Toronto Lower Don Lands Redevelopment | ?m | ?s | Waterfront Toronto

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Not that hard to find - see what the proposed armour stone is like:

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2016/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-97556.pdf

And you can find best practices that use bioengineered shorelines with hard engineering here:

https://www.fws.gov/uploadedfiles/bestmanpracticesmanual2000.pdf

It's nothing that new.

AoD

 

[44 North]

So can you supply a reference to that being the case? And how this is being projected to happen?

Here's the best reference I can find on it:
https://www1.toronto.ca/City Of Toronto/Strategic Communications/Newsroom/PDFs/Essroc Quay CWWF project backgrounder FINAL.pdf

It does mention the risk of the wall collapsing.

That report is actually okay for explaining the pros of the Essroc work. But perhaps there are more complex reasons why it could mitigate flooding. One comes to mind improving flow and its velocity. Yes it does fill in more of the harbour and make the Keating Channel length longer, which seems paradoxical if we want to get the river water into the lake asap during a storm. But with the unnatural angles and steep sides that are the current slips/dockwalls this may create eddies or turbulence - which will reduce upstream flow and raise river levels. By allowing a smooth transition between the narrow Keating and openness of the Inner Harbour maybe the water can be evacuated better than current conditions. That's my guess.

 

[steveintoronto]

Not that hard to find - see what the proposed armour stone is like:

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2016/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-97556.pdf

And you can find best practices that use bioengineered shorelines with hard engineering here:

https://www.fws.gov/uploadedfiles/bestmanpracticesmanual2000.pdf

It's nothing that new.

AoD

All very nice artist renditions. I wish to see this:
Marine Engineering Services to Develop Preliminary
Designs for Land Creation Works Surrounding
Essroc Quay

It's not linked or referenced.

It's referenced in a number of reports by the three participating agencies, but not linked. I trust your abilities to find reports can show results?

 

[steveintoronto]

Yes it does fill in more of the harbour and make the Keating Channel length longer, which seems paradoxical if we want to get the river water into the lake asap during a storm.

It really does. I can see doing this *after* establishment of a sluice, impeding or otherwise, and *after* soil has been remediated such that erosion particulates will be acceptable as they are carried westward to existing beaches.

But of course, seeing the engineering reports, not artists' depictions of bliss, is necessary to make that case. I do note that the latest funding tranche for the entire project is to underwrite a new, ostensibly thorough soil condition assay. One would hope one would be done for the Essroc project, so that if the soil is as badly contaminated as other reports allude to, that will be removed or stabilized before covering it up.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Dockwall Assessment:

http://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/uplo...15_dockwall_structural_assessment_riggs_1.pdf

And the Marine Engineering Services to Develop Preliminary Designs for Land Creation Works Surrounding Essroc Quay really isn't that difficult to find either:

http://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/uploads/documents/15___marine_engineering_services_riggs_1.pdf

I think we can put the "hiding the reports" line of inquiry to rest - the appendices are available here:

http://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/explore_projects2/port_lands

AoD

 

[steveintoronto]

Dockwall Assessment:
I think we can put the "hiding the reports" line of inquiry to rest - the appendices are available here:

AoD

Have you read this report?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

And so? There is expectation of potentially unexpected conditions. That's nothing new there - everyone involved knew they are getting into potentially uncharted territories. Staying ignorant of the conditions by doing nothing is not going to improve anything - ever.

AoD

 

[steveintoronto]

And so? There is expectation of potentially unexpected conditions. That's nothing new there - everyone involved knew they are getting into potentially uncharted territories. Staying ignorant of the conditions by doing nothing is not going to improve anything - ever.

Really? Well here's a novel idea for some: Let's assay those "unknowns" before doing something many of us will regret later.

You've made my point.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Really? Well here's a novel idea for some: Let's assay those "unknowns" before doing something many of us will regret later.

You've made my point.

You won't even move to the point of assaying if not for the urge to finally address the site. Like - someone would have gone about and actually assayed conditions under the berm if not for the urge to build one?

And besides - if I maybe frank about this - St. Lawrence was practically built atop contaminated soil at a time when hardly any environmental assaying was done - so yes there are problems, but that's life. Short of hitting another Love Canal (or god forbid, Hanford) kind of situation we should balance risk vs. lost opportunity.

AoD

 

[steveintoronto]

You won't even move to the point of assaying if not for the urge to finally address the site. Like - someone would have gone about and actually assayed conditions under the berm if not for the urge to build one?

AoD

I see...so your take on things is that contamination should just be ignored unless there's an imperative to build on it? And even there, you want to ignore the imperative to meet provincial and federal guidelines since we should just (gist) "move ahead on it".

More than ever, I wish to see the soil sample result reports already taken.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I see...so your take on things is that contamination should just be ignored unless there's an imperative to build on it? And even there, you want to ignore the imperative to meet provincial and federal guidelines since we should just (gist) "move ahead on it".

Not ignored - and we certainly need to understand the situation. But it shouldn't be considered like the be all and end all just to fit into guidelines and ignoring the equally important consequences of human need for housing, the lost opportunity for development proximate to where people want to be, etc. If we talk about risk - let's talk about the totality of risk - how much risk are we talking about? Life is always risky - it's about what we're willing to live with (note - live with- you got to be living first).

Besides, the best incentive for dealing with something is when there is a stake involved. An abandoned industrial brownfield left fallow, unused and uncared for is almost like the antithesis of anything with a stake. Taking St. Lawrence as an example again - if we are so concerned about following guidelines as we're now, we would not have built anything residential on it with the remediation methods we have then - we can seriously say that such a loss of opportunity - and the loss of benefit (in the form of housing proximate to the core, the social/community services, affordable housing) is actually "worth" that risk? Is the additional 1 in one million chance of dying from cancer from exposure to carcinogens (just pulling a number out of nowhere) on said site is worth the loss of shelter, whatnot that carries a far more immediate consequence?

AoD

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

More than ever, I wish to see the soil sample result reports already taken.

It's included in one of the appendices in the link I have posted. The usual mix.

AoD

 

[steveintoronto]

I think we can put the "hiding the reports" line of inquiry to rest - the appendices are available here:

http://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/explore_projects2/port_lands

AoD

Well pardon me, but I can't find any actual soil reports there.

Here's an example of what I'm looking for, and I've quoted sections of it as referenced prior:

2009 Subsurface Investigation report" ( http://www.gardinereast.ca/sites/default/files/documents/Gardiner EA Report - CH 3 Draft.pdf )

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Well pardon me, but I can't find any actual soil reports there.

Here's an example of what I'm looking for, and I've quoted sections of it as referenced prior:

http://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/uplo...h_and_hydrogeological_investigation_ghd_1.pdf

AoD

 

[ADRM]

Put me in the "let's move on an ambitious plan even though we know it's big and complicated because there's huge value in doing so while acknowledging it might actually be difficult" camp.