-9 of this report. The graphic summary and building summary descriptions on pages 10-15, provide a visual executive summary of this report’s findings. The following design issues were studied: • Building Scale (Areas and proportional differences in selected rooms and spaces) • Site Context (location and orientation within the immediate and urban context)

PG. 6

• Fenestration (for daylight, view and wayfinding) Rationale It is well documented that the ambient qualities of the architecture for treatment and respite have positive impact on psychological, social and physical health. Aesthetics, material qualities, views and direct exposure to nature, and spatial organization can distract patients from pain and improve mental state (Alvaro & Atkinson 2013). It is also recognized that enhanced building program, and ambient environmental conditions are particularly important for complex chronic disease (CCD) patients, where there is long term residency, and a fully conscious patient population prone to pain, anxiety and depression. Methodology The architectural component of the Bridgepoint Active Healthcare study is similarly designed to augment this emerging knowledge, by creating an equally rigorous and systematic methodology for deconstructing, and measuring the myriad of specific design factors anticipated to have significant impact on CCD patients and staff. As interior environments are a complex interplay of multiple design decisions, it is critical to isolate individual design interventions to understand their potential affects. This visualized documentation and comparative analysis is intended to create substantive clarity to observed differences in patient and staff outcomes, in the larger program of research, to differences in design.

• Building Typology (“Parti” or organizational patterns of movement and circulation for in-patients and staff relative to program spaces

Findings

• Program (program extent and distribution, amenity space and social space)

SCALE / PROGRAM / DENSITY

• Circulation Design (proximities and relationships for patients and staff to various activities and functions)

The new building (BAH) is twice as large in floor area and four times the volume for a similar actual in-patient capacity as the other two buildings.

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

The room occupancy is significantly changed to be single and double patient rooms versus a predominance of quads and doubles in the other two buildings. The new building has a significantly augmented program relative to the other two buildings, with three times as much lounge space as its predecessor, and almost three and a half times as much as West Park (WP). It has almost 7.7 times the amount of general patient amenity space per patient as its predecessor and twice as much space per patient as WP. This augmented program and the increase in both quantity, quality and variety of social and activity spaces both indoors and out, have greatly improved the privacy of patients but also significantly impacted the density per floor, of patients and staff. Whereas the original building would have had 116 patients per floor using the same central elevator and lounge, there are only 64 per floor at the new building, with four available social spaces within the same floor plate. At WP, 78 patients per floor converge on a single lounge and elevator core. This substantially impacts the frequency of casual interaction amongst patients and between staff and patients on a daily basis. SITE/CONTEXT All buildings are located in park settings; Bridgepoint being central and urban, and West Park, suburban. The design parti of the three buildings are similar in that they are all organized to facilitate daylight and view for in-patients’ rooms. The original BAH’s views were compromised by its adjacency to the old Don Jail when it was active. WP, a low rise building in a heavily treed park has restricted view. The new hospital as a high rise, has varied and distant views.

residents and help to orient internal wayfinding. The other two buildings had/have adequate daylight at most patient rooms but compromised views out, relative to BAH. Applications and Conclusions The data presented within this report has been designed to graphically clarify the analysis and streamline the comparisons between these facilities. These graphic templates are intended not only to facilitate this particular research project, but also to operate as universal health care facility planning and programming tools. The Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care, as a research collaborator in this project may develop these templates to establish streamlined data collected on both new and existing projects. This data base can be used for the development of programming, design guidelines, and policy for new and existing complex continuing care and rehabilitation facilities. The extent of this architectural analysis is intentionally general and holistic, addressing the more macro-scale design decisions made at the pre-design and preliminary design stages of a project. While most POE’s address detail design concerns related to specific health related outcomes, this research looks at overall programming, building siting,massing, building typology, internal organizational strategies (parti) and façade design as it relates to the buildings’ fenestration. We have tried to address each building comprehensively, on these levels, to suit the needs of this particular POE. These same strategies for comparison and analysis could be used at ever finer scales for specific spaces or topics of study.

FENESTRATION/ DAYLIGHT/VIEW The new building has significantly more window area than the other two buildings with higher ceilings and 50% of its exterior envelope glazed. Floor to ceiling windows at the amenity spaces and a combination of a tall bay, and continuous strip windows provide panorama views to

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

PG. 7

BRIDGEPOINT 2013 (BAH) BRIDGEPOINT 1963 (BH)

DAYLIGHT

1.63 BEDS/RM

100% TOTAL AREA: 51,076m2 TOTAL VOLUME: 238,445m3 + 10 STORIES + 480 IN-PATIENT BEDS + 106m2 BLDG AREA/PATIENT

+ HIGHLY VISIBLE + URBAN LOCATION + PARK SETTING + TRANSIT ACCESSIBLE + HIGH RISE + DISTANT VIEWS

p 18-35

+ Meaningful views, NSEW + Double loaded corridor w/ views + Central vertical circulation + Distributed lounge space + Central and multiple distributed terraces p 40-41

90%

+ Meaningful views, NSEW + Double loaded corridor + Central vertical circulation + Central lounge space + Central terrace

60%

Patient Space receives more than 3 hours direct daylight/day p 72-73

3.31 BEDS/RM

48% TOTAL AREA: 24,298m2 TOTAL VOLUME: 60,090m3 + 8 STORIES + 580 IN-PATIENT BEDS + 42m2 BLDG/PATIENT

+ HIGHLY VISIBLE + URBAN LOCATION + PARK SETTING + TRANSIT ACCESSIBLE + MID RISE + SOME DISTANT VIEWS p 12-13

p 18-35

Patient Space receives more than 3 hours direct daylight/day

p 40-41

p 72-73

3.15 BEDS/RM 46% TOTAL AREA: 23,408m2 TOTAL VOLUME: 92,636m3 + 3 STORIES + 312 IN-PATIENT BEDS + 75m2 BLDG/PATIENT

+ NO PUBLIC VISIBILITY + SUBURBAN LOCATION + PARK SETTING + VEHICULAR ACCESS + LOW RISE + NO DISTANT VIEWS p 14-15

PG. 8

PARTI

CONTEXT

p 10-11

WEST PARK 1980 (WP)

COMPARATIVE OVERVIEW

AREA/VOLUME

+ Meaningful views, NSEW + Central vertical circulation + Central lounge spaces + Central and few distributed terraces p 18-35

p 40-41

70%

Patient Space receives more than 3 hours direct daylight/day p 72-73

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

1:2 WINDOW TO WALL RATIO

p 10

34% DOUBLE 66% QUAD * % of patients per room type

p 70-71

1:2 WINDOW TO WALL RATIO

8% SINGLE 31% DOUBLE 61% QUAD * % of patients per room type

p 70-71

p 14

p 50-51

p 52-59

81% PATIENT ROOMS 5% PATIENT AMENITY 1% STAFF WORK 5% STAFF AMENITY 8% PUBLIC

31%

13%

76% PATIENT ROOMS 13% PATIENT AMENITY 6% STAFF WORK 2% STAFF AMENITY 3% PUBLIC

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

p 64-67

91%

39%

COMPARATIVE OVERVIEW

DENSITY

9.4m2 /PATIENT p 52-59

0.9 PATIENTS/100m

p 38-39

100%

0.4m2 /PATIENT 1.6m2 /PATIENT

p 50-51

p 60-63

WEST PARK 1980 (WP)

p 12

1.2m2 /PATIENT 12.3m2 /PATIENT

AMENITY

* % of patients per room type p 70-71

59% PATIENT ROOMS 28% PATIENT AMENITY 8% STAFF WORK 2% STAFF AMENITY 2% PUBLIC

AMENITY

38% SINGLE 62% DOUBLE

LOUNGE

1:1 WINDOW TO WALL RATIO

OUTDOOR AMENITY

AMENITY

SOCIAL SPACE

100% 100%

BRIDGEPOINT 1963 (BH)

PROGRAM

LOUNGE

BEDROOM TYPE

LOUNGE

BRIDGEPOINT 2013 (BAH)

FENESTRATION

54%

48%

34% 3.65m2 /PATIENT 2.4 PATIENTS/100m

p 60-63

p 38-39

100%

0.7m2 /PATIENT 5.9m2 /PATIENT

p 50-51

56% 10.3m2 /PATIENT 1.3 PATIENTS/100m

p 64-67

p 38-39

PG. 9

BRIDGEPOINT 2013 (BAH)

BUILDING OVERVIEW

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE PATIENT ROOMS

DESIGN PARTI

PATIENT AMENITY STAFF WORK OUTDOOR AMENITY CIRCULATION ELEVATOR CORES STAIR CORES OUTDOOR VIEWS

Tom Arban

The New BAH is an 11-storey building (9-storeys on a two storey podium). Rooms face east or west, with paired, double-loaded corridors containing service and clinical support spaces at the interior. The elevator core is located centrally in the plan where the typical floor plate is offset to create a patient dining space to the east, with two vantages east and south, and a physiotherapy space to the west, with additional vantage to the north created by the offset. Sixty percent of the 5th floor is dedicated mechanical space and above the 11th floor is a 1-storey enclosed mechanical penthouse. Patient and staff lounges are located at opposite ends of each patient floor. A roof terrace is located on the south half of the building with an indented west facing “porch” and landscaped terrace, cascading down to another roof terrace at the north end of the building, one level above the park. There are additional roof terraces on both the east and west side of the 5th floor. The podium, partially underground, contains amenity, public, loading and service spaces. Administrative space is located in the old jail building. There is a significant increase in the quantity, scale and quality of patient amenity space in this building relative to that of the previous building. The outdoor amenity space is expressed here, as a percentage of the total patient domain studied ( i.e. bedrooms and amenity spaces combined.)

IN- PATIENT ROOM RATIO 38% Single Rooms

62% Double Rooms

MEANINGFUL VIEWS

75% Distant

Proximal 25%

50% Nature

Community 50%

REF PG 28-29

100% Significant

16% Distant

PG. 10

Proximal 84%

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014 40% Nature Community 60%

PATIENT ROOMS 12,335 m2 PATIENT AMENITY 5,897 m2

BUILDING OVERVIEW

PROGRAM OVERVIEW

ROOF GARDEN PATIENT AUDITORIUM

STAFF WORK 1,703 m2 STAFF AMENITY NURSE STATIONS 450 m2 PUBLIC AREA 518 m2

STAFF LOUNGE PHYSIOTHERAPY

OUTDOOR AMENITY NURSE STATIONS 4,500 m2

PATIENT LOUNGE STAFF LOUNGE PATIENT ROOMS INTERIOR PROGRAM BREAKDOWN 2% 2% 8%

PHYSIOTHERAPY

PATIENT DINING

STAFF LOUNGE PATIENT LOUNGE CYBER CAFE 5th FLOOR TERRACE SPIRITUAL CARE

OUTDOOR TERRACE POOL PHYSIOTHERAPY

MEETING ROOMS HAIR SALON PHYSIOTHERAPY NURSE STATION PATIENT DINING

28% 59%

20,903 m2

CAFETERIA AUDITORIUM

OUTDOOR AMENITY RATIO OUTDOOR GARDEN 22% LIBRARY 4,500 m2

PATIENT LOUNGE PATIENT ROOMS WEST PORCH RETAIL CAFETERIA LOBBY RESEARCH LIBRARY COMMUNITY AUDITORIUM LABYRINTH POOL + PHYSIOTHERAPY STAFF GYM + LOUNGE

*N.B. Indoor Program Ratio is the breakdown of the selected spaces shown in legend only (i.e. patient rooms and amenity spaces for staff and patients, net of circulation and services). Outdoor Space Ratio is expressed as a ratio of these selected spaces studied in this particular POE.

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

PG. 11

BRIDGEPOINT 1963 (BH)

BUILDING OVERVIEW

BRIDGEPOINT HEALTH PATIENT ROOMS

DESIGN PARTI

PATIENT AMENITY STAFF WORK OUTDOOR AMENITY CIRCULATION ELEVATOR CORES STAIR CORES OUTDOOR VIEWS

IN- PATIENT ROOM RATIO

DON JAIL

The old BH was a 9-storey ( 7-storeys on a 2-storey podium), double loaded, crescent-shaped plan, oriented north/south, with the majority of patient rooms on the outer circumference overlooking the park, and minimizing views of the jail to the south. Southern room balconies overlooked and enclosed a south facing patient terrace on the roof of the podium. Patient rooms were predominantly quads and doubles. The perimeter was wrapped with cantilevered, concrete balconies that were restricted from patient use for at least the last 20 years. The lower two floors contained cafeteria, meeting rooms, administrative space, pool, auditorium and mechanical and service space. The building was built in 1963 and was recognized for its unique shape and architectural quality. It was considered the “Taj Mahal of bed care centres” in a review by the Toronto Planning Board when it was first designed. The architect Howard Chapman of Chapman and Hurst indicated that the curved corridor was intended to make the corridor “seem less long.” (Leblanc 2012). Wood and brick were used at the interior to give it a warm and non-institutional feel.

PATIENT ROOM RATIO

34% Double Rooms

75% Distant 50% Nature

Community 50%

100% Significant

MEANINGFUL VIEWS

16% Distant

Proximal 84%

40% Nature

Community 60%

REF PG 28-29

55% Significant

5% Distant

PG. 12

Proximal 25%

66% Quad Rooms

Negligable 45%

Proximal 95%

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014 90% Nature

Community 10%

BUILDING OVERVIEW

PROGRAM OVERVIEW PATIENT ROOMS 5,256 m2 PATIENT AMENITY 310 m2 STAFF WORK 90 m2

NURSE STATIONS

STAFF AMENITY 310 m2 PUBLIC AREA 496 m2 OUTDOOR AMENITY 2,000 m2

STAFF LOUNGE PHYSIOTHERAPY NURSE STATIONS PATIENT LOUNGE STAFF LOUNGE PATIENT ROOMS

INTERIOR PROGRAM BREAKDOWN

1% 5% 5%

OUTDOOR TERRACE POOL

PHYSIOTHERAPY

81%

CAFETERIA AUDITORIUM

6,462 m2 OUTDOOR AMENITY RATIO

OUTDOOR GARDEN LIBRARY

31% 2,000 m2 *N.B. Indoor Program Ratio is the breakdown of the selected spaces shown in legend only (i.e. patient rooms and amenity spaces for staff and patients, net of circulation and services). Outdoor Space Ratio is expressed as a ratio of these selected spaces studied in this particular POE.

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

PG. 13

WEST PARK 1980 (WP)

BUILDING OVERVIEW

WEST PARK HEALTHCARE CENTRE DESIGN PARTI

PATIENT ROOMS PATIENT AMENITY STAFF WORK OUTDOOR AMENITY CIRCULATION ELEVATOR CORES STAIR CORES OUTDOOR VIEWS

The main building at WP has two, 2-storey, T-shaped pods that each sit on a common, two-level podium, covered with a rooftop patient terrace. Each wing of the ‘T’ has patient rooms wrapped around a service corridor surrounding a stair, common bathing facilities and a nurses’ station. Each of these three wings connect to a common elevator lobby which is adjacent to the central patient lounge that serves all three wings, next to a common therapy area. This therapy area was previously the patient lounge, with generous windows oriented in three directions. The lower lounge space has no direct access to light or view, while the upper lounge is top-lit by several indivual skylights. The lowest level contains service and support space, and patient and staff cafeteria, and is almost entirely underground. The main level is partially above and partially below grade due to the sloped nature of the site. It contains administration and outpatient services along with a common patient/public lounge. The building is red brick with sloped metal roofs, set into the landscape for minimal impact.

PATIENT ROOM RATIO

75% Distant 50% Nature

Community 50%

100% Significant

31% DOUBLE ROOMS

16% Distant

Proximal 84%

61% QUAD ROOMS 40% Nature 55% Significant

MEANINGFUL VIEWS

5% Distant

Community 60% Negligable 45%

Proximal 95%

REF PG 28-29 90% Nature 95% Significant

PG. 14

Proximal 25%

8% SINGLE ROOMS

Community 10% Negligable 5%

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

ROOF GARDEN PATIENT AUDITORIUM

BUILDING OVERVIEW

PROGRAM OVERVIEW PATIENT ROOMS 10,849 m2 PATIENT AMENITY 1,833 m2 PHYSIOTHERAPY STAFF WORK 830 m2 PATIENT DINING STAFF AMENITY 350 m2 STAFF LOUNGE PUBLIC AREA PATIENT LOUNGE 500 m2 CYBER CAFE 5th FLOOR TERRACE OUTDOOR AMENITY 3,200 m2 SPIRITUAL CARE

MEETING ROOMS HAIR SALON PHYSIOTHERAPY STATION INTERIOR PROGRAMNURSE BREAKDOWN 2% 3% 6%

PATIENT DINING PATIENT LOUNGE PATIENT ROOMS WEST PORCH

13%

RETAIL CAFETERIA LOBBY RESEARCH LIBRARY 76% COMMUNITY AUDITORIUM 14,362

LABYRINTH

PHYSIOTHERAPY PATIENT LOUNGE NURSE STATIONS

PATIENT ROOMS ROOF GARDEN LIBRARY SPIRITUAL CARE AUDITORIUM PHYSIOTHERAPY + POOL VISITOR LOUNGE REC. THERAPY CAFETERIA OUTDOOR GREENSPACE

POOL + PHYSIOTHERAPY STAFF GYM + LOUNGE OUTDOOR AMENITY RATIO 22% 3,200 m2 *N.B. Indoor Program Ratio is the breakdown of the selected spaces shown in legend only (i.e. patient rooms and amenity spaces for staff and patients, net of circulation and services). Outdoor Space Ratio is expressed as a ratio of these selected spaces studied in this particular POE.

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

PG. 15

PG. 16

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

SITE + CONTEXT

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

PG. 17

SITE CONTEXT

GENERAL CONTEXT + PUBLIC IMAGE

The new BAH and the old BH occupy the same general location, the new building having been built just west of the original building. The site is part of the urban, residential Riverdale neighbourhood; visually and physically close to the downtown core of Toronto, Lake Ontario, the West Donlands, the Don River and Don Valley Expressway (DVP), Riverdale Parks (East and West), the commercial intersection of Broadview and Gerrard, the Riverdale Library, and the former Don Jail. It is easily accessible from the large residential urban neighborhoods surrounding it by public transit, car or pedestrian access. The new building is quite dominant as an “iconic,” glass curtainwall building overlooking the Don Valley and visible from all directions in the local parks and neighborhood.

WP is remotely located in a suburban park setting near the Humber River. Surrounded by three parks (Raymore, Fergy Brown, Eglinton Flats) Scarlett Woods Golf course, some single-family homes, and three high-rise residential buildings, this site is only accessible by car or shuttle bus. It is part of a hospital campus with grade level parking lots, winding entry roads, lightly rolling terrain, and lots of deciduous trees. The building is red brick and residential in character with its sloping roofs. The plan form breaks up the mass of the building making it appear more diminutive than it really is. Being low rise and tucked into the adjacent sloped terrain, it has very little precence in the larger neighborhood and is quite hidden amongst the trees in summer. It’s car drop-off entry canopy conceals the entrance from view, making it difficut to distinguish from a service entry.

The old BH building, while considerably smaller in height and scale, was also quite visible from all these same vantage points. It was located further from the DVP and more central to the park, with a somewhat unfortunate overlook and proximity to the back of the Don Jail. The jail function has recently been removed, and this building has been renovated to house administrative functions for the new hospital. The predecessor building’s notable half round shape and curved cantilevered concrete balconies, made it memorable in the area and visible from the DVP.

PG. 18

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

SITE CONTEXT

SITE PLAN

WEST PARK 1980 (WP)

BRIDGEPOINT 1963 (BH)

BRIDGEPOINT 2013 (BAH)

CONTEXT IMAGE

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

PG. 19

SITE CONTEXT

URBAN CONTEXT

BRIDGEPOINT 2013 (BAH) 14 St Matthews Rd, Toronto, ON M4M 2B5 Stantec Architecture; KPMB Architects; HDR Architecture; Diamond Schmitt Architects 463 Patients

WEST PARK 1980 (WP) 82 Buttonwood Ave, Toronto, ON M6M 2J5 Armstrong and Molesworth Architects 312 Patients

BRIDGEPOINT 1963 (BH) 14 St Matthews Rd, Toronto, ON M4M 2B5 Chapman and Hurst 558 Patients

PG. 20

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

SITE CONTEXT

BRIDGEPOINT 2013 (BAH) BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

PG. 21

SITE CONTEXT

BRIDGEPOINT 1963 (BH) PG. 22

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

SITE CONTEXT

WEST PARK 1980 (WP) BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

PG. 23

SITE CONTEXT

THE SITES

+ ACCESS TO MEANINGFUL VIEWS + ACCESS TO NATURE + SITE ACOUSTIC CONTEXT The new BAH has twice the amount of window, relative to wall, as the other two buildings. The building’s greater height, and combination of horizontal ribbon windows and floor to ceiling “bay” windows give opportunity for all patient rooms to have a variety of views; both near and far, to ground and sky, to both nature and the local community, active (baseball, tobogganing, soccer) and passive park activities, and, at higher vantage points and specific orientations; to the urban skyline, Lake Ontario and the Don Valley Parkway (DVP). View is available at the ends of all corridors through glass doors and at arrival by stairs or elevators to each floor, providing orientation (wayfinding) and visual interest for patients. Patient lounge spaces located at the ends of corridors, each have three orientations to view and daylight. Patient amenity spaces and therapy spaces have all been designed to provide generous access to view and daylight. A variety of outdoor terraces and gardens with different orientations, activities, and characters are provided for patients at various levels of the building. The building’s immediate proximity to the adjacent expressway means the western facing outdoor terraces are all very noisy, despite glass wind/noise breaks provided on roof terrace and ground floor terrace. There are no operable windows and the window system is effective at blocking noise internally. The old BH was located further east into the park and was much lower, and integrated more into the trees, buffering it from wind and traffic noise from the expressway. The curved plan provided good views for patients at the outer ring of rooms to the north, west and east, but had compromised

PG. 24

views from the rooms at the inner ring of the crescent, which faced one another, or the back of the former Don Jail. It’s large balcony overhangs, also restricted views to ground level and to the sky. Patient lounge spaces on each floor had north views to the central portion of Riverdale Park, with the same high sill, low window head, and balcony overhang conditions as patient rooms, restricting sky and immediate ground views. The therapy pool was small and without access to view or daylight. A large south-facing terrace over the podium and an outdoor smoking terrace near the building entry provided outdoor access for patients. Patients were free to venture into the public park to the north. WP in its suburban park location is very quiet, and designed to give all patient rooms, access to view. The available views are much less varied than at the Bridgepoint sites due to its suburban location in a passive use park. As a low-rise building, in a heavily treed park, the views are predominantly close up views to nature and to the adjacent roof terrace and gardens, and some local low-rise, single-family homes. Its’ patient lounge spaces are internal, with no direct access to view. The therapy pool is small and without access to view or light. Therapy spaces have both good view and daylight. There are eight different outdoor spaces for patient use surrounding the building, including vegetable and flower gardens, smoking and dining terraces. A separate perrenial garden with a gazebo, exists a short walk from the main building entrance. These various and generous outdoor spaces are evident in the outdoor amenity space statistics shown.

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

VIEW TYPES

9.7m

95%

OUTDOOR AMENITY AREA /PATIENT

BRIDGEPOINT 1963 (BH)

SITE SECTION KEY PLAN

75% Distant

Proximal 25%

50% Nature

Community 50%

100% Significant

p 52-59

16% Distant

Proximal 84%

75% Distant 40% Nature

Proximal 25% Community 60%

50% Nature 55% Significant

Community 50% Negligable 45%

100% Significant 5% Distant

3.6m

OUTDOOR AMENITY AREA /PATIENT

35%

100%

Proximal 95%

16% Distant 90% Nature

Proximal 84% Community 10%

75% Distant 40% Nature 95% Significant

Proximal 25% Community 60% Negligable 5%

50% Nature 55% Significant

Community 50% Negligable 45%

100% Significant 5% Distant

WEST PARK 1980 (WP)

SITE CONTEXT

BRIDGEPOINT 2013 (BAH)

OUTDOOR AMENITIES

10.3m

OUTDOOR AMENITY AREA /PATIENT

Proximal 95%

16% Distant 90% Nature

Proximal 84% Community 10%

40% Nature 95% Significant

Community 60% Negligable 5%

55% Significant

Negligable 45%

5% Distant 90% Nature 95% Significant

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

Proximal 95% Community 10% Negligable 5%

PG. 25

BRIDGEPOINT 1963 (BH)

BRIDGEPOINT 2013 (BAH)

EAST-WEST SECTION

WEST PARK 1980 (WP)

SITE CONTEXT

MEANINGFUL VIEWS FROM OUTDOOR SOCIAL SPACE

PG. 26

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

BRIDGEPOINT 2013 (BAH) BRIDGEPOINT 1963 (BH) WEST PARK 1980 (WP) BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

PG. 27

SITE CONTEXT

0 5 10

NORTH-SOUTH SECTION

DAYLIGHT

BRIDGEPOINT 1963 (BH)

BRIDGEPOINT 2013 (BAH)

EAST-WEST SECTION

WEST PARK 1980 (WP)

SITE CONTEXT

ADJACENT GREEN / SOCIAL SPACES

PG. 28

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

BRIDGEPOINT 2013 (BAH) BRIDGEPOINT 1963 (BH) WEST PARK 1980 (WP) BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

PG. 29

SITE CONTEXT

0 5 10

NORTH-SOUTH SECTION

BRIDGEPOINT 1963 (BH)

BRIDGEPOINT 2013 (BAH)

EAST-WEST SECTION

WEST PARK 1980 (WP)

SITE CONTEXT

ACOUSTIC CONTEXT

PG. 30

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

BRIDGEPOINT 2013 (BAH) BRIDGEPOINT 1963 (BH) WEST PARK 1980 (WP) BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

PG. 31

SITE CONTEXT

0 5 10

NORTH-SOUTH SECTION

BUILDING APPROACH

BUILDING PRESENCE

BRIDGEPOINT 2013 (BAH)

SITE PLAN

Tom Arban

BRIDGEPOINT 1963 (BH)

WEST PARK 1980 (WP)

SITE CONTEXT

NATURE: GREATER CONTEXT

PG. 32

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

SITE CONTEXT

SECONDARY ENTRANCE

BRIDGEPOINT 2013 (BAH)

MAIN ENTRANCE

PARK ACCESS

N/A

Tom Arban

BRIDGEPOINT 1963 (BH)

WEST PARK 1980 (WP)

N/A

C BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

E PG. 33

SECONDARY ROOF TERRACE

MAIN ROOF TERRACE

BRIDGEPOINT 2013 (BAH)

SITE PLAN

BRIDGEPOINT 1963 (BH)

Tom Arban

N/A

WEST PARK 1980 (WP)

SITE CONTEXT

NATURE: IMMEDIATE CONTEXT

PG. 34

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

SITE CONTEXT

ADDITIONAL OUTDOOR SPACES

BRIDGEPOINT 2013 (BAH)

OUTDOOR DINING

Tom Arban

N/A

WEST PARK 1980 (WP)

BRIDGEPOINT 1963 (BH)

Tom Arban

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

PG. 35

PG. 36

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

BUILDING TYPOLOGY

Tom Arban

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

PG. 37

BUILDING TYPOLOGY

SCALE + BUILDING AREA

The most obvious distinction between the new and former facility is the significant difference in both size and scale. While serving a similar in-patient population to the former facility, the new BAH is twice as large as BH in overall floor area, four times as large in building volume, and occupies a footprint on the site, that is almost twice as large as the former facility. By moving from a room composition of quadruple, and double occupancy to double and single room occupancy, the area per patient is significantly increased from the old and comparator facilities. While the new building has a similar number of levels (10 versus 8) as its predecessor, it is more than twice as tall, due to higher floor to floor heights (4.2 m versus 30 m), increased programming at both upper and podium levels, and the large mechanical floors at the 5th and 11th levels. While the total population of staff and patients per floor are similar then to the old building, they are distributed much more thinly across this much larger building (64 patients per floor sharing an elevator core and four separate social spaces versus 116 at the old building sharing two social spaces)

building. Its hipped roofs further help to disguise the building it into the treeline. The two separate 2 storey â&#x20AC;&#x153;pods, â&#x20AC;? each have 78 patients per floor sharing an elevator, lounge and physiotherapy space with each pod floor, only 60% as large as the new BAH floor. The following parti drawings allow for a comparison of key environmental variables. These drawings allow us to see overarching organizational patterns and hierarchical relationships between circulation and social spaces, circulation and views, proximities, and relationships to fenestration for orientation, daylight and view.

WP, similar in overall floor area to the old BH, appears more diminutive as the much of the building is buried into the landscape below the two patient floors. The patient floor levels, in two separate buildings above the podium level, and the irregularly shaped plans, help to break down the bulk of the

PG. 38

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

100%

238,445m3

51,076m2

7700m2

BRIDGEPOINT 1963 (BH)

TOTAL VOLUME

BLDG FOOTPRINT

25%

48%

45%

60,090m3

24,298m2 TOTAL BLDG AREA

3500m2

BLDG FOOTPRINT

39%

46%

99%

92,636m3

23,408m2

7600m2

TOTAL VOLUME

WEST PARK 1980 (WP)

TOTAL BLDG AREA

BUILDING TYPOLOGY

BRIDGEPOINT 2013 (BAH)

100%

TOTAL VOLUME

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

TOTAL BLDG AREA

BLDG FOOTPRINT

PG. 39

CARE

AMENITIES

AREA

NTAL CIRCULATION

R CORES

ORES

R VIEWS

PATIENT CARE

PATIENT AMENITIES

PUBLIC AREA

HORIZONTAL CIRCULATION

HORIZONTAL CIRCULATION HORIZONTAL CIRCULATION

ELEVATOR CORES

STAIR CORES

OUTDOOR VIEWS

HORIZONTAL CIRCULATION ELEVATOR CORES STAIR CORES

DON JAIL

PATIENT CARE

PATIENT AMENITIES

PUBLIC AREA

NTAL CIRCULATION

HORIZONTAL CIRCULATION

OR CORES

ELEVATOR CORES

STAIR CORES

OUTDOOR VIEWS

WEST PARK 1980 (WP)

PATIENT CARE PATIENT AMENITIES

OR VIEWS

ARE

DON JAIL

HORIZONTAL CIRCULATION ELEVATOR CORES STAIR CORES OUTDOOR VIEWS

TION

MENITIES

DON JAIL

PATIENT CARE

ORES

SOCIAL SPACEAND SOCIAL SPACE PATIENT ROOMS AND VIEWSCIRCULATION AND CIRCULATION CIRCULATION AND VIEWS

T AMENITIES

AREA

CIRCULATION AND VIEWS

OUTDOOR VIEWS 0

ION

T CARE

CIRCULATION AND SOCIAL SPACE

BRIDGEPOINT 2013 (BAH)

CIRCULATION AND NURSE STATIONS

BRIDGEPOINT 1963 (BH)

BUILDING TYPOLOGY

TYPICAL FLOOR - PARTI DRAWINGS

CIRCULATION AND SOCIAL CIRCULATION SPACE AND SOCIAL SPACE PATIENT ROOMS AND VIEWS CIRCULATION AND VIEWS

PG. 40

PATIENT CARE

PATIENT AMENITIES

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

PATIENT AMENITY

STAFF WORK AREAS

OUTDOOR AMENITY

PATIENT CARE (ROOMS) PATIENT ROOMS AND VIEWS

CIRCULATION

ELEVATOR CORES

STAIR CORES

OUTDOOR VIEWS

SOCIAL SPACE AND VIEWS

PATIENT CARE

PATIENT AMENITIES

PUBLIC AREA

HORIZONTAL CIRCULATION HORIZONTAL CIRCULATION

ELEVATOR CORES

STAIR CORES

OUTDOOR VIEWS

ELEVATOR CORES

OUTDOOR VIEWS

PATIENT LOUNGE

STAIR CORES

PATIENT AMENITIES

OUTDOOR VIEWS

SOCIAL SPACE AND CIRCULATION VIEWS AND VIEWS

TIENT ROOMS AND VIEWS DON JAIL

DON JAIL

PATIENT CARE

PATIENT AMENITIES

PUBLIC AREA

HORIZONTAL CIRCULATION

ELEVATOR CORES

STAIR CORES

HORIZONTAL CIRCULATION

PATIENT LOUNGE

ELEVATOR CORES STAIR CORES

PATIENT AMENITIES

OUTDOOR VIEWS 0

OUTDOOR VIEWS

TIENT ROOMS AND VIEWS

TIENT CARE

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

TIENT AMENITIES

SOCIAL SPACE AND VIEWS CIRCULATION AND VIEWS

PG. 41

BUILDING TYPOLOGY

PATIENT CARE (ROOMS)

BUILDING TYPOLOGY

CIRCULATION

HORIZONTAL CIRCULATION Despite the larger floor plate of the new BAH (1.7 times as large as its predecessor), the travel distances of patients from their rooms to social spaces, and of nursing staff stations to patient rooms are similar between the old BH and new. At WP, the separated pod floors with their own elevator cores, make for much tighter travel distances generally. BAH: The typical patient floor circulation is one large loop around a series of central service blocks separated by perpendicular corridors. This more permeable circulation allows patient and staff crossover, and view between the two major corridors at every 15 meters. The corridors are bright (daylit), high, and wide. Different orientations and views which are memorable at the ends of each corridor facilitate orientation and wayfinding. This corridor system serves up to 64 patients per floor. BH: The double corridor space at the original building, similarly wrapped around a central service core including bathing and nursing stations. This corridor loop ran uninterrupted from the elevator core to each building end for 63 meters with no crossovers except at the nurses’ stations. It was narrow, low in height, cluttered with storage and difficult to navigate for wheelchairs with these constraints and the plan curvature. The window at each end of the corridor wasn’t visible from a distance also because of the curved form. This double corridor was brick lined with teak trim. It served 116* patients per floor.

WP: The T-shaped configuration of WP’s plan, has three circulation circuits that wrap around the nurses’ stations and central service cores. They converge at the patient lounge, physiotherapy and elevator lobby. Although there are no windows or view from this space, these loops are quite short, so wayfinding is clear. This double corridor served 78 patients per floor. VERTICAL CIRCULATION The patient and staff lounges at BAH are destinations in the plan, distant from the elevators. Patients must choose to go to these locations rather than casually encounter other patients in these spaces. At BH and WP, the single patient lounge on each floor was open and immediately adjacent to the elevators, making them amenable to casual encounter but also noisy and very public. Patient dining, physiotherapy, cyber café, hair salon, cafeteria and other amenity spaces at BAH are immediately adjacent to the elevators. POPULATION DENSITY Fewer patients and staff per floor at the new BAH, the greater extent, and crossover between circulation spaces, the greater variety of amenity spaces within the floor, across, and outside the building, all tend to disburse people in this hospital. There is much less density available to populate any one room or the corridors. The plan layout of the other two hospitals, by comparison, concentrated activity to many fewer destinations, increasing and focusing density and human interaction. * as origionally designed

PG. 42

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

BUILDING TYPOLOGY

BRIDGEPOINT 2013 (BAH)

73% 1/3 CIRCULATION/ASSIGN

39% 38% SINGLE 62% DOUBLE

0.9PATIENTS/100m

32 PATIENTS/LOUNGE

BRIDGEPOINT 1963 (BH)

* % of patients per room type

100% 4/9 CIRCULATION/ASSIGN

100% 34% DOUBLE 66% QUAD

2.4PATIENTS/100m

116 PATIENTS/LOUNGE

WEST PARK 1980 (WP)

* % of patients per room type

56%

73% 1/3 CIRCULATION/ASSIGN

8% SINGLE 31% DOUBLE 61% QUAD

1.3PATIENTS/100m

78 PATIENTS/LOUNGE

* % of patients per room type

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

PG. 43

ELEVATORS TO PATIENT ROOM

NURSE STATION TO STAFF LOUNGE

BRIDGEPOINT 1963 (BH)

BRIDGEPOINT 2013 (BAH)

NURSE STATION TO PATIENT ROOM

WEST PARK 1980 (WP)

BUILDING TYPOLOGY

TRAVEL DISTANCES

N/A

PG. 44

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

DESIRED LOCATION

PATIENT ROOM TO PATIENT FLOOR PANTRY

CLOSEST TRAVEL

FARTHEST TRAVEL

PATIENT ROOM TO PATIENT THERAPY

WEST PARK 1980 (WP)

BRIDGEPOINT 1963 (BH)

BRIDGEPOINT 2013 (BAH)

PATIENT ROOM TO PATIENT LOUNGE

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

PG. 45

BUILDING TYPOLOGY

0 5 10

PG. 46

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

PROGRAM+ AMENITIES Tom Arban

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

PG. 47

PROGRAM + AMENITIES

Augmented programs were included in the new BAH to encourage patients to get out of their rooms, to be mobile, and to engage in activities and social interactions with other patients, staff, and the general public. The new BAH includes seven and a half times the amount of social and amenity space per patient as the old BH hospital and more than twice as much as WP. Outdoor amenity areas are also significantly greater in the new BAH. The new BAH has more than twice the amount of outdoor amenity space per patient as the old BH, and only slightly less adjacent outdoor space per patient as WP. WP has a large paved central roof terrace as well as five other garden spaces at grade (including a smoking terrace), adjacent to various rooms like the cafeteria, and entry lobby lounge. In addition to the the large roof terrace and at grade entry terraces (found in both the BH and WP) the new BAH also includes also a west facing porch and terraced garden, ground level terrace (Labyrinth), and two, fifth floor terraces (east and west).

PG. 48

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

PATIENT AMENITY

PATIENT LOUNGE

INTERIOR PROGRAM BREAKDOWN*

STAFF WORK AREAS

STAFF AMENITY

PUBLIC AREA

OUTDOOR AMENITIES

OUTDOOR SPACE RATIO*

2% 2%

100%

22%

28%

9.4m2 /PATIENT

59%

12.3m

AMENITY AREA/PATIENT

BRIDGEPOINT 1963 (BH)

20,903 m2

4,500 m2

INTERIOR PROGRAM BREAKDOWN*

1% 5% 5%

OUTDOOR SPACE RATIO*

31%

13%

3.5m2 /PATIENT

81%

1.6m2

AMENITY AREA/PATIENT

WEST PARK 1980 (WP)

6,462 m2

2,000 m2

INTERIOR PROGRAM BREAKDOWN*

OUTDOOR SPACE RATIO*

2% 3% 6%

48% 5.9m2

13% 22%

76%

AMENITY AREA/PATIENT 14,362 m2 BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

3,200 m2

10.3m2 /PATIENT *N.B. Indoor Program Ratio is the breakdown of the selected spaces shown in legend only (i.e. patient rooms and amenity spaces for staff and patients, net of circulation and services). Outdoor Space Ratio is expressed as a ratio of these selected spaces studied in this particular POE.

PG. 49

PROGRAM + AMENITIES

BRIDGEPOINT 2013 (BAH)

PATIENT CARE (ROOMS)

GENERAL AMENITY SPACE

12.3m2 /PATIENT

13%

1.6m2 /PATIENT

100%

BAH

PROGRAM + AMENITIES

AMENITY SPACES

48%

5.9m2 /PATIENT

TOTAL AMENITY SPACE PER PATIENT

BAH: Additional to the physiotherapy spaces, spiritual care, auditorium,

common cafeteria, and library found in the both BH and WP, are an extra lounge space per floor, patient dining (1 per floor), library, hair care, internet cafĂŠ, cafeteria, retail cafĂŠ, and retail pharmacy. These spaces are located as destination points within the building with the intent to encourage patient mobility both horizontally and vertically and into the different and varied environments and orientations of the building and site. The previous BH and WP, each had only two amenity spaces per floor located centrally and immediately adjacent to their elevator /stair cores (one patient lounge space per floor, and one physiotherapy space). The new BAH has typically four separate amenity destinations per floor, with dining space and physiotherapy tight to the elevator lobby, and the north and south lounges at opposite ends of the floor plate. The disbursement of activity spaces at the new BAH is intended to create choice, variety, and destination, therefore encouraging mobility. The ground floor level at BAH will be opened up much more directly to the public when the rest of the campus construction is complete, with entrance and exit points from all four sides of the building and a variety of common and public amenities intended to draw the public into the building and provide activity and destination for patients and visitors.

PG. 50

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

1.2m2 /PATIENT

31%

0.4m2 /PATIENT

PROGRAM + AMENITIES

BAH PATIENT LOUNGES

100%

54%

0.7m2 /PATIENT

LOUNGE SPACE AREA PER PATIENT

BAH: Patient lounge spaces in the new building are separate rooms (with

doors) rather than lobby extensions. Visible from the length of the corridors, and offering borrowed views and daylight to the main corridors, they each have three exterior fully glazed walls. These lounges have meaningful views to baseball games, the parks, and the city. Each of these rooms have three walls of glass, and with loose soft seating typically arranged to see the view, they are not ideal for watching television in the day due to glare. Large columns in the space also restrict a collective seating arrangement somewhat. Located at the ends of the corridors, occupants of the space are somewhat isolated from the concentrated circulation found closer to the elevators, limiting casual social interface. The lounge is a destination requiring a conscious decision to both travel to, and enter. There are 15 of these lounges in the entire building (2 per floor supporting 64 people (32 people per lounge)).

WP: The internally located lounge spaces at each pod are located at the intersection of the three wings of each floor, and are immediately adjacent to the elevator lobby. As a result, they are acoustically loud, public, and social due to this activity and interaction. They have furniture arranged to face the focal point, and only wall of this space, a television screen on a diagonal wall. These ample spaces accommodate a greater amount of soft seating arranged to support conversation and other activities simultaneous to watching of television. There are four of these lounges in the entire building. Each lounge serves 78 patients.

BH: The old BH lounges were small alcove spaces off the corridor and elevator lobby, regularly visible to passers-by and staff for casual conversation. Seating (1 couch and 1 loose chair) faced a television but also passers-by. These spaces were less conducive to patient to patient conversation as there was insufficient seating to promote a second activity to television watching. There were 5 of these lounges (1 per floor) with each lounge serving up to 116 patients.

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

PG. 51

BRIDGEPOINT 2013 (BAH)

PROGRAM + AMENITIES

PATIENT CARE (ROOMS)

PATIENT AMENITY

PATIENT LOUNGE

STAFF WORK AREAS

STAFF AMENITY

PUBLIC AREA

OUTDOOR AMENITIES

LOWER LEVEL

STAFF GYM

PG. 52

PHYSIOTHERAPY

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

PATIENT CARE (ROOMS)

PATIENT AMENITY

PATIENT LOUNGE

STAFF WORK AREAS

STAFF AMENITY

PUBLIC AREA

OUTDOOR AMENITIES

GROUND LEVEL

STAFF GYM

PHYSIOTHERAPY

GROUND FLOOR LOBBY

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

POOL

PG. 53

PROGRAM + AMENITIES

BRIDGEPOINT 2013 (BAH)

PROGRAM + AMENITIES

PATIENT CARE (ROOMS)

PATIENT AMENITY

PATIENT LOUNGE

OUTDOOR TERRACE

STAFF AMENITY

PUBLIC AREA

OUTDOOR AMENITIES

CAFETERIA

LOBBY

PG. 54

STAFF WORK AREAS

MAIN LEVEL

NURSE STATION

LIBRARY

LABYRINTH TERRACE

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

PHYSIOTHERAPY ROOM

STAFF LOUNGE

PATIENT CARE (ROOMS)

CAFETERIA

PATIENT AMENITY

PATIENT LOUNGE

STAFF WORK AREAS

STAFF AMENITY

PUBLIC AREA

OUTDOOR AMENITIES

2nd, 3rd, 4th LEVELS

LIBRARY

LOBBY

NURSE STATION

LABYRINTH TERRACE

PHYSIOTHERAPY ROOM

STAFF LOUNGE PATIENT LOUNGE

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

PATIENT DINING

PATIENT ROOMS

PG. 55

PROGRAM + AMENITIES

BRIDGEPOINT 2013 (BAH)

OUTDOOR TERRACE

BRIDGEPOINT 2013 (BAH)

PROGRAM + AMENITIES

PATIENT CARE (ROOMS)

PATIENT AMENITY

PATIENT LOUNGE

STAFF WORK AREAS

STAFF AMENITY

PUBLIC AREA

OUTDOOR AMENITIES

FIFTH LEVEL

INTERNET CAFE OUTDOOR TERRACE

MEETING ROOM

SPIRITUAL CARE OUTDOOR TERRACE

PATIENT LOUNGE

PHYSIOTHERAPY ROOM

PATIENT ROOMS

STAFF LOUNGE

PG. 56

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

INTERNET CAFE

PATIENT CARE (ROOMS)

PATIENT AMENITY

PATIENT LOUNGE

MEETING ROOM

STAFF WORK AREAS

STAFF AMENITY

PUBLIC AREA

OUTDOOR AMENITIES

7th, 8th, 9th LEVELS

MEETING ROOM

SPIRITUAL CARE OUTDOOR TERRACE

PATIENT LOUNGE

PHYSIOTHERAPY ROOM

PATIENT ROOMS

STAFF LOUNGE

PATIENT LOUNGE NURSE STATION

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

PATIENT DINING

STAFF LOUNGE

PG. 57

PROGRAM + AMENITIES

BRIDGEPOINT 2013 (BAH)

OUTDOOR TERRACE

BRIDGEPOINT 2013 (BAH)

PROGRAM + AMENITIES

PATIENT CARE (ROOMS)

PATIENT AMENITY

PATIENT LOUNGE

STAFF WORK AREAS

STAFF AMENITY

PUBLIC AREA

OUTDOOR AMENITIES

TENTH LEVEL

STAFF LOUNGE

PATIENT AUDITORIUM

PATIENT DINING

NURSE STATION

STAFF LOUNGE PATIENT LOUNGE

PG. 58

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

PROGRAM + AMENITIES BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

PG. 59

BRIDGEPOINT 1963 (BH)

PROGRAM + AMENITIES

PATIENT CARE (ROOMS)

PATIENT AMENITY

PATIENT LOUNGE

STAFF WORK AREAS

STAFF AMENITY

PUBLIC AREA

OUTDOOR AMENITIES

LOWER LEVEL

LIBRARY

GROUND FLOOR

PG. 60

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

PATIENT CARE (ROOMS)

PATIENT AMENITY

PATIENT LOUNGE

STAFF WORK AREAS

STAFF AMENITY

PUBLIC AREA

OUTDOOR AMENITIES

MAIN LEVEL

CAFETERIA 103

LOUNGE

CHAPEL

104

105

CORR. 158

107 RY TO RA 1 10

ELEVATOR

EN LIN TE CHU

STAIRHALL FHC

106

FHC

OR ID CO RR EN

CLEA

N EA CL KS UC D OR TR ILE EN 9 SO LIN 16

165

DI TR SH W UC AS K PA H RK & RM 10 9 .

G IN EP KE ICE USEOFF 1 17 HO

M 17 EN 7

N LINE

OR CT

STORAGE

142

W R 5

LA INCY

STORAGE

144

EN CH KIT 1 11

MA CY

M RE ORT 17 FR. . 4

DIRE

AUDITORIUM

BARRIER-FREE WASHROOM

143

146

CHAPLAIN

C FH

9 17

VIE

148

VOLUNTEERS KITCHEN 137

ME RE DICA CO RD L S 18

STORAGE

149

REC ORDIN

181

ME REC DICAL ORDS

183

182

116

118

121

186

ADMITTIN

183A

HOUS KEEPINGE STORAGE

PHARMACY RECEIVING

189

188

STAIRHALL

195

192

CORR.

DEEP FR.

122

CORR.

DEEP FR.

194

124

BAKER'S REF.

126

JUICE REF.

SIDE ENTRANCE

JUICE REF.

OFFICE

117

DIETICIAN'S OFFICE

119

MEAT REFR.

120

123

128

RECEIVING

127

129

CORR.

127A

153

ELEVATOR

VEG. REFR.

154

STAIRHALL

STORAGE

112

CORR.

FLAMMABLE LIQUID

130

GARDEN TOOLS OXYGEN STOR.

CORR.

195

131

152

FHC

155

INCINERATOR INTAKE

SHOP

MECH. STORAGE

132

CHIEF PHARMACIST

STAIR

UPPER PART OF BOILER ROOM

157

BAKE

STAIR

DAIRY REFR.

SECURIT

136

115

CORR.

150

T& ROO R. STO VEG.

CORR.

E OFFIC 133

STO

183

RAG E 193

BARRIER-FREE WASHROOM

ING LD HO FR. RE 5 13

DIRECT OR ME REC DICAL ORD S

138

OD FO ICES RV SE 134

JA N. 17 2

8 17

147

M ORG 17 UE 3

RR CO

AC SP

RY TO RA E BO AG 4 LA OR 18 ST

Y ER

DISP EN SA 19 RY 7

160

ERS LOCK 7 16

CART ROOM

RIA

159

EN D LINKS ILE SO TRUC 9

STAIRHALL DN

ELEVATOR

166

ELEVATOR

161

168

EDIC E ORTHOP STORAG

MB DU ITER WA 8

NG RI CTU UFA 198

AN M

LOBBY

AUDITORIUM

ELEVATOR

GARBAGE DOCK

MAIN FLOOR

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

PG. 61

PROGRAM + AMENITIES

BRIDGEPOINT 1963 (BH)

PROGRAM + AMENITIES

PATIENT CARE (ROOMS)

PATIENT AMENITY

PATIENT LOUNGE

STAFF WORK AREAS

STAFF AMENITY

PUBLIC AREA

OUTDOOR AMENITIES

SECOND LEVEL

OUTDOOR TERRACE

PHYSIO THERAPY

THERAPY POOL

SECOND LOOR

PG. 62

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

PATIENT CARE (ROOMS)

PATIENT AMENITY

PATIENT LOUNGE

STAFF WORK AREAS

STAFF AMENITY

PUBLIC AREA

OUTDOOR AMENITIES

3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th LEVELS

PATIENT LOUNGE

PATIENT ROOMS

MULTI-PURPOSE

STAFF LOUNGE

NURSE STATION

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

NURSE STATION

PG. 63

PROGRAM + AMENITIES

BRIDGEPOINT 1963 (BH)

WEST PARK 1980 (WP)

PROGRAM + AMENITIES

PATIENT CARE (ROOMS)

PATIENT AMENITY

PATIENT LOUNGE

STAFF WORK AREAS

STAFF AMENITY

PUBLIC AREA

OUTDOOR AMENITIES

LOWER LEVEL

CAFETERIA

PG. 64

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

PATIENT CARE (ROOMS)

PATIENT AMENITY

PATIENT LOUNGE

STAFF WORK AREAS

STAFF AMENITY

PUBLIC AREA

OUTDOOR AMENITIES

MAIN LEVEL

AUDITORIUM

MAIN VISITOR LOUNGE

SPIRITUAL CARE

RECREATION THERAPY

PHYSIO THERAPY ROOM

THERAPY POOL

SPECIALTY REHAB

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

PG. 65

PROGRAM + AMENITIES

WEST PARK 1980 (WP)

PROGRAM + AMENITIES

PATIENT CARE (ROOMS)

PATIENT AMENITY

PATIENT LOUNGE

STAFF WORK AREAS

STAFF AMENITY

PUBLIC AREA

OUTDOOR AMENITIES

SECOND LEVEL

PATIENT ROOMS

PHYSIOTHERAPY

NURSE STATION

ROOFTOP GARDEN

PATIENT LOUNGE

PG. 66

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

PATIENT CARE (ROOMS)

PATIENT AMENITY

PATIENT LOUNGE

STAFF WORK AREAS

STAFF AMENITY

PUBLIC AREA

OUTDOOR AMENITIES

THIRD LEVEL

PATIENT ROOMS

PHYSIOTHERAPY

NURSE STATION

PATIENT LOUNGE

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

PG. 67

PROGRAM + AMENITIES

WEST PARK 1980 (WP)

FENESTRATION PG. 68

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

Tom Arban

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

PG. 69

FENESTRATION

FENESTRATION OVERVIEW

DAYLIGHTING + FENESTRATION

BAH: All patient rooms, lounge spaces, and patient, staff and common amenity spaces have access to direct daylight at least three hours a day over most of their entire area in plan, due to plan orientation, window configurations and proportions. The building is designed to situate many key social spaces so that they have at least two exterior orientations, extending daylight access and view even further. Even the swimming pool has access to direct daylight from two directions, situated at the north end of the building looking into the park. BH: Due to the north/south orientation of the building, while all patient rooms got ample access to indirect daylight, about 30 percent of the rooms (north facing), did not get direct light for more than 3 hours a day. The large balcony overhangs limited access to daylight on the southern facing rooms during the summer months (which was desirable from a heat gain perspective). The central, north facing patient lounge on each floor received only indirect north light, with good, but limited views to daylight in the park. While all rooms and lounges had balconiesâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;they were permanently locked. WP: Patient rooms are organized to face all orientations equally so all but the northerly (approximately 25%) rooms receive more than three hours of direct daylight per day. The internal patient lounges are all without

PG. 70

view, and the two upper level lounges have coffered ceilings with several skylights. The podium levels are very deep in plan and have limited amounts of glazing as the building is partially underground. The ground floor common lounge and cafeteria are largely internalized with one large window at their short ends, and each receive access to daylight for less than 3 hours a day, and in only a small portion of the overall spaces.

Note: Three hours a day of daylight was selected as a significant datum as it has been established as a minimum, through evidence based design research to reduce stress (Alimoglu and Donmez 2005).

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

FENESTRATION Patient Space receives more than 3 hours direct daylight/day

4.2 m

90%

Patient Space receives more than 3 hours direct daylight/day

70%

Patient Space receives more than 3 hours direct daylight/day

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

60%

3.3 m

BRIDGEPOINT 2013 (BAH) BRIDGEPOINT 1963 (BH) WEST PARK 1980 (WP)

DAYLIGHT

1:1

WINDOW TO WALL RATIO

1:2

WINDOW TO WALL RATIO

1:2

WINDOW TO WALL RATIO

PG. 71

FENESTRATION

DAYLIGHT AND VIEWS

IN-PATIENT ROOMS : PRIVACY, DAYLIGHT AND VIEWS

BAH: Typical double rooms are organized so that each patient has direct access to view even when their roommate’s privacy curtain is drawn. Rooms are typically twice as large as the two-patient rooms at the old BH with space for private bed-side tables, storage and a visitor chair. En-suite washroom facilities are provided for typical rooms with an integral, wheelchair accessible shower shared between each pair of rooms. Sixty percent are double rooms and forty percent are single rooms.

is drawn. Two piece, en-suite washroom facilities are provided with shared bathing facilities down the hall. Sixty-one percent are quad rooms, thirty-one percent are double, and eight percent are single rooms. Comparable rooms (i.e. doubles) are 20% smaller than new BAH’s (excluding WC’s),

BH: Patient rooms on the outer crescent all had good views to either of the parks and the activities there. Beds were organized parallel to one another and the window wall, preventing view and light for the inner bed when the outer bed’s privacy curtains were drawn. No en-suite toilets or washroom facilities were provided, with shared facilities located down the hall. Rooms were 55% as large as the new BAH, were too small to negotiate with contemporary wheelchairs, lacked storage and room for a visitor’s chair, and also appeared cluttered. Sixty-six percent were quad rooms and thirty-four percent were double. WP: Patient rooms have good views to either the park or the roof terrace and beds are organized parallel to one another and the windows, meaning the inner patient has no access to view when their roommate’s privacy curtain

PG. 72

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

FENESTRATION

PATIENT LOUNGES : DAYLIGHT AND VIEWS

BAH: The patient lounges, dining, and physiotherapy spaces all have meaningful views to baseball and soccer games, highway traffic, several parks, and the city skyline. Each lounge has three walls each of floor to ceiling glass, affording multiple orientations, and views down to grade and up to the sky. Operable, view permeable blinds and fritted glass reduce glare. These east and west facing rooms are very bright and have glare at certain times of day when blinds are not down. BH: The lounge space faced north with smallish windows with high sills and balcony overhangs beyond, restricting views. Physiotherapy spaces on the opposite side of the elevator lobby received south light, with views to the back of the jail or the curved ends of inactive, adjacent patient room balconies. WP: Lounge spaces are internal, centralized and at the intersection of each patient bay and are adjacent to the elevator cores of each “pod”. Surrounded by an open corridor and this proximity to the buildings’ vertical circulation, they are a busy hub for patients and staff. Being internal, they have no view to the exterior and have no access to natural daylight except via skylight (a feature only available at two of the four patient lounges.)

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

PG. 73

20 20 20

2.2m 2.2m

0 0

5 10 5

20 20

2.4m 2.4m

5 0

2.2m

2.4m

2.2m 2.2m 2.2m

2.7m

2.4m 2.4m 2.4m

Tom Arban 0

BRIDGEPOINT 1963 (BH)

5 10

2.7m 2.7m 0

PG. 74

FOCUS ROOM INTERIOR GLAZING ELEVATION

2.7m 2.7m 2.7m

ROOM KEY PLAN

BRIDGEPOINT 2013 (BAH)

ROOM INTERIOR PHOTO

WEST PARK 1980 (WP)

FENESTRATION

TYPICAL PATIENT ROOM : DAYLIGHTING

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

BRIDGEPOINT 2013 (BAH)

LIGHTING DATA

DIRECT SUNLIGHT

ROOM PLAN

SHADED AREA

ROOM SECTION

Optimal Daylight Infiltration:

Optimal Daylight Infiltration: Winter Solstice Optimal Daylight Infiltration: Optimal Daylight Infiltration: Winter Solstice East-Facing Rooms Optimal Daylight Infiltration: Optimal Daylight Infiltration: Optimal Optimal Daylight Daylight Infiltration: Infiltration: Winter Solstice Optimal Daylight Infiltration: Winter Solstice East-facing Rooms 10:00 AMInfiltration: Optimal Daylight Infiltration: Optimal Daylight Infiltration: Winter Solstice Optimal Daylight Winter Solstice Winter Winter Solstice Solstice Optimal Daylight Infiltration: East-facing Rooms Winter Solstice East-facing 10:00AM Winter Solstice Winter Solstice East-facing Rooms Rooms Winter Solstice East-facing Rooms East-facing East-facing Rooms Rooms Winter Solstice 10:00AM East-facing Rooms 10:00AM East-facing Rooms Azmuth: East-facing Rooms 10:00AM East-facing Rooms148° 10:00AM 10:00AM 10:00AM East-facing Rooms Direct Sunlight 10:00AM 10:00AM 10:00AM 10:00AM 10:00AM Direct Sunlight Direct Sunlight Indirect DirectDaylight Sunlight Altitude: 17° Direct Sunlight Direct Sunlight Direct Sunlight Direct Sunlight Indirect Daylight Direct Sunlight Indirect Daylight Direct Sunlight Shaded Area Direct Sunlight Indirect Daylight Direct Sunlight Indirect Daylight IndirectIndirect Daylight Daylight Indirect Daylight ShadedIndirect Area Shaded Area Indirect Daylight Daylight Indirect Daylight Shaded Area Shaded AreaDaylight Indirect ShadedShaded Area Area Shaded Area Shaded AreaArea Shaded Area Shaded Shaded Area 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 00 5 55 00 00 55 55 0 5

BRIDGEPOINT 1963 (BH)

INDIRECT DAYLIGHT

FENESTRATION

Indirect Daylight Shaded Area

Azimuth:148.3° Azimuth: 148.3° Azimuth: 148° 148.3° Azimuth: Azimuth: 148.3° Azimuth: Azimuth: 148.3° Azimuth: 148.3° Azimuth: 148.3° Azimuth: 148.3° Azimuth: 148.3° Azimuth:148.3°

Altitude:16.5° Altitude: 16.5° Altitude:16.5° 17° Altitude: Altitude: 16.5° Altitude: Altitude: 16.5° Altitude: 16.5° Altitude: 16.5° Altitude: 16.5° Altitude: 16.5° Altitude: 16.5°

Azimuth:148.3° 148° Azimuth: 148.3° Azimuth: 148.3° Azimuth: 175.9° Azimuth: Azimuth: 148.3° Azimuth: Azimuth: 148.3° Azimuth: 148.3° Azimuth: 148.3° Azimuth:148.3° 148.3° Azimuth:

Altitude:17° 16.5° Altitude: 16.5°Altitude: 16.5° Altitude: 22.8° Altitude: Altitude: 16.5° Altitude: Altitude: 16.5° Altitude: 16.5° Altitude: 16.5° Altitude:16.5° 16.5° Altitude:

Azimuth:175.9° Azimuth: 175.9° Azimuth: 176° 175.9° Azimuth: 175.9° Azimuth: Azimuth: Azimuth: 175.9° 175.9° Azimuth: 175.9° Azimuth: 175.9° Azimuth: 175.9° Azimuth:175.9°

Altitude:22.8° Altitude: 22.8° 23° Altitude: Altitude: 22.8° 22.8° Altitude: Altitude: Altitude: 22.8° 22.8° Altitude: 22.8° Altitude: 22.8° Altitude: 22.8° Altitude:22.8°

Optimal Daylight Infiltration:

WEST PARK 1980 (WP)

Winter Solstice Optimal Daylight Infiltration: Optimal Daylight Infiltration: East-Facing Rooms Optimal Daylight Infiltration: Optimal Daylight Infiltration: Winter Solstice Winter Solstice Optimal Daylight Infiltration: Optimal Daylight Infiltration: Optimal Optimal Daylight Daylight Infiltration: Infiltration: 10:00 AM Winter Solstice Optimal Daylight Infiltration: Winter Solstice East-facing Rooms South-facing Rooms Optimal Daylight Infiltration: Winter Solstice Optimal Daylight Infiltration: Winter Solstice Winter Winter Solstice Solstice Optimal Daylight Infiltration: East-facing Rooms Winter Solstice East-facing 10:00AM 12:00PM Winter Solstice East-facing Rooms Rooms Winter Solstice East-facing Rooms East-facing East-facing Rooms Rooms Winter Solstice Azmuth: 10:00AM East-facing Rooms148° 10:00AM East-facing Rooms 10:00AM East-facing Rooms 10:00AM 10:00AM 10:00AM East-facing Rooms Direct Sunlight Direct Sunlight 10:00AM 10:00AM 10:00AMDirect Sunlight 10:00AM Direct Sunlight Altitude: Indirect Indirect Daylight 17° DirectDaylight Sunlight Direct Sunlight Direct Sunlight Direct Sunlight Direct Sunlight Indirect Daylight Indirect Daylight Direct Sunlight Shaded Area Direct Sunlight Shaded Area Indirect Daylight Direct Sunlight Indirect Daylight IndirectIndirect Daylight Daylight Indirect Daylight ShadedIndirect Area Shaded Area Daylight Indirect Daylight Shaded Area Shaded AreaDaylight Indirect ShadedShaded Area Area Shaded Area Area Area 0 Shaded 5 Shaded Shaded Area 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 00 5 55 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5

Optimal Daylight Infiltration: Optimal Daylight Infiltration: Optimal Daylight Infiltration: Optimal Daylight Infiltration: Winter Solstice Winter Solstice Optimal Daylight Infiltration: Optimal Daylight Infiltration: Optimal Optimal Daylight Daylight Infiltration: Infiltration: Winter Solstice Optimal Daylight Infiltration: Winter Solstice South-facing Rooms Optimal Daylight Infiltration: Winter Solstice South-Facing Rooms Optimal Daylight Infiltration: Winter Solstice Winter Winter Solstice Solstice Optimal DaylightRooms Infiltration: South-facing Rooms Winter Solstice South-facing 12:00PM Winter Solstice South-facing RoomsPM 12:00 Winter Solstice South-facing Rooms South-facing South-facing Rooms Rooms Winter Solstice 12:00PM South-facing Rooms 12:00PM South-facing Rooms 12:00PM South-facing Rooms 12:00PM 12:00PM 12:00PM South-facing Direct SunlightRooms 12:00PM 12:00PM Azmuth: 176° 12:00PM 12:00PM Direct Sunlight Direct Sunlight Indirect DirectDaylight Sunlight Direct Sunlight Direct Sunlight Direct Sunlight Direct Sunlight Indirect Daylight Indirect Daylight Direct Sunlight Shaded Area Direct Sunlight Indirect Daylight Altitude: 23° Direct Sunlight Indirect Daylight IndirectIndirect Daylight Daylight Indirect Daylight ShadedIndirect AreaIndirect Shaded Area Daylight Daylight Shaded Area Shaded AreaDaylight Indirect ShadedShaded Area Area Shaded Area Shaded Area Area 0 5 Shaded Shaded Area 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 00 0 5 55 5 0 5 0 5 0 5

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

PG. 75

ROOM KEY PLAN

FOCUS ROOM 5 10

INTERIOR GLAZING ELEVATION

0 0

5 5

2.7m

2.7m 2.7m

BRIDGEPOINT 2013 (BAH)

ROOM INTERIOR PHOTO

0 0

5 5

2.2m

2.2m 2.2m

BRIDGEPOINT 1963 (BH)

Tom Arban

2.4m

2.4m 2.4m

WEST PARK 1980 (WP)

FENESTRATION

TYPICAL PATIENT ROOM : VIEWS

PG. 76

5 5

20 20

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

VIEW DATA

BRIDGEPOINT 2013 (BAH)

SHADED AREA

View Range

ROOM PLAN

East-Facing Rooms

View Conditions: View Range Patient Rooms View Range 0 East-facing 5 5 0 View Range 0 5

BRIDGEPOINT 1963 (BH)

Typical View Conditions:

View Conditions: East-facing Patient Rooms

w View Conditions: Conditions: View Conditions: -facing East-facing Patient Patient Rooms Rooms East-facing Patient Rooms View Conditions: ew Conditions: View East-facing View RangeRangePatient Rooms st-facing Patient RoomsView Range

ROOM SECTION

View Range 0

5 View Conditions: East-facing Patient Rooms

View Range

5 Typical View Conditions:

East-Facing Rooms

View Range

WEST PARK 1980 (WP)

5 Typical View Conditions: East-Facing Rooms

View Range

5 5

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

PG. 77

FENESTRATION

View Conditions: East-facing Patient Rooms

ROOM INTERIOR PHOTO

5 10

FOCUS ROOM INTERIOR GLAZING ELEVATION

BRIDGEPOINT 2013 (BAH)

ROOM KEY PLAN

2.2m

2.4m

2.2m 2.4m 2.4m 2.4m

PG. 78

2.2m

BRIDGEPOINT 1963 (BH)

Tom Arban

WEST PARK 1980 (WP)

FENESTRATION

TYPICAL PATIENT LOUNGES : DAYLIGHTING

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

BRIDGEPOINT 2013 (BAH) BRIDGEPOINT 1963 (BH) WEST PARK 1980 (WP)

SHADED AREA

ROOM SECTION

Azimuth: 218.6° Azimuth: 218.6° Azimuth: 218.6° Azimuth: 218.6° Azimuth: 218.6° 219° Azimuth: 218.6° Azimuth: Azimuth: 218.6° 218.6° Azimuth: 218.6°

Altitude: 13.0° Altitude: 13.0°

Altitude:13.0° Altitude:13° 13.0° Altitude:13.0 Altitude: 13.0° Altitude: Altitude:13.0° 13.0° Altitude:13.0°

Optimal Daylight Infiltration:

Azimuth: 218.6° Azimuth: 218.6° Azimuth: 218.6° Azimuth:219° 218.6° Azimuth: 218.6° Azimuth: 218.6° Azimuth: 218.6° Azimuth: 218.6° Azimuth: 218.6° Azimuth: 218.6°

Altitude: 13.0° Altitude: 13.0°

Altitude:13.0° Altitude:13° 13.0° Altitude:13.0 Altitude: 13.0° Altitude: 13.0° Altitude: Altitude: 13.0°13.0° Altitude:13.0°

Optimal Daylight Infiltration:

Optimal Daylight Infiltration: Optimal Daylight Infiltration: Winter Solstice Winter Solstice Winter Solstice Central Patient Lounge Central Patient Lounge Optimal Daylight Infiltration: Central Rooms 3:00PM Optimal DaylightOptimal Infiltration: Daylight Infiltration: 3:00PM Winter Solstice 3:00 PM Optimal Daylight Infiltration: Optimal Daylight Infiltration: Winter Solstice Winter Solstice Central Patient Lounge Optimal Daylight Infiltration: Winter Solstice Direct Sunlight Direct Sunlight Optimal Daylight Infiltration: Winter Solstice Central Patient Lounge Central Patient Lounge 3:00PM Winter Solstice Optimal Daylight Infiltration: Azimuth: 219° Central Patient Lounge Optimal Daylight Infiltration: Indirect Daylight Winter Solstice Central Patient Lounge 3:00PM 3:00PM Indirect Daylight Central Patient Lounge Winter Solstice 3:00PM Winter Solstice North facing Patient Lounge 3:00PM Direct Sunlight No Daylight No Daylight Central Patient Lounge 3:00PM North facing Patient Lounge Direct Patient Sunlight Direct Sunlight Altitude: 13° South3:00PM facing Lounge Daylight 3:00PMIndirect Direct Sunlight Direct Sunlight 3:00PMIndirect Daylight Indirect Daylight Direct Sunlight 0 0No 5 5 Daylight Indirect Daylight Direct Sunlight Indirect Daylight No Daylight No Daylight Direct Sunlight Indirect Daylight Direct Sunlight No Indirect Daylight Daylight No Daylight NoDaylight Daylight 0 Indirect 5 Indirect NoDaylight Daylight 0 No Daylight 0 5 No Daylight 0 0 5 5 0 5 0

INDIRECT DAYLIGHT

Optimal Daylight Infiltration: Optimal Daylight Infiltration: Winter Solstice Winter Solstice Winter Solstice North-Facing Rooms North facing Patient Lounge North facing Patient Lounge Optimal Daylight Infiltration: 3:00 PM 3:00PM Optimal Daylight Optimal Infiltration: Daylight Infiltration: 3:00PM Winter Solstice Optimal Daylight Infiltration: Optimal Daylight Infiltration: Winter Solstice Winter Solstice North facing Patient Lounge Optimal Daylight Infiltration: Optimal Daylight Infiltration: Winter Solstice Direct Sunlight Direct Sunlight Optimal Daylight Infiltration: Winter Solstice North facing Patient North Lounge facing Patient Lounge Azimuth: 219° 3:00PM Optimal Daylight Infiltration: Winter Solstice Winter Solstice North facing Patient Lounge Winter Solstice Indirect Daylight North facing Patient Lounge 3:00PM 3:00PM Indirect Daylight Winter Solstice North facing Patient Lounge South facing Patient Lounge 3:00PM South facing Patient Lounge Direct Sunlight No No Daylight Altitude: 13° Daylight North3:00PM facing Patient Lounge 3:00PM 3:00PM Direct Sunlight Direct Sunlight 3:00PM Daylight 3:00PMIndirect Direct Sunlight Direct Sunlight Indirect Daylight Indirect Daylight Direct Sunlight Direct Sunlight No Daylight Indirect Daylight Direct Sunlight Indirect Daylight Sunlight No Daylight 5 5 0 Direct Indirect Daylight 0No Daylight Daylight No Indirect Daylight Indirect Daylight No Daylight Indirect NoDaylight Daylight No Daylight No Daylight 0 No Daylight 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 5 0 5 0 5 0 5

0 0 0

ROOM PLAN

Optimal Daylight Infiltration:

Optimal Daylight Infiltration: Optimal Daylight Infiltration: Winter Solstice Winter Solstice Winter Solstice South-Facing Rooms South facing Patient Lounge South facing Patient Lounge Optimal Daylight Infiltration: 3:00 PM 3:00PM Optimal DaylightOptimal Infiltration: Daylight Infiltration: 3:00PM Winter Solstice Optimal Daylight Infiltration: Optimal Daylight Infiltration: Winter Solstice Winter Solstice South facing Patient Lounge Optimal Daylight Infiltration: Azimuth: 219° Winter Solstice Direct Sunlight Direct Sunlight Winter Solstice South facing Patient South Lounge facing Patient Lounge 3:00PM Optimal Daylight Infiltration: Winter Solstice South facing Patient Lounge Indirect Daylight South facing Patient Lounge 3:00PM Indirect Daylight Winter Solstice South facing3:00PM Patient Lounge 3:00PM Altitude: 13° Direct Sunlight No No Daylight Daylight South3:00PM facing Patient Lounge 3:00PM Direct Sunlight Direct Sunlight Indirect Daylight 3:00PMDirect Sunlight Direct Sunlight Indirect Daylight Indirect Daylight Direct Sunlight No Daylight Indirect Daylight Indirect Daylight Sunlight 0 Direct No Daylight 5 5 0No Daylight Indirect Daylight No No Daylight Daylight Indirect NoDaylight Daylight 0 No Daylight 5 0 0 5 0 0 5 5 0 5 0

DIRECT SUNLIGHT

FENESTRATION

LIGHTING DATA

5 5 5

Azimuth: 218.6° Azimuth: 218.6° Azimuth: 218.6° Azimuth: 218.6° Azimuth: 218.6° Azimuth: 218.6° 219° Azimuth: 218.6° Azimuth: 218.6° Azimuth: 218.6° Azimuth: 218.6° Azimuth: 218.6°

Altitude: 13.0° Altitude: 13.0°

Altitude:13.0° Altitude:13.0° Altitude:13.0 13° Altitude: 13.0° Altitude: Altitude:13.0° 13.0° Altitude: Altitude: 13.0°13.0° Altitude: 13.0°

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

PG. 79

ROOM INTERIOR PHOTO

5 10

FOCUS ROOM INTERIOR GLAZING ELEVATION

BRIDGEPOINT 2013 (BAH)

ROOM KEY PLAN

2.4m

2.2m

BRIDGEPOINT 1963 (BH)

Tom Arban

WEST PARK 1980 (WP)

FENESTRATION

TYPICAL PATIENT LOUNGES : VIEWS

PG. 80

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

VIEW DATA

BRIDGEPOINT 2013 (BAH)

SHADED AREA

View Range

ROOM PLAN

South-Facing Rooms View Conditions: East-facing Patient Rooms View Range

View Conditions: View Range View Conditions: View Conditions: South-facing Patient Lounge View Conditions: South-facing South-facing Lounge South-facing Patient Patient LoungePatient Lounge View Range 0 5 View View Range Range View Range 0

Typical View Conditions:

View Conditions: South-facing Patient Lounge

0 0

ROOM SECTION

5 5

5 View Conditions: East-facing Patient Rooms

BRIDGEPOINT 1963 (BH)

View Range

Typical View Conditions:

North-Facing Rooms

View Conditions: North-facing Patient Lounge View Conditions: View Range View Conditions: View Conditions: North-facing Patient Lounge View Conditions: North-facing North-facing Lounge North-facing Patient Patient LoungePatient Lounge View Range 0 5 View Range Range View Range View 0

WEST PARK 1980 (WP)

0 0

5 5

Typical View Conditions: Central Rooms

View Conditions: Central Patient Lounge View Conditions: View Range View Conditions: ViewLounge Conditions: Central Patient View Conditions: Central Patient Lounge Central PatientCentral LoungePatient Lounge View Range 0 5 View Range Range View Range View 0 0

5 5

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

PG. 81

FENESTRATION

View Conditions: East-facing Patient Rooms

ROOM DATA SHEETS PG. 82

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

Tom Arban

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

PG. 83

BRIDGEPOINT 2013 (BAH)

ROOM DATA

Orientations: Patients Served: 480

KEY PLAN

E, S *1

Total Amount in Bldg:

Amount per Floor:

N/A

Avg. Room Area: 46 m 2

Orientations:

N 103

LOUNGE

CHAPEL

104

105

CORR.

158

Patients Served: 580

FET

107

LAB

101

LINEN E CHUT

LOBBY

161

168 PEDIC ORTHO GE STORA

168

IN UR CT FA 8 19 NU

ELEVATOR

166

KER

LOC

ELEVATOR DN

159 UP

160 ELEVATOR

STAIRHA

167

106 FHC

FHC

EN LIN LED CKS SOI TRU

199

OR ID RR CO PEN SA 197 RY

CLEAN

DIS TRU H WA CK SH PAR & 109 K RM

7 17

G PIN EE E EK US OFFIC 1 17

OR ECT

170

FHC

MO REF RT. 174 R.

DIR

RM ACY

STORAGE

144

142

UE RG

AUDITORIUM

BARRIER-FREE WASHROOM

143

146

CHAPLAIN

FHC

179

148

VOLUNTEERS KITCHEN 137

STORAGE

149

RDIN

182

RECO

ITY

183

181

SECUR

MED RECO ICAL RDS

116

118

121

186

ADMITT

183A

ING

HOUSE KEEPING STORAG E

PHARMACY RECEIVING

189

188

STAIRHALL

195

192

CORR.

DEEP FR.

122

CORR.

124

DEEP FR.

194

126

JUICE REF.

SIDE ENTRANCE

BAKER'S REF.

OFFICE

119

117

DIETICIAN'S OFFICE

MEAT REFR.

128

123

RECEIVING

120

129

127

ELEVATOR DN

CORR.

153

127A

OXYGEN STOR.

STAIRHALL

154

VEG. REFR.

FLAMMABLE LIQUID STORAGE

112

CORR.

130

GARDEN TOOLS CORR.

195

SHOP

INCINERATOR INTAKE

152

FHC

131

MECH. STORAGE

132

155

DAIRY REFR.

STAIR

UPPER PART OF BOILER ROOM

157

CHIEF PHARMACIST

115

136

& ROOT STOR. VEG.

CORR.

150

STAIR

BAKE

Avg. Room Area: 21 m

CORR.

ICE OFF 133

180

183B

MED REC ICA ORD

DIREC MED TOR RECO ICAL RDS

AGE 193

STOR

BARRIER-FREE WASHROOM

NG LDI HO R. REF 135

VIEW

ING

ROO

138

OD FO VICES SER 134

173

147

JAN 172 .

WR 175

178

CHA

PLA

INC

PHA

111

HEN

KITC

IDO

N/A

LINEN

165

AN CLE OR TRUCKS LED EN SOI LIN 169

DIS

RY ATO OR GE 4 LAB RA 18 STO

CE SPA

CART ROOM

Y ER

Amount per Floor:

STAIRHA

ELEVATOR

B DUMTER WAI

Total Amount in Bldg:

ERI

ATO

BRIDGEPOINT 1963 (BH)

*1 available beds

ELEVATOR

GARBAGE DOCK

*1 available beds

WEST PARK 1980 (WP)

ROOM DATA SHEETS

MAIN VISITOR LOUNGE/LOBBY

Orientations: Patients Served: 312

E *1

Total Amount in Bldg:

Amount per Floor:

N/A

Avg. Room Area: 21 m 2

*1 available beds

PG. 84

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

ROOM DATA SHEETS

ROOM PLAN

DOCUMENTATION

Tom Arban

103

LOUNGE

CHAPEL

104

105

CORR. 158

107

ELEVATOR

LOBBY

161

168

EDIC ORTHOPAGE STOR

RIA

STAIRHALL DN

159 UP

160 ELEVATOR

ELEVATOR

166

ELEVATOR

STAIRHALL

FHC

106

Y ER RV 8 SE 10

CART ROOM N

N LINE

CLEA

165

DI TR SH WA UC K PA SH RK & RM 10 9 .

STORAGE

144

142

EN CH KIT 1 11

AUDITORIUM CHAPLAIN

138

OD FO ICES RV SE 134

143

146

RR CO

BARRIER-FREE WASHROOM

EE M

ING LD HO FR. RE 5 13

VOLUNTEERS KITCHEN 137

115

136

T& ROO R. STO VEG.

E OFFIC 133

CORR.

116

131

INCINERATOR INTAKE

117

DIETICIAN'S OFFICE

120

119

MEAT REFR.

VEG. REFR.

123

STAIRHALL

127

128

CORR.

129

127A

RECEIVING

CORR.

112

130

ELEVATOR

CORR.

152

SHOP

132

MECH. STORAGE

FHC

155

BAKE

STAIR

UPPER PART OF BOILER ROOM

DAIRY REFR.

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

PG. 85

BRIDGEPOINT 2013 (BAH)

ROOM DATA ROOM DATA

Orientations: Patients Served: 480

KEY PLAN

DOCUMENTATION

N, S, W *1

Total Amount in Bldg:

Amount per Floor:

N/A

Avg. Room Area: 210 m 2

BRIDGEPOINT 1963 (BH)

*1 available beds

Orientations:

N/A

Patients Served: 580

Total Amount in Bldg:

Amount per Floor:

N/A

Avg. Room Area: 227 m 2

*1 available beds

WEST PARK 1980 (WP)

ROOM DATA SHEETS

AUDITORIUM

Orientations: Patients Served: 312

N *1

Total Amount in Bldg:

Amount per Floor:

N/A

Avg. Room Area: 369 m 2

*1 available beds

PG. 86

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

ROOM DATA SHEETS

ROOM PLAN

DOCUMENTATION

PG. 87

BRIDGEPOINT 2013 (BAH)

ROOM DATA

Orientations: Patients Served: 480

KEY PLAN

W *1

Total Amount in Bldg:

Amount per Floor:

N/A

Avg. Room Area: 350 m 2

BRIDGEPOINT 1963 (BH)

*1 available beds 0

Orientations:

N, E

Patients Served: 580

Total Amount in Bldg:

Amount per Floor:

N/A

Avg. Room Area: 198 m 2

*1 available beds

WEST PARK 1980 (WP)

ROOM DATA SHEETS

CAFETERIA

Orientations: Patients Served: 312

E, S, W *1

Total Amount in Bldg:

Amount per Floor:

N/A

Avg. Room Area: 623 m 2

*1 available beds

PG. 88

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

ROOM DATA SHEETS

ROOM PLAN

DOCUMENTATION

Tom Arban

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

PG. 89

BRIDGEPOINT 2013 (BAH)

ROOM DATA

Orientations: Patients Served: 480

KEY PLAN

E *1

Total Amount in Bldg:

Amount per Floor:

N/A

Avg. Room Area: 164 m 2

BRIDGEPOINT 1963 (BH)

*1 available beds 0

Orientations:

N, W

Patients Served: 580

Total Amount in Bldg:

Amount per Floor:

N/A

Avg. Room Area: 72 m 2 0

*1 available beds

WEST PARK 1980 (WP)

ROOM DATA SHEETS

LIBRARY

Orientations: Patients Served: 312

W *1

Total Amount in Bldg:

Amount per Floor:

N/A

Avg. Room Area: 95 m 2

*1 available beds

PG. 90

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

ROOM DATA SHEETS

ROOM PLAN

DOCUMENTATION

Tom Arban

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

PG. 91

BRIDGEPOINT 2013 (BAH)

ROOM DATA

KEY PLAN

Orientations:

N, E, S, W

Patients Served: 1

x 24 = 24 per floor

Total Amount in Bldg:

180

Amount per Floor:

Avg. Room Area: 21 m 2

BRIDGEPOINT 1963 (BH)

WEST PARK 1980 (WP)

ROOM DATA SHEETS

SINGLE PATIENT ROOMS

N/A

Orientations:

N, E, S, W

Patients Served: 1

x 12 = 12 per floor

Total Amount in Bldg:

Amount per Floor:

Avg. Room Area: 15 m 2

PG. 92

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

ROOM DATA SHEETS

ROOM PLAN

DOCUMENTATION

Tom Arban

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

PG. 93

BRIDGEPOINT 2013 (BAH)

ROOM DATA

Orientations:

N, E, S, W

Patients Served: 2

x 20 = 40 per floor

Total Amount in Bldg:

150

Amount per Floor:

Room Area:

33 m 2

Orientations:

N, E, W

Patients Served: 2

x 20 = 40 per floor

100

Amount per Floor:

Room Area:

18 m 2

Total Amount in Bldg:

BRIDGEPOINT 1963 (BH)

10 on 10th floor

Orientations:

N, E, S, W

Patients Served: 2

x 24 = 48 per floor

Total Amount in Bldg:

Amount per Floor:

Room Area:

ave 27 m 2

PG. 94

KEY PLAN

WEST PARK 1980 (WP)

ROOM DATA SHEETS

DOUBLE PATIENT ROOMS

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

ROOM DATA SHEETS

ROOM PLAN

DOCUMENTATION

Tom Arban

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

PG. 95

BRIDGEPOINT 2013 (BAH)

x 19 = 76 per floor

Total Amount in Bldg:

Amount per Floor:

Room Area:

36 m 2

UP DN

Patients Served: 4

N, E, W

Orientations:

BRIDGEPOINT 1963 (BH)

N/A

Orientations:

N, E, S, W

Patients Served: 4

x 24 = 96 per floor

Total Amount in Bldg:

Amount per Floor:

Room Area:

41 m 2

PG. 96

KEY PLAN

ROOM DATA

WEST PARK 1980 (WP)

ROOM DATA SHEETS

QUADRUPLE PATIENT ROOMS

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

ROOM DATA SHEETS

ROOM PLAN

DOCUMENTATION

5 1.93

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

PG. 97

BRIDGEPOINT 2013 (BAH)

ROOM DATA

Orientations:

BRIDGEPOINT 1963 (BH)

KEY PLAN

N, E, S, W

Patients Served: 32 Total Amount in Bldg:

Amount per Floor:

Avg. Room Area: 37 m 2

Orientations: Patients Served: 116

UP DN

Total Amount in Bldg:

Amount per Floor:

1 UP

Orientations:

Avg. Room Area: 32 m 2

WEST PARK 1980 (WP)

ROOM DATA SHEETS

PATIENT LOUNGES

N/A

Patients Served: 78 Total Amount in Bldg:

Amount per Floor:

Avg. Room Area: 38 m 2

PG. 98

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

ROOM DATA SHEETS

ROOM PLAN

DOCUMENTATION

Tom Arban

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

PG. 99

BRIDGEPOINT 2013 (BAH)

ROOM DATA

Orientations:

BRIDGEPOINT 1963 (BH)

KEY PLAN

E, S

Patients Served: 64 Total Amount in Bldg:

Amount per Floor:

Avg. Room Area: 146 m 2 0

Orientations:

N/A

Patients Served: 116 Total Amount in Bldg:

Amount per Floor:

Avg. Room Area: 8 m 2

WEST PARK 1980 (WP)

ROOM DATA SHEETS

PATIENT FLOOR - KITCHEN/PANTRY

Orientations:

N/A

Patients Served: 78 Total Amount in Bldg:

Amount per Floor:

Avg. Room Area: 5 m 2

PG. 100

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

ROOM DATA SHEETS

ROOM PLAN

DOCUMENTATION

PG. 101

BRIDGEPOINT 2013 (BAH)

ROOM DATA

Orientations: Patients Served: 480

KEY PLAN

E, S *1

Total Amount in Bldg:

Amount per Floor:

N/A

Room Area:

58 m 2

Orientations:

N/A

103

LOUNGE

CHAPEL

104

105

CORR 158

FET

107

LAB

Patients Served: 580

RY ATO 1 10 ELEVATOR

B DUMITER WA

UR CT FA 8 19

N LINE TE CHU

LOBBY

161

168

IC OPED GE ORTH STORA

168

KER

STAIRH

ALL

167

106

FHC

OR ID RR CO

AR Y

LINEN

165

AN CLE CKS D OR TRU ILE EN 9 LIN

7 17

DIS

DIS TRU H WA CK SH PAR & K RM 10 9 .

G PIN EE E EK US OFFIC 1 17

OR ECT

RM ACY

FHC

MO RE RT 17 FR. . 4

STORAGE

144

142

WR 5 17

AIN

RG 3

143

146

CHAPLAIN

FHC

179

148

137

183B

ME REC DIC OR AL 180 DS

DIRE MED CTOR RECO ICAL RDS

AGE

STORAGE

149

182

REC ORD

RITY

183

181

MED REC ICAL ORD S

116

118

121

186

ADMIT

183A

TING

HOUSE KEEPIN STORAGG E

192

PHARMACY RECEIVING

189

188

195

FLAMMABL E LIQUID STORAGE

STAIRHALL

CORR.

DEEP FR.

122

CORR.

124

DEEP FR.

194

126

JUICE REF.

SIDE ENTRANCE

BAKER'S REF.

OFFICE

119

117

MEAT REFR.

DIETICIAN'S OFFICE

123

120

128

STAIRHALL

RECEIVING

129

127

CORR.

ELEVATOR DN

VEG. REFR.

154

153

127A

195

112

CORR.

130

GARDEN TOOLS OXYGEN STOR.

CORR.

CHIEF PHARMACIST

SHOP

INCINERATOR INTAKE

152

FHC

131

MECH. STORAGE

132

155

BAKE

STAIR

UPPER PART OF BOILER ROOM

157 DN

DAIRY REFR.

SECU

136

115

CORR.

150

& ROOT . STOR VEG.

CORR.

ICE OFF 133

ING

193

VOLUNTEERS KITCHEN

NG LDI HO R. REF 135

STOR

BARRIER-FREE WASHROOM

VIE

WIN

G RO

FHC

138

AUDITORIUM

BARRIER-FREE WASHROOM

OD S FO ICE RV SE 134

JA N. 17 2

APL

178

16 147

PHA

EN CH KIT 111

IDO

STAIR

36 m 2

CLEAN

Y ER

CART ROOM

N/A

Room Area:

RY TO RA BO GE 4 LA RA 18 STO

AC SP

DIR

Amount per Floor:

159

160

FHC

LOC

ELEVATOR

EN D LIN S ILE CK SO TRU 9

Total Amount in Bldg:

ALL

ELEVATOR

166

ERI

STAIRH

BRIDGEPOINT 1963 (BH)

*1 available beds

ELEVATOR

GARBAGE DOCK

*1 available beds

WEST PARK 1980 (WP)

ROOM DATA SHEETS

SPIRITUAL CARE

Orientations: Patients Served: 312

Total Amount in Bldg:

Amount per Floor:

N/A

Room Area:

63 m 2

*1 available beds

PG. 102

N/A

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

ROOM DATA SHEETS

ROOM PLAN

DOCUMENTATION

PG. 103

BRIDGEPOINT 2013 (BAH)

ROOM DATA

Orientations: Patients Served: 480

KEY PLAN

N, E *1

Total Amount in Bldg:

Amount per Floor:

N/A

Room Area:

272 m 2

BRIDGEPOINT 1963 (BH)

*1 available beds

Orientations:

Patients Served: 580

Total Amount in Bldg:

Amount per Floor:

N/A

Room Area:

120 m 2

Orientations: Patients Served: 312

PG. 104

N/A *1

Total Amount in Bldg:

Amount per Floor:

N/A

Room Area:

85 m 2

*1 available beds

WEST PARK 1980 (WP)

ROOM DATA SHEETS

THERAPY POOL

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

ROOM DATA SHEETS

ROOM PLAN

DOCUMENTATION

Tom Arban

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

PG. 105

BRIDGEPOINT 2013 (BAH)

ROOM DATA

Orientations: Patients Served: 480

KEY PLAN

N, W *1

Total Amount in Bldg:

Amount per Floor:

N/A

Room Area:

156 m 2 *2

BRIDGEPOINT 1963 (BH)

*1 available beds Note: see p. 55, 57 for additional general physiotherapy spaces on each patient floor *2 + 1 @ 163 m2 per floor x 7 floors = 1141 m2 0

Orientations:

Patients Served: 580

Total Amount in Bldg:

Amount per Floor:

N/A

Room Area:

182 m 2 *2

*1 available beds Note: see p. 63 for additional general physiotherapy spaces on each patient floor *2 + 1 @ 72 m2 per floor x 5 floors = 360 m2

WEST PARK 1980 (WP)

ROOM DATA SHEETS

PATIENT PHYSIOTHERAPY

Orientations: Patients Served: 312

W *1

Total Amount in Bldg:

Amount per Floor:

N/A

Room Area:

148 m 2 *2

*1 available beds Note: see p. 66-67 for additional general physiotherapy spaces on each patient floor *2 + 2 @ 84 m2 per floor x 2 floors = 336 m2 + 547 m2 specialty rehab

PG. 106

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

ROOM DATA SHEETS

ROOM PLAN

DOCUMENTATION

Tom Arban

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

PG. 107

REFERENCES

Drawings of various design stages of the new BAH were provided courtesy of Diamond & Schmitt Architects, HDR Architecture,KPMB Architects, Stantec Architecture Drawings of the original BH were provided by the Bridgepoint Hospital Administration and were the original construction drawings issued by the Architects, Chapman and Hurst, in 1962. Drawings of West Park by Armstrong and Molesworth Architects 19761977, were provided courtesy of David Garlin, Planner, West Park Hospital. Photographs by the authors, and, where noted as such, by Tom Arban. Alimoglu MK, Donmez L. “Daylight exposure and the other predictors of burn- out among nurses in a university hospital.” International Journal of Nursing Studies, 42(5),2005; 549–555. Alvaro, C., & Atkinson, C. “Assessing the impact of healthcare facility design on psychosocial well-being and health: Research methods and outcome measures.” World Health Design, 6 (3) 2013; Jul : 60-67. Joseph A, Malone E, Quan X, Pati D. Healthcare Environmental Terms and Outcome Measures: An Evidence-based Design Glossary. Phase 1 Report: The Centre for Health Design; November 2011. Leblanc, David. What to do with a Riverdale Landmark, Globe and Mail June 17 2005, Toronto http://www.torarchcons.org/riv-press/gmjune17. html The Center for Health Design. Definition of evidence-based design for healthcare. 2008 [cited 2011 April 1, 2011]; Available from: http://www. healthdesign.org/aboutus/mission/EBD_definition.php.

PG. 108

BRIDGEPOINT ACTIVE HEALTHCARE I COMPARATIVE DESIGN ANALYSIS REPORT 2013/2014

PG. 109