Central Park faces long closure for major revamp, cleanup
First, the city has to deal with the pollution that’s lurking below the surface
A multimillion-dollar redevelopment and pollution cleanup is poised to close Central Park for as long as two years.
The three-hectare park was pegged to be overhauled as part of a larger city plan to redevelop the barren Barton-Tiffany neighbourhood, where 20 homes and businesses were razed in 2010 for a failed stadium proposal.
But before the park can be upgraded with new amenities — like a dog park, tai chi garden and soccer field— the city must deal with a legacy of soupy industrial pollution lurking below the surface.
“We’re developing a risk management plan and consulting with the (province) to determine how best to deal with the contam-
inated soil,” said city waterfront development manager Gavin Norman, who gave interested residents an update on the project at a meeting Thursday.
Ideally, he said remediation would start next year, perhaps piggybacking on a separate $3-million plan to replace water mains through the park in the spring.
Construction could shut down part or all of the park for up to two years if the city goes ahead with water-main replacement, pollution remediation and final grading one after the other.
But the timeline also depends on the results of a consultant’s risk management and remediation advice under provincial regulations governing brownfield redevelopment.
The Ministry of the Environment recommended an assessment aimed at managing risks to human and ecological health in 2015 following years of soil testing below the Lshaped park where Caroline Street North, Sheaffe Street and a now-removed rail spur once intersected.
The test results turned up underground coal tar, chemicals and debris linked to Currie Products, a defunct roof tar business infamous for pollution problems across the city.
Ministry spokesperson Jennifer Hall said the province was satisfied with the city’s decision to treat the property as brownfield remediation, but it will continue to “monitor the redevelopment and take regulatory action as appropriate.”
The city has budgeted around $4 million for remediation, but it remains unclear whether the recommended solution will involve simply trapping the pollution under extra clay and soil, or the pricier option of digging up and hauling away debris.
Susi Rudaniecki just wants the city to “get on with it.”
She and her husband, Steve, live on the edge of Central Park and have watched the city conduct periodic borehole tests all over the park for at least three years.
“They’ve been saying they’ll do something for how many years now? Just dig up the worst of it, get rid of it,” said Rudaniecki, whose husband is battling cancer he suspects could be linked to historical industrial pollution.
At the same time, Rudaniecki is also hoping for minimal changes to the park itself.
She’s glad the city rejected an early proposal to connect Caroline Street through the green space but is still worried about the number of mature trees that might come down. “They’ve already cut so many.”
Norman said the city had to finish two phases of environmental study before hiring a consultant to begin the risk management plan.
But he added the city has recently received good news from the ministry, which has said the city should theoretically be able to preserve mature trees in areas that otherwise might have to be dug up as part of remediation or pollution capping work.
They’ve been saying they’ll do something for how many years now? Just dig up the worst of it, get rid of it. SUSI RUDANIECKI