[Northern Light]

...er, not sure what's going on here. There looks to be significant shoring that took place from the original developer scrawling back...so would the current developer need re-aply for something that's already been said and done, unless the new developer is planning to make significant changes to it?

The original shoring was almost certainly for environmental remediation.

Typically, when that is done, the site is backfilled after, pending city permits and going ahead.

If, as part of the remediation permit, they went deep enough for the main project, I suppose they could go directly to the foundation permit from the City. But that's atypical.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

...so in other words, they're "backfilling" while excavating on the sly?

 

[DSC]

The site to the immediate south has also started to stir! See: https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/toronto-180-queens-quay-east-75-5m-22s-rom-grand-waterfront-ltd-a—a.28185/page-7#post-2026789

 

[Civdis]

The original shoring was almost certainly for environmental remediation.

Typically, when that is done, the site is backfilled after, pending city permits and going ahead.

If, as part of the remediation permit, they went deep enough for the main project, I suppose they could go directly to the foundation permit from the City. But that's atypical.

Not sure I totally agree with this statement. Typically remediation, if needed, is shallower than the required excavation for the underground levels. I have not seen too many projects excavated and then backfilled.

 

[Northern Light]

Not sure I totally agree with this statement.

I'm listening.

Typically remediation, if needed, is shallower than the required excavation for the underground levels

I agree completely on this point.

. I have not seen too many projects excavated and then backfilled.

If you mean to the depth of remediation only (for argument's sake, say 2M) then I have definitely seen it done, but I'll confess I'd have to think awhile about where and when that happened.

Certainly, I can't recall anything that got deeper than 1 storey ever being backfilled; but I've seen that happen just during typical demolition; as it did at 1365 Yonge:

1365 Yonge | 172.3m | 50s | Originate | Turner Fleischer

They've been demolishing the existing structures this week.

urbantoronto.ca

But I don't doubt your statements at all, which doubtless are more informed than my own.

 

[skywalker]

On what basis do you draw this conclusion?

I don't see any evidence of a shoring permit.

View attachment 526043
View attachment 526045

A shoring permit would typically end SHO

Shoring permits are often conditional or partial.

I examined each permit above, none have been issued, including 'drain and site service' which would generally pre-date any shoring permit in the process.

I have talked to the City Engineer in charge of this project several times. What I have stated is true.

 

[Northern Light]

I have talked to the City Engineer in charge of this project several times. What I have stated is true.

For clarity, I didn't suggest you were being deceptive. Simply that the evidence on the City's site doesn't corroborate your position.

I appreciate your sharing of information, by the way; so thank you. That said, the way this is being handled is anomalous to my experience.

 

[DSC]

From today.

 

[maestro]

The site has shoring installed from the previous shoring and excavation permit. Why would they need to go through the whole process all over again?

You apply for shoring to the depth of the building's foundation. You don't do it twice once for contaminated soil removal and again for construction prep.

It's not a good sign for pending construction if the hole happens to be in the process of being backfilled.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

The site has shoring installed from the previous shoring and excavation permit. Why would they need to go through the whole process all over again?

You apply for shoring to the depth of the building's foundation. You don't do it twice once for contaminated soil removal and again for construction prep.

It's not a good sign for pending construction if the hole happens to be in the process of being backfilled.

I believe Norther Light-san was suggesting that the shoring there now was for soil remediation. If they want to excavate to build, they would need to request a separate application.

 

[mburrrrr]

Happy “Another” Year.
Started in July 2020.
What will 2024 bring us? Maybe back to grade or plus 1level?

 

[Northern Light]

Evidence of permit progress:

And

 

[evandyk]

What will 2024 bring us?
View attachment 531298

Same as 2023. A mostly empty Gardiner East that is costing us most of our capital budget!

 

[Lenser]

But the Gardiner's maintanance/upkeep has been uploaded to the province, no? That much is good for the city.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Same as 2023. A mostly empty Gardiner East that is costing us most of our capital budget!

I too continue to be amazed that a highway is empty when you demolish the ramp that half of the cars using it normally use!