To the editor:

Your recent article entitled "Concern over faculty pay" (the Reporter, Nov. 19) confirms what most McGill teaching staff already knew: we are paid less than our counterparts at other major universities. Principal Shapiro's letter of November 20, sent to all academic staff, states that McGill intends to address part of the problem, namely that full professors and associate professors will see an increase in their base salary. However, the Principal seems to have forgotten about the lowest paid, and most underpaid, academics: the assistant professors and the faculty lecturers.

Indeed, according to your article in the Reporter, assistant professors at McGill are paid 14.4% less than the average of the "G10" universities. For faculty lecturers, who are already at the bottom of the academic pay scale, the situation is even worse: they "earn 28.6% below the market average."

The administration's intentions to bring the salaries of the (already higher paid) full professors and associate professors in line with those at other major universities are certainly commendable. I am just surprised that McGill seems less concerned about adjusting the salaries of lower paid, underpaid academics.

David Wees
Faculty Lecturer
Farm Management and Technology Program


To the editor:

As the principal consultants who prepared the study, "Evaluation of the Potential Reuse of the Existing Sites Ð MUHC," we take exception to a number of the comments made by Annmarie Adams, associate professor of McGill's School of Architecture, as reported by Bronwyn Chester in her article "Save the Vic," which appeared in your November 19 issue. Also, after having read her article "Condo questions," which appeared in the Gazette on November 22, we feel that it is important for us to clarify certain of Prof. Adams's misconceptions and provide your readers with a more balanced view of the issues involved.

The reuse scenarios we evaluated and the implementation strategy we recommended are based on the results of analyses of comparable projects, macro analyses of Montreal's residential and commercial office markets and the prospective site analyses of the five MUHC sites under study. The level of detail that could be reached at this stage of the overall project was limited. However, these analyses were judged by our team of urban planners, landscape architects, architects recognized as experts in building reuse, architectural historians, economists and housing experts to provide a sound basis of information and guidelines for further actions to be taken by the MUHC.

We are further surprised by Prof. Adams's comments regarding the private housing scenario we studied for the RVH site. While we did carry out rigorous market and financial analyses to test the overall financial feasibility of this scenario, we in no way stated that this is the only solution. We recommended that the MUHC establish a redevelopment management team as soon as possible to carefully plan the reuse projects over the next five years, including continuing research into potential alternative uses for the sites.

Also, we do not share Annmarie Adams's opinions regarding the relative heritage merits of the more "modern" buildings added over the years to the RVH site, mainly due to the fact that they crowd its central spaces, block off courtyards and obliterate the natural topography. However, we also clearly stated that, in the case of the scenario studied for the RVH : "...if sufficient demand justifies reusing all or a portion of these relatively recent building additions, then an alternative approach will be required to take advantage of these existing spaces. Sensitive and imaginative modifications, respecting the character of the site and correcting past mistakes, could rejuvenate the old buildings and result in an exciting blend of the modern with the historic."

Prof. Adams seems to think that we wish to demolish the newer buildings at the RVH simply because they represent "Modernist" architecture which we view as being "ugly," to quote her. This is a false assumption.

We suggest that she read the heritage evaluation of the Montreal General Hospital (MGH) site in our report in which we recommend conserving the building wings forming the "original 'H'" of the building because they have "great merit as excellent examples of the functional-rational design of the 1950s and particularly of state-of-the-art hospital design in that period. These are of high heritage value and should be conserved."

Finally, Prof. Adams suggested in her Gazette article that the RVH be reused to accommodate "public uses." We did in fact investigate a number of her "suggestions," but these were found to be unrealistic. In addressing the question of public versus private use, it will be very important to consider the speed with which a prospective reuse project can be undertaken.

It is unrealistic to assume that governments will participate in the financing of the new MUHC Health Centre and at the same time subsidize the reuse of the vacated MUHC hospitals. Private sector redevelopment, with planning controls enforced by the City, could occur quickly after the sites have been vacated. Limiting the possible reuse to strictly "public" projects funded entirely by government may well condemn the magnificent buildings of the RVH to be boarded up for a considerable period of time.

We thank you for this opportunity for providing a more balanced view of our study.

Paul Lecavalier
urban planner, o.u.q., m.c.i.p.
for
Mario Bédard
real estate market and financial analyst
Pierre-Richard Bisson
architectural historian
Jules Hurtubise
housing market analyst
Jacques Lachapelle
architectural historian
Stephane Lalonde
urban planner and designer
Bernard St-Denis
landscape architect
Mario Sa•a
architect


To the editor:

Bronwyn Chester's interview with Associate Professor Annmarie Adams of the McGill School of Architecture in the November 19 issue of the McGill Reporter raised some interesting issues regarding the redevelopment of the McGill University Health Centre's existing sites once the institution moves to a new facility on a single site in 2004. As chair of the MUHC's Alternative Uses Work Group, I was closely involved with the consortium of engineers, architects, urban planners, real estate experts and economists that carried out the reuse study, and wish to place their report in context in the interest of providing a balanced viewpoint.

This preliminary feasibility study was designed to answer one basic question: Are there viable potential reuses for the RVH and the other hospitals that make up the MUHC? Scenarios (not proposals or even firm recommendations) were developed for each of the sites, including the buildings for the land. These scenarios were based on the best available data and were evaluated in terms of a number of criteria touching on urban integration, heritage preservation, market absorption and financial feasibility. The potential of the sites was looked at as a whole, rather than separately, to ensure a mix and complementarity of uses in the interests of viability and benefit to the community.

It was clearly recognized that the scenarios would have to be further refined in the months and years to come, through careful monitoring of factors such as changing demographics, real estate trends and economic fluctuations. As indicated by the consultants in their report: "Other markets may well prove to show interesting potential as possible users of MUHC sites, such as, among others, the institutional market, the bio-medical, bio-technological and pharmaceutical research fields, technical colleges and training sectors and the international head office market. These were not considered in the reuse scenarios due to a lack of readily available, factual data. However, additional research and analysis may indicate that these and other markets represent interesting potential clients for the MUHC sites."

One of the recommendations of the report was that the MUHC proceed quickly in setting up a group responsible for the development and implementation of a strategy for the reuse of the existing sites. It is very possible that in the end, the proposals for reuse of these sites will be somewhat or even very different from those suggested by the consultants in this preliminary feasibility study. The MUHC consulted many interested parties in the preparation of the study, and in moving forward will continue to seek input from individuals and groups in the community, including the McGill School of Architecture. Together, the construction of a state-of-the-art academic health centre at Glen Yards and the redevelopment of these properties represent exciting economic and social opportunities for Montreal.

Duncan Shaddick
Synod of the Diocese of Montreal,
Christ Church Cathedral