Portland Commons | 71.7m | 15s | Carttera | Sweeny &Co

interchange42

Administrator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
25,928
Reaction score
30,257
Location
by the Humber
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.
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
 

Amare

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 4, 2015
Messages
4,565
Reaction score
6,743
Location
Toronto
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
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.
 

Red Mars

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 4, 2009
Messages
5,276
Reaction score
39,596
Location
Toronto
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
 

AHK

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
1,555
Reaction score
5,116
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).

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Top