cont’d from previous post
Depending on the nature of uses for outdoor areas associated with the Gallery, some mitigating measures such as soil capping may be required. These measures will have a minimal impact on the cost of site development and construction of the Gallery’s facilities.
I wonder what Brook McIlroy and the Waterfront Development Office consider minimal cost impacts? If my memory serves me correctly, Prince Arthur’s Landing’s costs came in around 50% over the original preliminary estimate. Is that a minimal cost increase? I don’t think it is. Maybe you do.
• As part of an Environmental Assessment undertaken for the City of Thunder Bay pertaining to the Marina Park/Pool 6 Lands, a land based soils review was undertaken which reveals some pockets of metal contaminants in the vicinity of the Art Gallery site. – THUNDER BAY ART GALLERY RENEWAL Waterfront Site Feasibility & Economic Impact Assessment
Only pockets of metal contaminants…. Metals such as ??? Let me list them. Mercury, Lead, Cadmium, Copper, Chromium, Arsenic, Barium, Boron, Cobalt, Molybdenum, Nickel, Vanadium, Zinc, and various Petroleum Hydrocarbons. Trow says it is evident that significant soil contamination by a broad spectrum of contaminants (metals, MAHs, petroleum hydrocarbons, miscellaneous parameters) is present in all stages of the site. Requires minor mitigation?
The private developer 1778691 Ontario Inc required the City of Thunder Bay to remove ALL the contaminated material before they would agree to buy the surplus lands in Marina Park. The removal of all that contaminated soil cost the taxpayers millions of dollars so far. Since all that contaminated soil is now stored on the Pool 6 property, additional cost to the taxpayers in the future are virtually guaranteed.
Why are the citizens of Thunder Bay being treated differently than the private developer? Why is the proposed gallery site not having ALL the contamination removed prior to construction? Why is the gallery being built on land that has significant soil contamination?
Well, to remove the contaminated soil and replace it would cost millions of dollars. Millions of dollars that will get added onto the present $25 million price tag and make the waterfront site extremely expensive.
Are we, the public, being manipulated here by Brook McIlroy and the Waterfront Development Office? Is the contamination being downplayed to make the site appear more desirable? Are we being lied to here?
I believe that is the case. Is City Council involved in this? It sure looks like it to me. They are being quiet on the subject. VERY quiet. Silent actually. Why?
Are there other more suitable and less costly sites in the city to build a new art gallery?
Yes. Yes there are.
The former Holsum Bakery siteon Algoma Steet for one. There is also the former Cornwall School site.
Why are they better than the waterfront? Well, they are not contaminated, both have utilities already installed, they are in the Bay and Algoma Villiage with shops, cafes and restaurants that exist right now, and both have public transit at their front door. Buses that provide access to the gallery from the entire city via three bus routes. (Memorial, Crosstown and John) all stop within a short walk of the properties.
Why was public transit access not considered in the THUNDER BAY ART GALLERY RENEWAL Waterfront Site Feasibility & Economic Impact Assessment? Public facilities need to have public transit access. Access without having to cross Water Street and the railway tracks.