Much as I hate to do so, it is necessary to write the final chapter on the disgraceful clear-cutting of somewhere between 700 and 800 mature trees by a developer in Virgil – something this column visited at least twice in 2024 (“Arch-i-text: Grey Forest Homes vs. Virgil’s coniferous forest,” March 6) and my fellow columnist, Garth Turner, visited in his March 26 piece (“The Turner Report: More mayhem as the sap flies in Virgil“).

Despite erudite delegations voicing opposition by residents, the town council majority voted to allow this clear-cut, leaving only a row or two of trees along the edge of the property. As it transpired during the destruction of the conifers, only the immediate on-site intervention of the neighbours saved the last row from being taken down.

Unfortunately, as anyone with even a passing knowledge of trees would have predicted, if you cut a grove down and leave only a single row, the roots of the survivors will be insufficient to anchor the trees in strong wind. They will uproot and blow down, which is exactly what happened.

So, the last of the trees are gone and the developer got exactly what they wanted — no pesky trees leaving a clear piece of land on which they can build another soulless row of townhouses — to the detriment of the environment and the neighbouring residents.

A fine example, in my opinion, of the distinction between the lord mayor and councillors hearing the residents but not actually listening to what they say.

Now, let’s move on to consider the proposal introduced by a letter from Dr. Nick Vaccaro in the May 21 edition of The Lake Report for the redevelopment of the old hospital property in the heart of Old Town (“Letter: A health and senior care plan for the old hospital site“).

At its core, the development will feature an 8,500-square-foot “wellness and healthcare facility” anchored by the RegenaLife Centre, whose mission statement in part reads, “To improve healthspan and lifespan with the most innovative clinical team, the latest technology and facilities, and innovative evidence-based interventions.”

The proposed facility will also include the Discseel Centre, which will provide treatment options for chronic back and joint pain and, potentially, a Healing Arts Centre. Further, the proponents suggest that some consideration be given to a community centre that might offer amenities such as a pool.

Around this core, the proposal envisions an “adult condominium” comprised of 78 dwelling units, the majority of which shall be 50 two-bedroom units, with the remainder being 19 one-bedroom units, five one-bedroom with den units, and four two-bedroom with den units.

Shifting our attention to the building itself and its siting on the property, there are some positive points contained within the proposal.

First, the proponents have elected to design the building with a height of 34.9 feet (10 metres), which is compliant with the property’s current institutional zoning and well below the 12-metre (39.4 feet) height allowed, should a rezoning to an apartment building occur.

Second, the building’s setbacks on both Queen’s Parade–Picton and Wellington streets are quite reasonable, allowing for a soft transitional space relationship along Queen’s Parade between St. Vincent de Paul’s grounds, the proposed building’s landscaped forecourt and the parklands to the south.

The deeper setbacks on these two streets have been complemented by the decision to treat each of the two buildings’ faces as if either could be perceived as the principal façade.

It’s too bad that the Byron Street setback and face were not treated similarly, since the transition from the houses on the east side to the proposed building on the west side will be quite abrupt.

The scale, massing and, as mentioned earlier, the height of the proposed design are acceptable, particularly given the break-up of the building’s faces into smaller staggered elements.

Finally, the decision to hide the rooftop mechanicals under a cupola is, in my opinion, an inspired choice which softens and adds interest to the otherwise severe lines of the flat roof.

That said, the tripling down of dome use on the visitor’s access pavilion near the corner of Wellington and Queen’s Parade carries repetition a step too far and adversely impacts the soft transitional space relationship established by the setbacks. An elegantly simple, classically inspired pavilion would, I believe, be far more appropriate.

While architect Peter Lesdow’s suggestion that this is a “traditional Georgian design” might be somewhat exaggerated — say, rather a modern interpretation of Georgian — the design is largely compatible with much of Old Town’s 19th-century architecture.

However, the selection of stone as the sole cladding material is not, and may quite easily visually transform the building into a monolithic block. I suggest a transition at the first/second-floor junction to brick appointed with stone quoins, sills, arches, etc., would be a more appropriate treatment for both the building and its location in Old Town.

Oh, and the balconies proud of the building simply have to go.

Let’s end with two questions.

The proposal suggests a two-level underground garage. Is there a backup plan for parking if only a single level can be successfully achieved?

And, while 78 new units in Old Town allowing seniors to age in place is certainly desirable, how do we ensure these units are not acquired by investors who VRBO them to “healthy” tourists?

Brian Marshall is a NOTL realtor, author and expert consultant on architectural design, restoration and heritage.