thanks for the updates,guys

Thanks for the pictures. They are comprehensive.
This building will give a unique taste to Toronto's skyline from the North.
 
Last edited:
someMidTowner said:
Not to in any way take away from the tragedy here, but construction workers make a fair amount of money. On top of that, there have always been fatalities associated with construction, and those numbers are far lower here than almost anywhere else. All workers are made aware of the risks during training, though I would imagine those risks aren't always in the front of wrokers' minds. It is the volume of construction that gives us so many tragedies, and that number is still very low when compared with fatality rates in developing countries with high-rise booms.
Click to expand...

I disagree. As a construction worker in the sector, it is a fact that health & safety is often of a lower standard on a residential site than on an ICI construction site. Many workers, especially in residential construction, are not made aware of the risks, or given the proper training at all, as it is far more common for residential workers to be either non-unionized or non-graduates of an apprenticeship program. Now, I'm not blaming these workers for this, as many have simply not been given the opportunities to go through proper training or are ushered through sub-standard training in order to fulfill obligatory certification requirement that are essentially a rubber stamp to help lower a GCs liability. You would be shocked at the number of people who don't understand how to properly utilize fall protection equipment, and everyone on every site is required to go through that training.

That being said, there are a lot of good companies that are making a lot of strides all over the GTA. Unfortunately, the sheer volume of work makes it difficult to regulate and enforce the law.

Another thing that you don't hear about, are all the critical injuries that are not fatalities. So judging H&S in construction by just hearing about fatalities in the media definitely will skew perceptions.

EDIT: Not disagreeing with your position that our accident/fatality rate would be lower than in other countries. Just saying that we aren't where we should be.
 
Last edited:
From Yesterday:

EY Tower.jpg
 

Attachments

  • EY Tower.jpg
    EY Tower.jpg
    2.7 MB · Views: 1,764
attachment.php


I saw the southwest(leftmost) column bends out to the west as well as back into the structure, as seen in other pictures.
 

Attachments

  • 20150518_150455.jpg
    20150518_150455.jpg
    669.5 KB · Views: 231
Last edited by a moderator:
18 month progress comparison

20131102_135110.jpg

20150528_143421.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 20131102_135110.jpg
    20131102_135110.jpg
    1.8 MB · Views: 2,316
  • 20150528_143421.jpg
    20150528_143421.jpg
    2.2 MB · Views: 2,387
IMG_3185.jpg

From my May 29th Development Tour of Toronto
 

Attachments

  • IMG_3185.jpg
    IMG_3185.jpg
    2.2 MB · Views: 2,077
I'm surprised to see the climber already up on the east side. I thought they'd clear the setbacks for the heritage reconstruction before starting any actual work on the facade.
 
Ryan_T said:
Interesting that they didn't simply cast the base gate concrete the same size. It's probably because the load from above is different, but isn't it better to over-engineer?
Click to expand...

Yeah, it looks like the thicker column carries a load from the new office tower above (looks like a big angled shear wall) while the other columns on the Concourse Tower façade are just related to the replacement structure. The next column back on the side street looks to be heavier, so it'll probably be carrying load from the new tower too.
Cost would be a factor, as well a reduced square footage for bigger columns.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top