The Ontario Government Demolishes by Neglect

A letter I sent today:

April 20, 2026

The Hon. Rob Flack, MPP Elgin-Middlesex-London

Re: Proposed demolition of former St. Thomas Psychiatric Hospital, 467 Sunset Drive

Dear Minster:

Recently Infrastructure Ontario has given notice that it intends to demolish all the buildings of the former St. Thomas Psychiatric Hospital. I am writing to state my objection to this destruction of our local heritage.

Please note the following:

 ·         These buildings, constructed of Queenston limestone, were designed by noted architect William Lyon Somerville (1886-1965) who also designed the original McMaster University buildings in Hamilton, restored historic forts such as Fort Henry and Fort George, and designed other hospitals such as St. Joseph’s in Brantford.

·         The complex is designed in Art Deco, the twentieth-century style that emerged between the First and Second World Wars. The sculpture on the buildings’ exterior is by Jacobine Jones (1897-1976) and represents examples of Ontario wildlife.

·         Shortly after completion, the buildings became No. 1 Technical Training School, used by the RCAF as part of the Commonwealth Air Training Program in World War II. Note that another facility under the Commonwealth Air Training Plan, that in Fingal, Elgin County, has been demolished.

·         These buildings are a provincial Heritage Property of Historical Significance and St. Thomas has designated some of the buildings under the Ontario Heritage Act.

According to individuals interviewed by the media, the buildings are not reusable due to asbestos, lead paint, and mercury. No one wants tiny rooms and the concrete walls cannot be removed. Fire escapes and other modern safety features need to be added. I’m unclear as to whether these are “reasons” or “excuses” for demolition. I have asbestos in my own home, but it’s covered up and does no harm unless uncovered.

I understand some may say the cost of preservation and renovation is too high. However, I have been unable to find any numbers online. Is the public to take Infrastructure Ontario’s word for it that refurbishment is unaffordable?  Has I.O. determined if there are local developers or contractors who see a way to repurpose these architectural and historically significant buildings? Is the government aware that demolition is also expensive? Will the building materials go into a nearby landfill? According to Carl Elefante, former president of the American Institute of Architects, “The greenest building is the one that already exists.”

My suggestion is as follows:

The nine designated buildings on the west of the site, especially the administration building, are the most historically significant and should be preserved. The interiors may be antiquated but it should be possible to keep the outer shell and redevelop the insides. Undesignated buildings may be demolished and the rest of the property developed.

The designated buildings could be repurposed by corporate offices, the local tourist board, a community centre for the housing development, and a museum about the history of psychiatric treatment. Part of the site could provide temporary shelters for the homeless and/or mentally ill, doctors’ offices, or urgent care. This would be in keeping with the site’s medical history. However, these are my ideas and I’m sure there are many others.

Please use your position as an MPP to allow for public consultation on this demolition and to determine local interest in refurbishment and repurposing.

Sincerely

Jennifer Grainger, London

Update, April 22: Having performed a partial demolition by neglect, the Ontario Government intends to complete the rest of the demolition this spring. In other words, letters like the above don't mean much to them. An important part of Elgin history is about to disappear.

Convert empty buildings into affordable housing!

The empty lot at right, 514-520 South Street,  is the former site of an 1853 cottage. The once-adorable home listed on the city's Register of Cultural Heritage Resources was demolished in November 2024 after years of deterioration. See here for pictures of its advanced decay and subsequent demolition. 

The cottage may have been in poor shape when Anmoor Homes purchased it in 2022, but the company didn't make a heroic effort to save it. Damaged by fire in April 2024, the house was removed from the city register in July and knocked down in the autumn. 

Anmoor later requested a rezoning of the property to allow the building of about 25 stacked townhouses. Planning and Environment Committee (PEC) recommended this be done, and London City Council agreed at their August 26 meeting. 

Whenever a demolition by neglect (DBN) happens - and it happens frequently - the same thoughts come to my mind. One is that London needs a powerful property standards bylaw that charges hefty fines to the owners of deteriorating and/or vacant buildings. The current system is complaint-based and clearly doesn't prevent DBN. A mandatory inspection regime with escalating penalties could deter neglect, though enforcement costs and owner pushback would pose challenges. 

Another observation is that, in an age with lots of homeless people and a lack of affordable housing, we also have vacant buildings.  Little wonder that unfortunate individuals break into an empty structure to take shelter. And if they start a fire to keep warm in winter, who can blame them?

Some might argue that single-family homes on large lots should be replaced with densely packed townhome developments more often. We need lots of infill to house our increasing population, right? After all, we can't expand the city forever, using up more and more valuable farmland (although the city seems to be doing just that.) I would argue, though, that densification is ruining our historic neighbourhoods by replacing traditional architecture with newer buildings that don't blend in. Hence, new construction should be limited in such areas as South Street in Soho.

I'd rather see larger buildings in the core renovated into affordable housing. We already have older buildings that have been reused for this purpose, like Youth Opportunities Unlimited in the former Grigg House. Or the former Honest Lawyer bar, now converted to apartments. And Bluevale is converting a newish office building at 376 Richmond Street into one-bedroom and studio apartments; see here for details.  

Still, we're going to need more of these conversions if we're going to a) increase our stock of affordable housing, and b) prevent historic neighbourhoods from losing their charm. I'd argue that the buildings below would have made excellent housing units if only the city, a non-profit organisation, or even another corporation had wrestled them away from their current owners:

But I suspect demolition by neglect and inappropriate infill are here to stay. The cottage’s loss is only part of a larger debate, that of "progress" versus preservation. And progress means densification in older residential neighbourhoods unless public pressure shifts the narrative.