Google, Alphabet's Vision for Toronto. "SideWalks"

[MicroBrew]

I used to work down there, the land is all contaminated, google can have it IMO.

I am having trouble figuring out why it would cost more than the value of the land to just hire contractors to come in and excavate all the dirt and truck it somewhere , where it could be burned off / the contaminants neutralized in some manner.

 

[MikeMcMann]

I am having trouble figuring out why it would cost more than the value of the land to just hire contractors to come in and excavate all the dirt and truck it somewhere , where it could be burned off / the contaminants neutralized in some manner.

I'll try and simplify it.

Imagine you have two pieces of land in an area. One has never been touched and the other had a gas station on top that was there for decades and is gone now.

You, the potential buyer and developer, look at both, but one has a mystery cost below the land that you do not know, how bad the contamination and thus remediation will be until you start digging. And once you buy it and start digging gov't inspection agencies kick in to make sure things are not now leaking or moving and even if you determine 'nope, this is bad, I can't remediate this land and still build my town house complex and make a profit', ...but the gov't can still now order you to clean it up, since you are the owner and disturbed it. So now you have to clean it up even if you don't have the economics to build on it and the gov't can force you to by confiscating your assets and liquidating them and putting the money to the clean up.

You will see all over, gas station sights in the centre of growing cities, shut down and the land sits vacant for 7 years typically for just that reason. The site would be perfect for a new condo or office tower but no developer will touch it for 7 years as they have found most of the problems under the ground have dissipated by then and the cost is negligible.

Does that make sense?

 

[MicroBrew]

I'll try and simplify it.

Imagine you have two pieces of land in an area. One has never been touched and the other had a gas station on top that was there for decades and is gone now.

You, the potential buyer and developer, look at both, but one has a mystery cost below the land that you do not know, how bad the contamination and thus remediation will be until you start digging. And once you buy it and start digging gov't inspection agencies kick in to make sure things are not now leaking or moving and even if you determine 'nope, this is bad, I can't remediate this land and still build my town house complex and make a profit', ...but the gov't can still now order you to clean it up, since you are the owner and disturbed it. So now you have to clean it up even if you don't have the economics to build on it and the gov't can force you to by confiscating your assets and liquidating them and putting the money to the clean up.

You will see all over, gas station sights in the centre of growing cities, shut down and the land sits vacant for 7 years typically for just that reason. The site would be perfect for a new condo or office tower but no developer will touch it for 7 years as they have found most of the problems under the ground have dissipated by then and the cost is negligible.

Does that make sense?

I understand the issues relating to ground contamination and remediation. What I don't get is why it would be more costly than the value of the land in this case , which appears to be highly desirable waterfront land, to have earthmovers come in and just remove all the contaminated soil. Massive earth moving projects for highway building is common .

 

[Jack Reacheround]

I believe things like this SHOULD be done by gov't but I also accept gov't WON'T do it, in most cases as I explained in post 54 above. Politicians today don't want to spend money on projects that don't complete while they are in power as they see no re-election benefit to themselves and lose that money to buy votes NOW.

So considering that real world situation we live in unfortunately I see no choice but to allow private interests build the new Highways and rape us for voluntary use after, and to build these cities and take the data when the usage of each is voluntary to those who do use it and anyone who does not want to deal with them can choose not to but they still get benefits from these projects regardless.

I may agree. But I just can’t remember exactly what they were doing and haven’t gone back and read it yet. But when I saw reference to an Orwellian type of situation, which I assume means tracking everything people do, cameras everywhere, etc., that made me wonder what it was that was happening. This thread is from so long ago that I don’t remember the specifics other than the reclamation of poisoned land.

 

[MikeMcMann]

I understand the issues relating to ground contamination and remediation. What I don't get is why it would be more costly than the value of the land in this case , which appears to be highly desirable waterfront land, to have earthmovers come in and just remove all the contaminated soil. Massive earth moving projects for highway building is common .

Well look at this way.

Why would someone buy that land? It would be to build something on it to sell for a profit. There is competition amongst developers to buy the land as cost effective as possible and to build as cost effective as possible because what remains after sale is their profit.

So if you, the developer have a significant cost if you buy this land that you do not have if you buy other land (land remediation) you must pass that extra cost on to the purchaser who will NOT pay more for a condo or office there as opposed to somewhere similar where the extra cost was not incurred.

Plus the remediation costs often remain a large unknown as to the extent of the problem. it is entirely possible a developer would buy the land planning to remediate and build upon it and then when they apply for permits the Gov't inspectors come in and do an environmental assessment and say 'you cannot disturb this land for X years as any unsettling of it could cause leakage into neighbouring aquifers or other issues' or some other very expensive solutions. One thing developers and their investors hate is uncertainty in their projects.

 

[MicroBrew]

Well look at this way.

Why would someone buy that land? It would be to build something on it to sell for a profit. There is competition amongst developers to buy the land as cost effective as possible and to build as cost effective as possible because what remains after sale is their profit.

So if you, the developer have a significant cost if you buy this land that you do not have if you buy other land (land remediation) you must pass that extra cost on to the purchaser who will NOT pay more for a condo or office there as opposed to somewhere similar where the extra cost was not incurred.

Plus the remediation costs often remain a large unknown as to the extent of the problem. it is entirely possible a developer would buy the land planning to remediate and build upon it and then when they apply for permits the Gov't inspectors come in and do an environmental assessment and say 'you cannot disturb this land for X years as any unsettling of it could cause leakage into neighbouring aquifers or other issues' or some other very expensive solutions. One thing developers and their investors hate is uncertainty in their projects.

If there isn't other waterfront land in that city, then I would think this land is highly desirable. To the point where the remediation costs would be a fraction of its investment potential.

As for State and national gov. inspectors : wouldn't any developer have them do a thorough assessment and required remediation processes prior to buying the land? The only foreseeable problem is unforeseen issues that pop up when the land gets excavated. But I would think geologists and environmental specialists would foresee any such problem when they do an analysis of the site.

 

[Hoof Hearted]

Google was just a search engine 20 years ago.

And it's crazy to think Amazon was just selling books, now they are the biggest cloud computing company in the world.

 

[MikeMcMann]

If there isn't other waterfront land in that city, then I would think this land is highly desirable. To the point where the remediation costs would be a fraction of its investment potential.

As for State and national gov. inspectors : wouldn't any developer have them do a thorough assessment and required remediation processes prior to buying the land? The only foreseeable problem is unforeseen issues that pop up when the land gets excavated. But I would think geologists and environmental specialists would foresee any such problem when they do an analysis of the site.

Well that answer is self evident and 'no', based on the fact there are similar stories with land sitting decade after decade untouched when such remediation is unknown. You can guess it should be fairly straight forward but that is not always the case.

 

[MicroBrew]

Well that answer is self evident and 'no', based on the fact there are similar stories with land sitting decade after decade untouched when such remediation is unknown. You can guess it should be fairly straight forward but that is not always the case.

Yeah, that's the surprising thing to me, that with all the technology at our disposal, all the mega infrastructure projects that have been complete, something soo simple (seems simple on the face of it) has no solution.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Yeah, that's the surprising thing to me, that with all the technology at our disposal, all the mega infrastructure projects that have been complete, something soo simple (seems simple on the face of it) has no solution.

I think you think it is a very easily quantifiable problem and its not. Investment capital hates risk and uncertainty.

This is just one story of many in this area that I recall.



City bought proposed arena lands despite warnings about cleanup costs


Remediation costs for the 18-hectare area once occupied by Canada Creosoting Ltd. had been estimated at between $30 million and $100 million when the city purchased the parcel and approved its West Village redevelopment plan.

But a year later, engineers were telling city officials the plume of naphthalene, benzopyrene and pentachlorophenol left behind from four decades of treating rail ties and utility poles at the site was larger than presented in previous studies and extended down into the bedrock about 10 metres below the surface.

The report by AECOM Canada Ltd. now estimated that the equivalent of 25,000 dump trucks of earth was considered hazardous waste, so laced with toxins that can produce carcinogenic vapours that they would likely need to be hauled away or intensively remediated before the area could be built on again...

...“If it was their pocketbooks on the line, I’m sure they would have done their due diligence,” Paige MacPherson said.

“This land should never have been bought — and no one should be talking about building on it now — until we know what it’s going to cost to clean up and who is going to pay.”

 

[MikeMcMann]

Will BC’s Next Gov’t Defuse Toxic Time Bombs?

British Columbia has inherited a legacy of contaminated soil and groundwater sites from a wide array of industrial activities going back a century. Leaking oil tanks, “back forty” dumping of chemical wastes, and insecure tailings ponds are just some examples that to this day pose risks to human health and the environment...

...Probably no environmental issue is more challenging to legislators than contaminated sites. Any law reform initiative must address complex questions, such as: How clean is “clean,” given imperfect science? What is “acceptable” remediation? ...


-------------

Emerging Realities – Purchasing Contaminated Sites

...Based on a Fall 1994 engineering estimates, the cost of disposing of contaminated soil from jurisdictions around Canada varies from about $80-$100 per metric tonne for industrial grade soils, and from $225-250 per metric tonne for special waste soils. Spending several million dollars on remediation may take only a few weeks. Getting permission to conduct this work and redevelop a contaminated site may take years.

...
Risky Real Estate Developers acquire as much knowledge as possible to reduce risk. What draws developers and investors to real estate development is certainty. Contamination adds risk.

When developers look to redevelop former industrial lands, not only are they questioning some of the costs that will likely be incurred as part of the consideration to buy a site, but, more importantly, there is apprehension relating to liability, risk and inability to gain project financing.

 

[Medulla Omoplata]

I would like to know what @Clippy and @Medulla Omoplata think about this

@Clippy is on vacation and I've lost my keyboard again

 

[Slobodan]

@Clippy is on vacation and I've lost my keyboard again

Did you spill Kraft Dinner on your keyboard again?

 

[Clippy]

My Grandfather invented Sidewalks

 

[SleepyBoy]

Count me out. Almost sounds like a fancy jail.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Update : Getting close to being approved. I am very excited to see if they can make this work.

The latest update on the Sidewalk Toronto project

Last June, we submitted our proposal for Toronto’s eastern waterfront to Waterfront Toronto. The 1,524-page document reflected 18 months of work and feedback from tens of thousands of Torontonians and hundreds of public officials.

The proposal represents our best thinking to date on the path to creating the most innovative place in the world, right here in Toronto. Our proposal was bold, but it was also a draft— subject to additional public consultations, further refinement, and government approvals.

We have now worked through, together with Waterfront Toronto, a number of key issues, including:

• Project scope: The project will begin at Quayside and we believe we can achieve many of our shared objectives with Waterfront Toronto at this scale. Our alignment with Waterfront Toronto recognizes the potential for expanding our ideas to a larger geography such as Villiers West if the Quayside project is successful.
• Innovation Plan: Instead of creating an IDEA district, we will work with Waterfront Toronto to create an Innovation Plan to advance any regulatory changes required to achieve our shared goals for the project.
• Rapid transit: While Waterfront Toronto does not have jurisdiction over the approval of capital funding for public transit, Waterfront Toronto will continue to support and advocate for a higher-order transit solution, to sufficiently serve the project.
• Data Governance: Waterfront Toronto will lead all privacy and digital governance matters related to the project and will act as the lead in discussions with the City, the Province, the Federal government and Privacy Commissioners. We are committed to complying with all existing policies, and are prepared to comply with any future policies.
• Land Value: Through in-depth discussions with Waterfront Toronto we have come to an agreement on a fair market value of Quayside of $590 million. This is before accounting for investments that will be required to achieve Waterfront Toronto’s objectives.

Click here for a full list of the critical issues that were resolved and here for a summary.

Waterfront Toronto will now conduct a formal, comprehensive evaluation as well as further public consultations on the proposal. We will continue to work collaboratively with them to move this important project forward.

We continue to be excited about the potential to implement a vision that shortens commute times, makes housing more affordable, creates new jobs, and set a new standard for a healthier planet.

 

[Law Talkin’ Guy]

Here’s a bunch of executives talking about the project:

 

[MikeMcMann]

Here’s a bunch of executives talking about the project: