Amare said:
I had no idea about this. That's yet another reason why I wouldn't ever live at that development; if Pemberton is too cheap to excavate all the contamination than i'd want no business in living in their cheap build.

And if developers in general are going to be cheap by going the membrane way (which will degrade over time) on contaminated sites instead of doing full-scale excavations, then i'll have no business with those select developers either.
Click to expand...
Context did the same thing at Market Wharf, capping the site and building up instead of down. Urban Capital went up for River City 1, 2, and 3 as well, partly to cap the contaminates and partly to not breach the flood wall, and It has happened at some other projects as well. The City sees it as a safe way to deal with the contaminated soil (which otherwise might contaminate nearby areas during excavation through airborne particulate and vapours. Seems to be a safe way to deal with the issue. You just have to find somewhere else to safely store the excavate if you remove it, anyway, likely meaning capping it somewhere else.

42
 
interchange42 said:
Context did the same thing at Market Wharf, capping the site and building up instead of down. Urban Capital went up for River City 1, 2, and 3 as well, partly to cap the contaminates and partly to not breach the flood wall, and It has happened at some other projects as well. The City sees it as a safe way to deal with the contaminated soil (which otherwise might contaminate nearby areas during excavation through airborne particulate and vapours. Seems to be a safe way to deal with the issue. You just have to find somewhere else to safely store the excavate if you remove it, anyway, likely meaning capping it somewhere else.

42
Click to expand...
Very interesting insights here, I didnt know about those either.

My main concern with capping is how long is the cap supposed to last before it's rendered ineffective and said contaminants start to leak through to the residences above. Especially on larger scale developments where it would be almost impractical to raze the whole thing down in order to deal with those contaminants. I dont expect developers to be particularly forthcoming about that kind of information, and they would try to downplay it as much as possible.
 
Nov 12, 2021

802E7A8C-63E9-445F-A7AD-9A2C86A99DFC_1_201_a.jpeg



FA5B7591-6C64-458E-AB2E-38813342928C_1_201_a.jpeg



F0FB4662-8819-42E3-9493-485607B79132_1_201_a.jpeg



2A182DF4-1D19-41F6-97D7-12FE1DA4FCC7_1_201_a.jpeg



ADBDC349-B7E2-47AF-BDEF-99D46154C5F5_1_201_a.jpeg



3AAFE239-3C86-4518-8DA2-CC9CE2B1863F_1_201_a.jpeg
 
February 1, 2022 - Article on Portland Commons from today's Globe & Mail.

Some comments as introduction to the article. It is fairly superficial - while Carttera is mentioned as developer, it is actually a joint venture between the original property owner, Wolfecorp who brought Carttera to handle the project. Wolfecorp itself has an interesting history, with this property, along with the building at 49 Spadina (the Steele-Briggs building) having originally being acquired by Joseph Wolfe, the father of the current owners. To my knowledge, the Portland Commons property was never part of the Globe and Mail, or home to the Globe & Mail's headquarters as mentioned in the article.

Anyway - here is the article (The original article has a couple of pictures of renderings - I have not been able to figure out how to include them in this posting).

www.theglobeandmail.com

Portland Commons aims to attract tenants, workers with ‘healthy building’ design

Building new offices to high environmental standards now a minimum expectation, says developer
www.theglobeandmail.com www.theglobeandmail.com
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top