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

[Skeezix]

Yep, I'm blocking him too.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

This is a fair point, but as with most deposited silt contaminants (heavy metals, phenols, PCBs, etc of the tank farms and industries located there, including smelters and even a pulp and paper mill active until the early sixties, what's in the soil and groundwater is sometimes best left there. This is the status of Hamilton Harbour at this time, even some rivers like the Hudson. But even if the polluted soils were dug out (remediation was tried for years some twenty five years ago on Cherry south of Commissioners, to questionable effect), the greatest pollution in the Don is coming from *upstream* not seepage from the silt.

Sorry, to argue that keep it there is better for the environment when one's basis for it is continued non-use of land close to the core is a little perverse - not to mention, guess where development is going to go and what impact THAT will have on greenfield and the watershed?

First off, please itemize this "affordable housing component". Seems to me that Toronto's claims to relegating development to mandating "affordable housing has been, errr...'somewhat remiss'.

Even the UN has commented on Toronto's failure in that regard, don't want to linger on this point. I have a ream of references here on the matter, Toronto has a pathetic record with only a few examples (almost all government and NGO agencies) where that has been achieved. So I welcome your examples. From all I can find searching for your claim, there are no detailed plans of the three distinct residential areas proposed.

It's not that difficult to itemize - starting with West Don Lands:

http://www.fredvictor.org/fv-pan-am-housing
http://www.wigwamen.com/project-development/75-cooperage-street/

East Bayfront:

http://www.torontoartscape.org/news...e-housing-development-adopted-toronto-council

Summary from WT:
http://sr.waterfrontoronto.ca/en/social/AffordableHousing.asp

These are built and committed projects and it's really not that difficult to find. - Lower Don is much further down afield - they have barely figured out the general precinct plan. As to UN pointing fingers, well, UN got to UN, right? Their list of regrettables are rather long, and I suggest they keep focus on the developing world. Or even the aboriginal communities in Canada.

AoD

 

[interchange42]

@steveintoronto will not be able to respond for a while: he has been given a week off to think about his ad hominem attacks in this thread. Even if preceded by the word "Sir," an ad hominem attack is still not going to be tolerated on UrbanToronto.

42

 

[Alan Coles]

Attention News Editors:

Waterfront Corporation officially launches international design competition for Lower Don Lands
TORONTO, Feb. 2 /CNW/ - The Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation
today announced the names of teams that will be competing in the design
competition for the Lower Don Lands, a 40 hectare area located at the Mouth of
the Don River and the entrance to the Port Lands.

<<
The teams are:

- Stoss, Boston; Brown + Storey Architects, Toronto; Zas Architects,
Toronto
- Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates, New York; Behnisch Architects, Los
Angeles; Greenberg Consultants, Toronto; Great Eastern Ecology, New
York
- Weiss/Manfredi, New York; du Toit Allsopp Hillier, Toronto
- Atelier Girot, Zurich; Office of Landscape Morphology, Paris; ReK
Productions, Toronto
- Hargreaves Associates, New York; Polshek Partnership, New York;
ENVision - The Hough Group, Toronto; Dillon Consulting Ltd., Toronto
>>

"The quality of the teams is outstanding," said John Campbell, TWRC's
President and CEO. "The Lower Don Lands is a complex ecological, urban area
and we are confident that each of the teams has the expertise and the
experience to create something truly magnificent."
The Lower Don Lands area, which runs from the Parliament Street Slip east
to the Don Roadway and from the rail corridor south to Commissioners Street,
is a critical connection between the three emerging waterfront communities in
the East Bayfront, West Don Lands and the Port Lands.
There are a number of infrastructure, urban design and transportation
initiatives in this area that are required for waterfront revitalization - the
naturalization of the mouth of the Don River, flood protection for the Port
Lands, precinct planning for the area between Parliament Street and Cherry
Street and extending Queens Quay from Parliament to Cherry.
Until now, there has not been a comprehensive process to produce an
overall vision for integrating these various waterfront revitalization
projects and addressing the complicated infrastructure challenges this area
presents.
The goal of the Innovative Design Competition is to produce a unifying
and inspiring concept for this long-neglected area that can provide common
ground for three concurrent Environmental Assessments (EA's), including the
Don Mouth Naturalization and Port Lands Flood Protection EA; the Queens Quay
Boulevard Extension EA; and the Lower Don Transportation Infrastructure EA.
The intent is to produce a bold and compelling concept for the Lower Don
Lands that makes the river a central feature while at the same time providing
for new development and new linkages to the rest of the city.

<<
The objectives of the design competition include:

- Promoting Sustainable Development
- Naturalizing the mouth of the Don River
- Creating a continuous riverfront park system
- Enhancing the Martin Goodman Trail
- Providing for harmonious new development
- Making transit a priority
- Developing a gateway into the Port lands
>>

Following an on-site briefing on February 9, the teams will have eight
weeks to complete their designs. At the February briefing, the teams will
receive input from a number of stakeholders including the Toronto and Region
Conservation (TRCA), City of Toronto planning, parks and transportation staff,
the Toronto Port Authority and a community advisory committee established by
TWRC specifically for the competition.
The final designs will be on display from April 16 - 24, 2007 at the BCE
Place Galleria. A jury to be appointed by TWRC will select the winning design.
TWRC will announce the winner in early-May.

TWRC was created by the federal and provincial governments and the City
of Toronto to lead the $17 billion renewal of Toronto's Central Waterfront.
The development of the first new waterfront community, West Don Lands, is
scheduled to start in 2007.
For more information on the Lower Don Lands Design Competition, please
visit www.towaterfront.ca

 

[Alan Coles]

Hopefully the persons involved in rerouting the Don River access to Lake Ontario will address the resulting problem of increased flow of pollutants and toxins from upriver the Don River directly into Lake Ontario which will be facilitated by removal of the crook in the flow at the Keating Channel. These pollutants will wash back up onto Cherry Beach and Ashbridges Bay whenever we get a southerly wind. The current configuration of the Don via Keating Channel inhibits flow into Lake Ontario. This will be gone if the Don is straightened. Any claim that pollution will be addressed upstream in the Don River lacks credibility based on past history.

 

[ADRM]

What is the "Queens Quay Boulevard Extension"?

 

[DSC]

What is the "Queens Quay Boulevard Extension"?

Extending Queen's Quay further east - through the "Home Depot Lands" to Cherry Street (which is also supposed to be 'straightened' so that there will not be a jog at Lake Shore Blvd.

 

[steveintoronto]

Hopefully the persons involved in rerouting the Don River access to Lake Ontario will address the resulting problem of increased flow of pollutants and toxins from upriver the Don River directly into Lake Ontario which will be facilitated by removal of the crook in the flow at the Keating Channel. These pollutants will wash back up onto Cherry Beach and Ashbridges Bay whenever we get a southerly wind. The current configuration of the Don via Keating Channel inhibits flow into Lake Ontario. This will be gone if the Don is straightened. Any claim that pollution will be addressed upstream in the Don River lacks credibility based on past history.

The recent City Report http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2016/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-97559.pdf advising against the proposal to host the Olympics in the Lower Donlands itemizes that. It is a very serious concern, and a number of other posters refused to read my posts and points pertaining to exactly that.

I've been involved in another massive clean-up, I'm not going to name it, but clean-up costs have so far reached over a $1B. I was the principle character in the Globe and Mail's front page featured story and resulting scathing editorial, and the then ex-Mayor of Toronto, David Crombie, being Federal Health Minister, calling an inquiry into it. The Canadian Environmental Law Association were going to use my case as a test of existing laws. After two years of legal research, I was exhausted and ill, and had to drop it. It was featured in Macleans and a number of other Cdn publications. I'd involved US experts in the case, top people in their field...I'm going to have to skip a lot of detail here, but suffice to add, a few years later, researching remediation techniques, I'd discovered that via tax based research, a University of Western Ontario department had pioneered a technique used in the US for very similar toxic conditions. The US Gov't were featuring their techniques while no-one in provincial or environment cabinet posts knew a thing about it, let alone the Ministers and underlings as to what their own department responsibilities are.

Canadian politicians were unaware of the very research they were underwriting! Long story short, I was invited to work with the federal Minister of the Environment after contacting the Profs who'd pioneered "reactive trench remediation" and put them in touch with the Minister. I accepted. She was a wonderful, altruistically principled woman. She was also MP for the area affected. I'm sad to say she passed away very recently.

You write:

Hopefully the persons involved in rerouting the Don River access to Lake Ontario will address the resulting problem of increased flow of pollutants and toxins from upriver the Don River directly into Lake Ontario which will be facilitated by removal of the crook in the flow at the Keating Channel.

The City itself has yet to fully assay the pockets of contaminants. In some areas, they have little to no idea of what's there, the nature of it, the stasis of migration, and basically, whether it's best to leave it en situ and ostensibly freeze it there with polymer injection, solid trench barrier and/or reactive trenching. Needless to say, that precludes the affected land use for residential, perhaps even commercial use. It may even preclude capping it with clean fill and using it for parkland. Some US jurisdictions have pioneered land-use zoning categories to allow commercial above concrete entombing in cases where plumes are contained. Vancouver has featured a few of these in the False Creek area, and New York City has a whole chapter in a report released about a year back. I'll link it later.

Since the Feds are involved in this project, one would hope they'll apply what they've learned 100 km to the east. (A massive 'sarcophagus' was necessary to build to contain the creek bed and surrounding contamination) But don't hold your breath. Without being closely watched, as a number of audits, provincial and federal released in the last few weeks shows, more often than not, one hand of the government hasn't a clue on what the other is doing.

Any claim that pollution will be addressed upstream in the Don River lacks credibility based on past history.

I'm glad I'm not alone in my observations. Most in this string are nothing more than starry-eyed. I suggest you read back to see what I mean.

I'll discuss more details if you indicate a deeper understanding of the engineering challenge.

Edit to Add: A quick scan of the report linked above shows this:

Unknown soil and groundwater conditions in the Port Lands will impact remediation
activities and overall project completion timelines. While substantial environmental
investigation and due diligence has occurred recently as part of the
Port Lands
Flood
Protection project, less detail is available on the properties in the rest of the proposed
Expo site.

Pg 17 http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2016/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-97559.pdf

If there is serious interest in this forum on producing more detail, I'll dig further and produce more from other reports I've accumulated.

I'm very leery of continuing dialog on this topic with any of the 'establishment' at this forum save for Alvin. I disagree with his points, but do wish to and will continue discussion on this if there's a willingness for others to do research on the topic.

Sorry, to argue that keep it there is better for the environment when one's basis for it is continued non-use of land close to the core is a little perverse - not to mention, guess where development is going to go and what impact THAT will have on greenfield and the watershed?

Sorry to have to 'pull rank' on that line of argument, but I am. Until it is known what's there, and what to do about it....and not taking persons like myself to dig out "hidden reports" (as stated by Globe and Mail, Macleans and six other Cdn media pubs, NDP party, MPP Evelyn Gigantes, doctors, lawyers) and daylight them, then caution is counselled by logic alone.

Edit to Add links referred to prior. Had to dig in sent emails to find this, sent to a prominent architect friend as to how Toronto is going to have to start using the recently established Employment/Commercial/Residential zoning category to address contaminated brownfield development that's remediated to the point of use with caveats as per the new provincial fast track methods. In many cases, it mandates there being no basement, a thick concrete plinth on ground level with light industry/commercial, second floor commercial/retail, and then floors above can be residential, with age restriction so that play areas for children are addressed on a case-by-case basis, where possible:

http://council.nyc.gov/downloads/pdf/NYEO.pdf

Report lists other US cities doing the triple zoning.

Also:

Industrial grit meets residential glass in Vancouver - The ...
www.theglobeandmail.com › ... › Industry News › Property Report
Jan 19, 2015 - Vancouver project combines industrial and residential space in a single building ... It's less noxious than when zoning laws were first put in place.” ... a new report it commissioned on how to revitalize its industrial sector. One of the recommendations: a new mixed commercial-residential-industrial district.
You've visited this page many times. Last visit: 05/10/15
[PDF]Vancouver - Avison Young
www.avisonyoung.com/fileDownloader.php?.../Vancouver/.../Vancouve...
Jan 30, 2015 - Industrial Report ... Amendments to industrial zoning regulations altering market activity. #. #. # .... MC-1 zoning “reinforces the mixed-use nature of this area, with residential, commercial and light industrial uses permitted.
Office zoning in Vancouver industrial areas spurs ... - RENX
renx.ca/office-zoning-in-vancouver-industrial-areas-spurs-real-estate-bo...
Mar 18, 2015 - Office zoning amendments to Vancouver's Mount Pleasant indusrial area ... year as fewer, bigger deals were made, a report from Avison Young found. ... to allow developers to construct a new mixed-use building an industrial area as .... 2015 Canadian commercial and residential real estate news at RENX.
[...]

Here is Toronto's best attempt at being 'progressive'. I know of only a few instances where this has been used, and only in a limited way, but it is on the books. Just not shiny enough for some publications to take note of:
http://www.toronto.ca/zoning/bylaw_amendments/ZBL_NewProvision_Chapter50.htm

 

[44 North]

Hopefully the persons involved in rerouting the Don River access to Lake Ontario will address the resulting problem of increased flow of pollutants and toxins from upriver the Don River directly into Lake Ontario which will be facilitated by removal of the crook in the flow at the Keating Channel. These pollutants will wash back up onto Cherry Beach and Ashbridges Bay whenever we get a southerly wind. The current configuration of the Don via Keating Channel inhibits flow into Lake Ontario. This will be gone if the Don is straightened. Any claim that pollution will be addressed upstream in the Don River lacks credibility based on past history.

Steve wrote a very informative post about the horrors of what lies beneath the area in question (and what crud we don't know is there). But regarding the day-to-day pollution coming down the river, there are plans to fix it. Or rather improve it. It's a 25-year project that will cost a tidy sum (involving long tunnels, deep underground storage tanks, and general unsexy stuff that flies under the public's radar). The persons involved are the City, and I don't think WaterfrontTO are really part of it - altho they oversaw the major stormwater infrastructure in the West Don Lands.

We've already started work in a way with the Coxwell sewer bypass, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. Here's a map that shows the scope and expansive area: https://www1.toronto.ca/city_of_toronto/toronto_water/files/pdf/drncw-esr-executive-summary.pdf#15 According to the City's site on the issue the 25-yr phasing will work like this:

Phase One

• Lower Don River / Coxwell Bypass Tunnel
• Pumping station

Phase Two

• Taylor-Massey Creek Tunnel

Phase Three

• 15 underground vertical storage shafts
• Inner Harbour Tunnel
• Wet Weather Flow treatment facility

Phase Four

• Seven underground off-line storage tanks

The Keating will see a weir, and just upstream a "sediment management area" should deal with some of the larger stuff that affects recreation and navigation. There are laws and international agreements that try to keep us on top of the work involved, so let's hope we keep/surpass the commitments.

 

[Goldie]

Can we assume that everyone knows about the extensive petroleum facilities that once covered these lands ? (attached photo - 1972)

P.S. I believe the correct designation is "Don Lands," not Donlands

 

[Toronto Rocks]

Great shot.

 

[steveintoronto]

I was holding my breath expecting another slew of denials and 'sunny ways', perhaps even getting banned for a week again...the press has been very remiss on this issue, and many are oblivious to the history of land use there. That might have to change. Perhaps the press and plebs need to be nudged? I'm getting a bit old for that, but I still have a temper. And a few connections left in the media.

44 writes:

The persons involved are the City, and I don't think WaterfrontTO are really part of it - altho they oversaw the major stormwater infrastructure in the West Don Lands.

This is crucial, as a recurring theme in these instances is often involved agencies *using* their ignorance of unpleasant details to gloss over the issue. (See no evil, etc). I even wonder if there are departments at City Hall trying to get the attention of executive on this, to no avail. It certainly wouldn't be the first time, no need to list even the recent events of that happening. (Judson Street ring a bell?)

44 makes an excellent case of what's being done, and what continues to need be done, and the timeline to do it. And that's just with what's known. We can be assured that there's going to be some nasty surprises, and not just soil.

Something I veered from, and 44 alluded to it, is the *static* contaminants buried, in stasis, albeit in some (many?) cases, inevitably leaching, but Coles raises the point as 44 continues, of ongoing upstream sourcing of pollution. The City itself alludes to these. What's the point of putting on clean socks if you're going to continue stomping through the mud?

Fish and birds have returned to the Don (albeit with caveats), I itemized that earlier in this forum, but the Don continues to be a flowing cesspool. I see it every time I cycle down the Don cycle path, or go past the Keating on my way to the studio on Polson St. There's no way to allow a dog, let alone a child, in that water.

The last major effort to cleanse the *topsoil* was some twenty years ago, basically by cooking out the volatile petro vapours. What remained was still highly contaminated, just not as volatile. And the process of heat treatment killed any valuable microbes that would have digested much of the petro waste over time.

Goldie's pic speaks volumes. What it doesn't show is the *intentional* burying of waste in recent years (as recently as fifteen years ago), albeit illegally, by a disposal company. They were prosecuted, I knew some of those involved in passing (mostly at the restaurants down there, I won't name the company unless I can quote a legal reference). The charges and convictions were criminal.

And the press has gone silent on it since.

The mouth of the Don must be re-aligned, but I'm astounded how some are so ready to talk about building their shiny wondrous bling without even addressing the open sewers running adjacent, and the contaminants dumped there for a century, intentionally or otherwise.

Would you build a house on land that hasn't been assayed first? Then why should the Waterfront be doing it? Again, the Don must be realigned, but without holding coffer dams and ponds, exactly what Coles discusses will happen. And for how long is another very real question to answer. One only has to look at how The Beaches are fed from the Bluffs (and the deposition is now slowing markedly as erosion is stymied along the Bluffs), guess what's going to happen with sediment plumes from the Don once digging begins.

Is it old fashioned still to state: "First things first"? It's almost too long for a Tweet.

 

[44 North]

Can we assume that everyone knows about the extensive petroleum facilities that once covered these lands ? (attached photo - 1972)

Picture worth a thousand words, love it. What are those piles of black stuff south of the ship channel?

I was holding my breath expecting another slew of denials and 'sunny ways', perhaps even getting banned for a week again...the press has been very remiss on this issue, and many are oblivious to the history of land use there. That might have to change. Perhaps the press and plebs need to be nudged? I'm getting a bit old for that, but I still have a temper. And a few connections left in the media.

I've been wondering about the whole viability of it as well. Not saying I doubt the Don mouth project can be done, but whether:

a) the award-winning plans will see major changes, or
b) we put those plans on hold and go with a temporary concrete-walled un-naturalized Don mouth (that will serve many flood-mitigation measures and allow development north of the Keating Channel).

Other than a brief proposal called Aquatech Blue, there aren't really any development proposals south of Keating. The tangible proposals are all north of Keating Channel / Lake Shore. If there's a way to leave the LDL/PL mostly as-is, but still carve out a river channel parallel to Don Rdwy to drain a volume similar to the worst case scenario, will we pursue it?

 

[steveintoronto]

b) we put those plans on hold and go with a temporary concrete-walled un-naturalized Don mouth (that will serve many flood-mitigation measures and allow development north of the Keating Channel).

It's got to be considered a distinct possibility. When riverbeds are remediated, and the silt/soil/muck is dug up, extreme measures must be taken to contain it. What if those measures are so extreme as to be impossible? In the case of GE and the Hudson, the dialog is now about whether to leave the pools of PCBs in place rather than spreading them and destroying what Nature herself should and would clean-up given time and respect:

New York challenges effectiveness of cleanup in Hudson River
Michael Virtanen, The Associated Press

ALBANY, N.Y. - The state's conservation chief is challenging the effectiveness of recently completed dredging of contaminated sediment from the upper Hudson River, saying unacceptably high levels of industrial waste were left behind.

Commissioner Basil Seggos said dredging improved the Hudson but the federal Environmental Protection Agency needs to re-evaluate the six-year project and get objective analyses in its ongoing review of fish, water and sediment data.

"I think it's absolutely clear the job is not yet done," Seggos said.

At least 136 acres of river bottom and 35 per cent of the PCBs, an oil-like substance discharged from factories in Fort Edward and Hudson Falls, about 40 miles north of Albany, weren't removed, he said.

Seggos said Monday the state has requested permission from the Army Corps of Engineers to dredge the Champlain Canal, which runs into and at times is a channel of the upper Hudson.

"We intend to dredge that canal, and all of our legal options are on the table as to who pays for it," he said.

Ned Sullivan, president of the environmental group Scenic Hudson, said that's a major breakthrough in the PCB cleanup aimed at removing contaminants and health threats.

"This is New York stepping up to do the job that (the Environmental Protection Agency) should have mandated," he said.

Seggos' letter to EPA Regional Administrator Judith Enck comes a year after Boston-based General Electric finished dredging a 40-mile stretch of the river for PCBs in the federal Superfund project. Until 1977, GE factories discharged into the river more than 1 million pounds of polychlorinated biphenyls, considered a probable carcinogen.

The EPA said it will review Seggos' letter and respond in detail but noted the state Department of Environmental Conservation, which he now leads, had agreed with the cleanup plan.

"If New York State has additional information, the EPA is happy to consider it during the five-year review process, which is currently underway," EPA spokeswoman Mary Mears said.

Studies show PCBs pose a risk to wildlife, including fish, frogs, waterfowl and mink. Though banned in 1977, the compounds once used widely as coolants and lubricants in electrical equipment remain a problem because they don't readily break down in the environment and persist over long periods of time.

The EPA has been collecting samples from fish, water and sediment this year for the review. It is also engaged in a 10-year project to remove contaminated soil from the river's flood plain.

The federal agency acknowledged in a review five years ago that initial dredging left a significant amount of contaminated sediment still in the river, more than the EPA had anticipated when it decided on project parameters, Seggos wrote.

If the review shows the project failed to meet its goals, there should be more dredging, Seggos said.

New York's conservation agency has also been taking samples since the dredging stopped last year but doesn't have those results yet, Seggos said. Advisories to limit or avoid consumption of fish caught in the river are insufficient protections, he said.

GE last year finished removing 2.75 million cubic yards of contaminated sediment as part of a 2006 legal agreement with the EPA, which the agency has estimated cost GE about $1.5 billion. Calls by environmental groups to dredge beyond the agreed-to areas grew louder before barges left the river.

GE addressed all the PCBs targeted by federal authorities, removing twice the volume that had been anticipated, a spokesman said.

"GE is confident that EPA's review will demonstrate that the project achieved the agency's goals of protecting human health and the environment," spokesman Mark Behan said Monday.

The responsibility for maintaining the Champlain Canal belongs to the state Canal Corp., which is capable of doing that, Behan said.

"The responsibility is not GE's," he said.

http://www.thecanadianpress.com/eng...EY2008111300&newsitemid=38526794&languageid=1

I don't posit for a moment that that level of contamination is coming down the Don at this time. What I do posit is that the landfill that creates the Don Lands is likely to be as contaminated as that in areas. The City readily admits they just don't know, because they haven't had a thorough look yet.

Here's how abject turning to apathetic the locals have become after decades of attempted remediation (and the EPA is far more active than the Cdn equivalent on this)

G.E. Spent Years Cleaning Up the Hudson. Was It Enough?
By JESSE McKINLEY SEPT. 8, 2016

FORT EDWARD, N.Y. — Ask Matthew Traver, the mayor of this village north of Albany, his opinion of General Electric and its two closed factories that spilled PCBs into the Hudson River for decades, and his words could not be clearer.

“G.E.,” he said, “has done a lot of damage to this community.”

But ask Mr. Traver if he and other residents believe that the industrial giant should continue dredging the Hudson to remove more of the chemical poison — as G.E. did for years before finishing last year — and his answer is equally firm, if surprising.

“I’d say the general consensus in this community is, ‘You’ve dredged, you’re done,’” he said. “It’s over.”

That sense of resignation, shared by some others on the Upper Hudson, is the direct opposite of a position taken recently by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, which is pushing the federal government to closely consider the issue of whether G.E.’s cleanup efforts have been enough.

The federal Environmental Protection Agency has said that the company fulfilled its promises under a 2005 order, resulting in the removal of nearly three million cubic yards of contaminated sediment. But Basil Seggos, the commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation, in a recent letter to the E.P.A.’s top official in New York, challenged the federal remedy, saying “unacceptably high levels of PCB-contaminated sediment remain in large portions of the Upper Hudson.”
[...feature article continues at length...]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/nyregion/general-electric-pcbs-hudson-river.html?_r=0

Again, I have to emphasis, the problem with extending through the mouth of the Don is not the continuing poor state of the river, but one of the relatively contained sponge of the land that must be dug out to build the new mouth. This is going to be far more expensive and involved than all the 'sunny' projections are now stating.

It is very possible, as 44 muses, that most if not all of the land down there is going to have to be left fallow, and for Nature to regenerate at her own pace, whether the new mouth is dug out or not. By all means, plan development north of the Keating, that's mostly original soil anyway, and ostensibly (with a few horror spots) build-able with a nod to techniques and zoning to allow residential from second floor up.

Meantime:

NIAGARA FALLS — Thirty-five years after Love Canal’s oozing toxic waste scared away a neighborhood and became a symbol of environmental catastrophe, history could be repeating itself.

New residents, attracted by promises of cleaned-up land and affordable homes, say in lawsuits that they are being sickened by the same buried chemicals from the disaster in the Niagara Falls neighborhood in the 1970s.
[...]

http://nypost.com/2013/11/02/love-canal-still-oozing-poison-35-years-later/

 

[steveintoronto]

What are those piles of black stuff south of the ship channel?

The Hearn Generating station was coal fueled until '71, one year before that pic. I would have guessed coal, but on a quick search, realized it's the probably clinker left from burning that coal. There were extensive rail spurs and the port owned and operated (albeit it might have been switched by TTR) a rail shuttle from the ships to industries in the port, including the Hearn station.

There were also pulp and paper operations (Polson Pier), a lot of metal recycling, paint and ink, a foundry at Cherry/Lake Shore, munitions factories, all sorts of heavy industry as well as petro-chemicals and waste operations.

In later years, those clinker mounds were replaced by road-salt storage. I think I remember asphalt being stored there too over the years, as well as mounds of used tires.

Edit to Add: Reading further, and Hearn used coal until '83:

The last three 200 MW units at the plant resumed burning coal along with natural gas but they were phased out of operation in July 1983, due to concerns about increased air pollution in Toronto and an abundant energy supply in the province.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearn_Generating_Station

There are entire areas north of Cherry Beach that appear to be clinker. It may even have been used as a fill.

What type of sites might be affected by contamination?
The Government considers that there is a very high probability that all land, which has been subject to the eight uses set out below, is contaminated unless previously treated.

Manufacture of gas, coke or bituminous material from coal.

Manufacture of refining of lead or
steel or an alloy of lead or steel.

Manufacture of asbestos or asbestos products.

Manufacture, refining or recovery of petroleum
or its derivatives, other than extraction from
petroleum bearing ground.

Manufacture, refining or recovery of other chemicals, excluding minerals.

Final deposits in or on land of household, commercial or industrial waste other than waste
consisting of ash, slag, clinker, rock, wood, gypsum, railway ballast, peat, bricks, tiles, concrete, glass, other minerals or dredging spoil;
or where waste is used as a fertiliser or in order to condition the land in some other beneficial manner.

Treatment at a fixed installation of household, commercial or industrial waste by chemical or
thermal means.

Use as a scrap metal store, within the meaning of section 9(2) of the Scrap Metal Dealers Act
1964(a).

http://www.pkc.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=13776&p=0