very interesting article published at kelowna.com....

Trains, cranes and automobiles

Thursday, November 19th, 2009 | 5:00 pm

Canwest News Service

It is always fascinating watching a new condominium tower take shape. But in the case of Market Wharf in the St. Lawrence Market area, watch closely. Once construction workers hit the second floor, they will begin a four-storey, 365-spot parking garage and then expertly wrap residential units around it.

The uncommon design got the nod because Market Wharf is sprouting out of environmentally contaminated land, also known as a brownfield. Rather than dig it up to make room for underground parking and then dump the bad soil elsewhere, the folks at Context Development decided to forgo below-grade excavation and, instead, perch the parking garage in the sky and hide it behind the high-end suites. The move recently earned the company two Brownie Award nominations from the Canadian Urban Institute for its risk management and project development efforts.

"Sometimes the less-obvious solution, with innovation and creativity, can be quite successful," says Lewis Poplak, Context's director of development.

The origin of the Market Wharf property dates back to the 1800s. As the name implies, the city had built dozens of wharves and piers along the harbour, including one wharf connected to St. Lawrence Market. As the population grew, the city needed more industrial land so started filling in the lakefront. Factories and steel foundries followed, resulting in a mound of contaminated land.

The most recent tenant was Gross Machinery. Several years ago, the owners moved the business to Brampton and the site went up for grabs. Shoppers Drug Mart was the first to respond, but the city wanted to develop the site for mixed use and denied the request. Then Context got wind of the property and proposed a 25-storey, 450-unit condo tower with an eight-storey podium at the base including a Shoppers Drug Mart.

But the idea was not a shoo-in. Context spent about 18 months consulting with municipal and provincial authorities to prepare the site for safe construction. In fact, the project was one of the first to go before Toronto's Design Review Panel, established in 2007 to ensure the city's public spaces are up to snuff. When the panel advised that the soil was problematic, Context knew that excavation would be cumbersome and costly.

Already experienced with building on brownfields, Context got on the horn to the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and applied for a Site Specific Risk Assessment. Further testing and discussions ensued, followed by a long list of requirements including restrictions on building construction, maintaining a barrier to soils, implementing a health and safety plan, and implementing a soil management plan for the property.

"It's a risk management measure that ensures that the property owner over time manages the site in an environmentally responsible way," says ministry spokeswoman Kate Jordan. "Assuming the company is required to follow these measures, then the construction of the condo can go ahead as planned."

But there was another glitch: The city's rail crash-safety guidelines do not permit residential units to be situated within 100 feet of a railway line; Market Wharf would be too close. Goodness, what's a developer to do?

With that in mind, architect Peter Clewes of ArchitectsAlliance and the Context crew went back to the drawing board to rework the plans, and the above- grade parking and podium concepts took shape. Everyone signed on the dotted line and the city and province gave their blessings.

This month, construction at Market Wharf finally got underway. As Mr. Poplak explains, the foundation will sit on stilts called caissons that involve drilling rather than digging to minimize the amount of excavation required. The risk assessment has revealed there is no danger to human or environmental health, he adds, and potential buyers are completely in the know.

It seems all the effort has been worth it, as Market Wharf's sales are booming. Craig Taylor, Context's director of marketing, says the company has been selling about 20 units per month since May and is now 70% sold. Still available are one-bedoom, 525-sq.-ft. "skyline lofts" at $272,900 and a 2,444- sq.-ft. penthouse at $2,024,900. There are also eight townhomes on the sixth floor of the podium, ranging from 665 to 1,224 sq. ft. and $396,900 to $658,900. Occupancy is set for mid-2011.

Market Wharf is located at 18 Lower Jarvis St. For details, visit marketwharf.com.
 
Great article. Thanks for posting that. I didn't know it was being constructed like that.
What would happen if the pipe feeding fresh water into the building were to leak? Then everyone would be drinking contaminated water... I wonder what kind of safeguards they take against such things.
 
Fascinating! Thank you for posting.

The article makes it sound so risky though. I mean, aren't tons of brownfield sites decontaminated? Or is the whole area so bad that they decided to just forego dealing with the contamination. It seems strange to me-- like they took the easy way out. But maybe it was too much soil remediation to pay for?
 
It has been common practice to cap and contain the decontaminates than it is to remove when allowed. I don't know but, a concrete cap at grade seems safer to me than a cap one or two storeys underground. I've even heard in what could be urban legend of the concrete cap cracking in some buildings' underground parkades and a powerful odour emerging making people sick.
 
The article makes it sound so risky though. I mean, aren't tons of brownfield sites decontaminated? Or is the whole area so bad that they decided to just forego dealing with the contamination. It seems strange to me-- like they took the easy way out. But maybe it was too much soil remediation to pay for?

Ontario is one of the most risk adverse jurisdictions in North America in terms of brownfields regulations. Innovative RMM's to get clearance from the Ministry of the Environment certainly isn't the 'easy way out'. The contamination was dealt with in this case by sealing it & blocking exposure pathways and further separating residential uses by a hard cap. Opening up the site for excavation and disturbing the soil would have increased risk of exposure to contaminants and risk of leakage into surrounding properties.

These types of innovative solutions will become much more common in the future once the new brownfields regulatory reform package is implemented next year with even more stringent standards that will impact all sites in Toronto (basically any site with any kind of previous human activity will likely be classified as a brownfield). Essentially by increasing standards and risk aversion, far more sites will have to go through costly remediation to gain a record of site condition and clearance from the Ministry of the Environment to proceed to construction phases... or risks and costs for some sites will be deemed to be too high and the site will languish as an environmental orphan.
 
Ontario is one of the most risk adverse jurisdictions in North America in terms of brownfields regulations. Innovative RMM's to get clearance from the Ministry of the Environment certainly isn't the 'easy way out'. The contamination was dealt with in this case by sealing it & blocking exposure pathways and further separating residential uses by a hard cap. Opening up the site for excavation and disturbing the soil would have increased risk of exposure to contaminants and risk of leakage into surrounding properties.

These types of innovative solutions will become much more common in the future once the new brownfields regulatory reform package is implemented next year with even more stringent standards that will impact all sites in Toronto (basically any site with any kind of previous human activity will likely be classified as a brownfield). Essentially by increasing standards and risk aversion, far more sites will have to go through costly remediation to gain a record of site condition and clearance from the Ministry of the Environment to proceed to construction phases... or risks and costs for some sites will be deemed to be too high and the site will languish as an environmental orphan.

I definitely appreciate all the posts and insider information you share with us on this site but I'm taking your comments above with a grain of salt considering your affiliation with the development industry. To you the regulations are stringent / over the top - but to others they may be what the new standard in North America / World should be.

I'm not arguing for either case, but it's all too easy to call something excessive simply for the fact everyone else *currently* has less stringent rules.
If history has taught us anything the commonplace and accepted is not always the *right* way ...
 
Makes you wonder how safe it is buying vegetables etc from SLM itself--could be contaminated as well.

The SLM has been on that site for MANY years and it was never used for industry and is not landfill - it's actually on the old shoreline, Front Street! Also, contamination is not likely to come from the air but from growing in contaminated soil - I don't think SLM veggies are actually grown there. :)
 
Ontario is one of the most risk adverse jurisdictions in North America in terms of brownfields regulations. Innovative RMM's to get clearance from the Ministry of the Environment certainly isn't the 'easy way out'. The contamination was dealt with in this case by sealing it & blocking exposure pathways and further separating residential uses by a hard cap. Opening up the site for excavation and disturbing the soil would have increased risk of exposure to contaminants and risk of leakage into surrounding properties.

These types of innovative solutions will become much more common in the future once the new brownfields regulatory reform package is implemented next year with even more stringent standards that will impact all sites in Toronto (basically any site with any kind of previous human activity will likely be classified as a brownfield). Essentially by increasing standards and risk aversion, far more sites will have to go through costly remediation to gain a record of site condition and clearance from the Ministry of the Environment to proceed to construction phases... or risks and costs for some sites will be deemed to be too high and the site will languish as an environmental orphan.

Fascinating :) and thank you. The creative problem-solving aspect of architecture is what is always fascinating to me and I love to read about this type of stuff and the article posted above. I'll have to keep my ears open for the Brownfields Regulatory Reform package!
 
I definitely appreciate all the posts and insider information you share with us on this site but I'm taking your comments above with a grain of salt considering your affiliation with the development industry. To you the regulations are stringent / over the top - but to others they may be what the new standard in North America / World should be.

From a public policy perspective it's about acheiving balance. Protecting health and safety should always be priority #1. But if things go to far one way, then sites will never be cleaned up and put to a better use - they would just stay contaminated and empty, which is in no ones best interest. In a jurisdictional comparison Ontario ranks pretty high in terms of current standards, once the new standards are in place we'll essentially be among the top few jurisdictions in N.A. Which is great from some perspectives, but there other consequences that will increase costs for future home/condo purchasers and in other cases result in no development at all when clean-up costs exceed the value of the land.

The question always is how clean is 'clean'? What is an acceptable risk? Keeping in mind that there is no such thing as 'pristine' - even untouched natural sites have background levels of toxins and contaminants that are hazardous to human health.

Sorry for taking this way off topic...
 
From a public policy perspective it's about acheiving balance. Protecting health and safety should always be priority #1. But if things go to far one way, then sites will never be cleaned up and put to a better use - they would just stay contaminated and empty, which is in no ones best interest. In a jurisdictional comparison Ontario ranks pretty high in terms of current standards, once the new standards are in place we'll essentially be among the top few jurisdictions in N.A. Which is great from some perspectives, but there other consequences that will increase costs for future home/condo purchasers and in other cases result in no development at all when clean-up costs exceed the value of the land.

The question always is how clean is 'clean'? What is an acceptable risk? Keeping in mind that there is no such thing as 'pristine' - even untouched natural sites have background levels of toxins and contaminants that are hazardous to human health.

Sorry for taking this way off topic...

Right, I agree, my only point was there are always two sides to every story - I'd like to think those arguing for are not simply doing it to make life difficult for develops - but based on whatever facts they have they see some merit for the stringent rules.

btw, in no way am I saying either side is right or wrong. For all I know you could be 100% correct and these new laws are silly and will only slow down development on brownfield sites for years to come.

Anyway, I guess we can take this to another thread eventually :)

Lastly though, I very much appreciate your perspective don't think this was in any way an attack on your integrity or something along those lines!

Enough out of me for now ...
 
Great article. Thanks for posting that. I didn't know it was being constructed like that.
What would happen if the pipe feeding fresh water into the building were to leak? Then everyone would be drinking contaminated water... I wonder what kind of safeguards they take against such things.

Drinking water from the City is coming into a property pressurized. It is highly unusual for a water main to drop to less than atmospheric pressure. A leak itself from the main still means that the main is pressurized. No concern for SLM at all.
 

Back
Top