Hydro-Quebec eyes the Miséricorde for its substation
Hydro-Quebec is considering the old Hôpital de la Miséricorde site for its downtown substation. The building on René‑Lévesque has stood empty for ten years and occupies a sizable piece of land, but was sold to a real estate promoter last year who may not be keen to hand it back over to the government.
I wonder how the owners of properties along La Gauchetière on the south side of the Miséricorde block are feeling about the idea.
Taylor C. Noakes 21:32 on 2025-07-18 Permalink
They should repurpose the old hospital for new housing. It’s an architecturally and historically significant building. It shouldn’t be demolished.
There’s a parking lot across Berri from the existing substation, and it’s next to some follies that belong to the STM. Is there not an opportunity to fill in that space rather than eat into what should by all rights be affordable housing?
Kate 22:17 on 2025-07-18 Permalink
I am never sure whether the argument that it’s cheaper to build from scratch is true, or if it’s a convenient lie told by developers. But renovating that old building to modern standards would not come cheap, either way, especially as it has been left empty for awhile.
DeWolf 02:21 on 2025-07-19 Permalink
The Miséricorde site was sold to a developer specifically so that it could be turned into housing while keeping the original building. It would be insane to demolish a historically significant structure to build a substation. Especially when there is a literal field of grass that was originally being considered.
Kate 08:28 on 2025-07-19 Permalink
a historically significant structure
Is it, though? It looks to me like every other gray stone religious building I’ve ever seen, including the Sourds‑Muets, the convent beside the old Hôtel‑Dieu, the Gray Nuns building Concordia now owns, all those convent buildings in Lachine and elsewhere.
Robert H 10:15 on 2025-07-19 Permalink
I thought this quadrilatère had been settled. It was only recently announced that, after over a decade of lying dormant, La Société québécoise des infrastructures had come to an agreement with Alta Canada, a real estate investment company, to launch a multi-stage project to redevelop the entire block including the preservation of some of the older buildings and the construction of a 30-storey residential tower. Among the proposal’s features was housing for students and artists and space for social service organizations. I wonder what happens to this vision of the project, which does not yet appear on Alta’s website.
The land needed for the substation is supposed to be along De La Gauchetière, so perhaps there’s room to accommodate it and the proposed redevelopment as well. There has also been the suggestion that Hydro-Québec is cynically targeting this “inferior” site to make their original choice next to La grande bibliothèque look more reasonable. I hope this location doesn’t wind up sitting abandoned another decade as various parties try to come to some agreement as to what to do about it.
Ephraim 10:35 on 2025-07-19 Permalink
The building should have never been left to deteriorate. We need a law on maintenance. Abandoned buildings should have increasing tax burdens… you either do something with it, or the bill keeps on getting worse and worse until you can’t afford to hold on to it. After 1 year empty, we need to do something.
I do wonder if an architect could somehow develop a large housing unit that incorporates the existing building as an entry to a much larger tower, so what’s there, stays there, but becomes more of an entryway. We need housing. We need to force building more density.
Taylor C. Noakes 11:20 on 2025-07-19 Permalink
@kate –
From Heritage Montreal: the oldest sections date to the mid-19th century, so it would count among the oldest still standing institutional buildings in the city. It’s representative of the institutional building style of the era, as much as the religious orders that supported various charitable efforts, in this case single mothers and orphaned children.
So while on the one hand, yes, it’s one of many that would fit a similar description, I think there’s nonetheless a strong argument favouring preservation.
If there’s any truth to the argument unmarked graves are on the site, all the more so, and they should investigate thoroughly (even if this means people might not be so enthusiastic about moving in to live there).
As to costs: it’s almost always cheaper to renovate than build anew. This building hasn’t been used for 10 years but AFAIK it’s not *abandoned* per se (so I don’t think it’s had the copper ripped out).
DeWolf 11:27 on 2025-07-19 Permalink
@Kate Buildings don’t need to be unique to be significant. The ubiquity of these very imposing greystone religious structures is what makes them important because it’s a testament to the historic dominance of the church. They shape the look and feel of the city. If you start tearing them down here and there, soon enough there won’t be any left.
DeWolf 11:30 on 2025-07-19 Permalink
In any case I think Robert H is right on this one — this is a cynical move to make their original site look more acceptable. Kind of funny how they insisted they couldn’t build a substation any further than 500 metres from the existing one and now they’re suggesting a site nearly a kilometre away.
Kate 14:54 on 2025-07-19 Permalink
They could run an extension cord.
Ephraim 18:08 on 2025-07-19 Permalink
@Taylor It is cheaper to renovate, to an extent. It makes it expensive to own and run, because we didn’t build to the same standards. And it makes is unaffordable housing. High ceilings are notorious to heat, not to mention lack on insulation, air leaks, etc. When you build to modern standards you can use geothermal heating and cooling, which will severely cut the monthly costs. So, while renovations may be cheaper, there may be more costs in the long run to maintaining it.
Kate 19:22 on 2025-07-19 Permalink
What it comes down to, I think, is the very expensive process of essentially putting up a new building with the façade of the old one tacked onto it.
Ian 21:27 on 2025-07-19 Permalink
Facadeism is quite inexpensive compared to renovation, but most architects abhor it, for obvious reasons.
Ephraim 21:57 on 2025-07-19 Permalink
I was more thinking of building in what appears to be a parking lot at the back, with the original building intact. There appear to be two. One at the front and one at the back.There is also a building in the back that doesn’t really match that is attached. That certainly doesn’t have to stay.