16 Posted Mar 27, 2013, 3:17 PM ThaLoveDocta Registered User Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 170 Quote: JM1 Originally Posted by I am not opposed to tall buildings in this area but several things spring to mind.



1. Some of these buildings are on very small footings. I look at the footprint for the Claridge Icon and wonder how it will ever support 40+ stories. I believe this area used to be swamp, so I wonder how easy it will be to keep these buildings straight.



2. The infrastructure is not there. Roads are definitely not there so all these people better take transit. But this leads to other problems. Try catching a bus from Carling and Preston to go East. The 101 and 102 make all sorts of irritating twists and turns before they get on the transitway. The Carling intersection with Bronson is already a nightmare at rush hours.



3. Expansion of the O-train is still years away, and accomodating this kind of population probably requires a direct connection to downtown (no transfer at Bayview).



4. Blasting required to (eventually) twin the O-train track will wreak havoc on the foundations of these tall condominiums (which are already supported by very small footings).



5. A tall building at the Dow Honda site and/or the Civic Parking lot (champagne and Carling) will likely make it very difficult to make a future connection between the Bayview/Carling O-train and a Westbound Carling LRT (which would likely need to be a no-transfer connection).

Where there's a will, there's a way.



Q#2: Not to mention the "get out and push" routine at Bronson and Carling in a snow storm. I would like to see the city address a solution to this asap as well.



Q#3: This might be a 'chicken and egg' scenario. and unfortunately the 'build access and they will come' mentality doesn't usually pan out. (example: Mirabel airport) Usually the density comes first, with the right plan in place, and the access will follow after several years of headaches for the early adopters. Can you imagine the uproar if the city built a train to service, for example, Carp or Russell today in anticipation of future development?



Q#4: I would be more concerned about the older buildings to be honest. The new earthquake and deflection requirements will more than cover the new buildings from the blasting (structurally). The noise and annoyance is another issue altogether though.



Q#5: I have no expertise here - but certainly seems like a valid point. Q#1: probably piles and caps, or a combination of piles, caps, rock anchors, and grade beams, depending on the geo-technical details.Where there's a will, there's a way.Q#2: Not to mention the "get out and push" routine at Bronson and Carling in a snow storm. I would like to see the city address a solution to this asap as well.Q#3: This might be a 'chicken and egg' scenario. and unfortunately the 'build access and they will come' mentality doesn't usually pan out. (example: Mirabel airport) Usually the density comes first, with the right plan in place, and the access will follow after several years of headaches for the early adopters. Can you imagine the uproar if the city built a train to service, for example, Carp or Russell today in anticipation of future development?Q#4: I would be more concerned about the older buildings to be honest. The new earthquake and deflection requirements will more than cover the new buildings from the blasting (structurally). The noise and annoyance is another issue altogether though.Q#5: I have no expertise here - but certainly seems like a valid point.