Structural Condition Assesment - Greenwich Mohawk 011-300

PICCO ENGINEERING Division of 688214 Ontario Ltd

Concord: Barrie:

350 Caldari Road, Suite 200 92 Caplan Avenue

Concord, ON., L4K 4J4 Barrie, ON., L4N 0Z7

T. 905-760-9688 F.905-760-9699 T. 705-719-7981 F.886-522-4152

Structural Condition Assessment

Greenwich&MohawkBrownfieldSite

Brantford,ON

For Cole Engineering and the City of Brantford RFP 11-113

November 2011

Mike Picco, P.Eng. Alan Dyck, PE of CA, SE Robert Botelho


Wednesday, November 30, 2011 Mr. John Chadwick, P. Geo. Cole Engineering Group Ltd. 70 Valleywood Drive Markham, ON L3R 4T5 Dear John We are pleased to submit our Structural Condition Assessment report for the Greenwich & Mohawk Brownfield Site, Brantford, Ontario. In coordination with Taylor Hazel Architects’ Heritage Impact Assessment Report, we have examined and reported on the building envelope and structural component condition of the requested buildings. We trust that the information provided will assist the City of Brantford in making the critical decisions leading to the next stages of this project. Sincerely, Picco Engineering Div. of 688214 Ontario Limited

Michael Picco P. Eng. Alan Dyck PE of CA, SE

Structural Condition Assessment

Greenwich & Mohawk Brown Field Site Brantford, ON

Table of Contents

Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 5

2. BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................... 6

Basic Statistics .......................................................................................................................... 7

REFERENCE REPORTS .......................................................................................................... 9

3. DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES ................................................................... 10

Building 1B – 347 Greenwich Street ....................................................................................... 10

Building 2 -347 Greenwich Street ............................................................................................ 12

Building 3A – 347 Greenwich Street ....................................................................................... 14

Building 1 – 66 Mohawk Street ................................................................................................ 16


4. OBSERVATIONS ................................................................................................................ 18

1B – 347 Greenwich Street ..................................................................................................... 18

foundation ............................................................................................................................ 18

exterior (envelope & structure) ............................................................................................ 18

interior .................................................................................................................................. 19

Building 2 –Greenwich Street .................................................................................................. 21

Foundation ........................................................................................................................... 21


interior .................................................................................................................................. 22

Building 3A – 347 Greenwich Street ....................................................................................... 24

foundation ............................................................................................................................ 24


interior .................................................................................................................................. 25


foundation ............................................................................................................................ 26


interior .................................................................................................................................. 26


foundation ............................................................................................................................ 27


interior .................................................................................................................................. 27

5. REMARKS ........................................................................................................................... 28

Design Loads .......................................................................................................................... 28

Remediation and Abatement ................................................................................................... 28

Building 1B – 347 Greenwich .................................................................................................. 28

Building 2 - 347 Greenwich ..................................................................................................... 29

Building 3A - 347 Greenwich ................................................................................................... 29

Building 1 - 66 Mohawk ........................................................................................................... 30

Building 2 - 66 Mohawk ........................................................................................................... 30

6. PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES ............................................................................................... 31

Building 1B - 347 Greenwich ................................................................................................... 32

Maintain /Repair/Protect (3 years) ....................................................................................... 32

Reuse Value Following Recommendations ......................................................................... 32

Replacement Estimate ......................................................................................................... 32

Replacement Value Maintaining Heritage Intent ................................................................. 32

Abatement ........................................................................................................................... 32



REUSE VALUE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................... 33

RePLACEMENT ESTIMATE ............................................................................................... 33

REplacement Value MAINTAINING HERITAGE INTENT ................................................... 33

ABATEMENT ....................................................................................................................... 33






ABATEMENT ....................................................................................................................... 35

Building 1 – 66 Mohawk .......................................................................................................... 37

Maintain /repair/Protect (3 years) ........................................................................................ 37




ABATEMENT ....................................................................................................................... 37

Building 2 – 66 Mohawk .......................................................................................................... 38





ABATEMENT ....................................................................................................................... 38

7. RECOMMENDATIONS: REUSE or REPLACEMENT ......................................................... 40

8. Appendix .............................................................................................................................. 45

Health and Safety Reports ...................................................................................................... 45

Concrete Test Report .............................................................................................................. 55

Testing Estimates .................................................................................................................... 59

foundation ............................................................................................................................ 26


interior .................................................................................................................................. 26


foundation ............................................................................................................................ 27


interior .................................................................................................................................. 27

5. REMARKS ........................................................................................................................... 28

Design Loads .......................................................................................................................... 28

Remediation and Abatement ................................................................................................... 28

Building 1B – 347 Greenwich .................................................................................................. 28



Building 1 - 66 Mohawk ........................................................................................................... 30

Building 2 - 66 Mohawk ........................................................................................................... 30

6. PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES ............................................................................................... 31

Building 1B - 347 Greenwich ................................................................................................... 32


Reuse Value Following Recommendations ......................................................................... 32

Replacement Estimate ......................................................................................................... 32

Replacement Value Maintaining Heritage Intent ................................................................. 32

Abatement ........................................................................................................................... 32


Maintain /repair/Protect (3 years) .......................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.




ABATEMENT ....................................................................................................................... 33


Maintain /repair/Protect (3 years) .......................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.




Structural Condition Assessment Greenwich & Mohawk Brownfield Site

Brantford, ON

Picco Engineering Ltd 5

1. INTRODUCTION Picco Engineering Limited has been engaged by the City of Brantford, through a consortium of firms led by Cole Engineering to examine and comment on the condition of the building envelope and examine the structural components of the structures referred to as:

Building 1B located at 347 Greenwich Street (Massey Harris Machine Shop) Building 2 located at 347 Greenwich Street (Verity Plow Office) Building 3A located at 347 Greenwich Street (Verity Plow Paint Shop) Building 1 located at 66 Mohawk Street (Timekeeper’s Building) Building 2 located at 66 Mohawk Street (Cockshutt Office)

For the purpose of clarity and consistency, the term Building shall be used only as a reference description and not as a defined term of the structure type. The structures are currently vacant and are in varying states of disrepair and are therefore not fit for human habitation or prolonged use. The focus of our review was to review and evaluate the following:

Review the condition of the Building envelope and the Building structural components Provide a determination regarding what Buildings are salvageable and to what extent Provide estimated costs to maintain the salvageable structures for 3 years Provide estimated costs to repair to full use Provide estimated replacement values

The proposed reuse of the existing Buildings as listed in the RFP identified as RFP 11-113 has been identified as “residential occupancy" and “institutional occupancies”, which we have referred to in our estimates. The review was limited to areas and elements that were determined to be accessible. Structural concerns have been identified throughout the Buildings identified in this Condition Assessment. Elements concealed by non-structural elements were not reviewed. A non-destructive approach was used throughout accessible areas. Core samples were taken in Building 1B for analysis of strength and alkalinity of the concrete structure. Recommendations and comments are based on the review conducted through site investigations conducted throughout the months of October 2011 and November 2011. The following recommendations have been made as based on current standards, industry cost averages and our accumulated knowledge and experience. This Structural Condition Assessment report has been prepared for the intended and exclusive use of Cole Engineering and the City of Brantford. Picco Engineering Limited does not assume any liability for the use of this report, or for the information included herein, or resulting in any damages from the use of this report by other parties.


Brantford, ON


2. BACKGROUND Several Buildings are located at 347 Greenwich Street. The structures referred to as Building 1B (Massey Harris Machine Shop), Building 2 (Verity Plow Office Building), and Building 3A (Verity Plow Paint Shop) are located at this site (see Fig. 1). The majority of the structures on this site are unoccupied, with exception being the War History Museum which occupies two buildings located to the south east section of the site.

Fig. 1: Google image dated 2006, aerial image of 347 Greenwich Street, Brantford, Ontario.

Two Buildings are located at 66 Mohawk Street. The structures referred to as Building 1(The Timekeepers Building), and Building 2 (The Cockshutt Office) are located at this site (see Fig. 2). Both of the structures on this site are unoccupied.

Fig. 2: Google image dated 2006, aerial image of 66 Mohawk Street, Brantford, Ontario.

1B

2 3A

War History Museum

2

1


Brantford, ON


Several sections of the structures known as Building 2 and Building 3A at Greenwich Street have been damaged by fire, subsequent collapses and further deterioration by moisture related damage is result of having the wood structure exposed to environmental elements. Portions of the structures have been hoarded but the overall building envelope is not intact. The areas that have been adversely affected by the collapses, fire, and environmental exposure were considered to be compromised and therefore inaccessible.

Basic Statistics Structure Building 1B Site 347 Greenwich Street Estimated Date of Construction

c.1920’s

Estimated Footprint (SF)

60’x210’=12,600sf

Estimated Total Area (SF)

4storeysx12,600sf=50,400sf

Structure Building 2 Site 347 Greenwich Street Estimated Date of Construction

c.1897 to 1904’s


60’x362’=21,720


3storeysx21,720=65,160sf


Brantford, ON


Structure Building 3A Site 347 Greenwich Street Estimated Date of Construction

c.1897 to 1904’s


55’x395’=21,725



Structure Building 1 Site 66 Mohawk Street Estimated Date of Construction

c.1903, brick facade added 1912


29’x25’=725sf


1storeysx725sf=725sf

Structure Building 2 Site 66 Mohawk Street Estimated Date of Construction

c.1903


45’x60’=2,700sf




Brantford, ON


REFERENCE REPORTS The following previously completed reports were made available for review by the City of Brantford:

Greenwich-Mohawk Streets, Brantford Remediation Study, Opportunities and Constraints Report, prepared by Planning & Engineering Initiatives Ltd., Wiebe Engineering Group Inc., dated October 28, 2002

Structural Stabilization Report for 66 Mohawk Street, Brantford, Ontario, prepared by Group Eight Engineering Limited, Dated March 2005.

Structural Condition Report For Building 1B, 2 & 3A – 347 Greenwich Buildings 1&2 – Mohawk Brantford, Ontario, prepared by Group Eight Engineering Limited, Dated April 2008.

Peer Review of Building Condition and Stabilization Reports for 66 Mohawk St. And 347 Greenwich St. Brantford, ON Proposed Brownfield Development Site prepared by Halsall Associates Limited, Dated February 13, 2009.


Brantford, ON


3. DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES

Building 1B – 347 Greenwich Street A four-storey concrete and brick masonry structure located at the North West section of the site at 347 Greenwich Street (see Fig. 3).

Fig. 3: Buildings 1A and 1B at the North West section of the site at 347 Greenwich Street, Google Image dated 2006

Building 1A is one storey concrete masonry and steel unit addition that was not subject to our review.

Building 1B is a structure comprised of poured/cast in place reinforced concrete roof and floor slabs with an estimated thickness of 8” (200mm), with rectangular shaped exterior poured concrete columns (21”x22”), reinforced with non-deformed steel bars and circular shaped interior columns supporting the suspended concrete slabs. Poured concrete beams span between the exterior columns and drop panel capitals are located at each interior column.

Additional poured concrete structural framing was noted at the stairwell and elevator shaft. The first floor is a concrete slab on grade. The spandrel panels between columns are constructed of double-wythe brick masonry, with a rowlock course at the sixth course. Poured concrete sills were noted below the metal frame windows.

Where visible, at the south elevation, the foundation appears to be a poured in place concrete foundation. Clay brick masonry units extended below grade where the foundation walls were not visible (see Fig, 5).

1B

Fig. 4: Exterior concrete columns and beams with brick masonry infill spandrel panels at east elevation.


Brantford, ON


The structural bay sizes are 19.5’ by 20’. The top of floor to the underside of floor is 13’4” at the first floor and 11’4” at the second and third floors.

Fig. 5: Brick at grade, and spalled concrete at column.


Brantford, ON


Building 2 -347 Greenwich Street A three storey brick masonry structure located at the North West section of the site at 347 Greenwich Street and north east of Building 1B (see Fig. 6).

Fig. 6: Building 2 at the North West section of the site at 347 Greenwich Street, Google Image dated 2006

The building is constructed as a mill style building of the era. It has a self supporting exterior structural triple wythe brick masonry shell with an independent interior structure constructed of heavy timber post and beam with plank floor boards. The Building is compartmentalised into three sections by masonry firewalls.

The compartment sizes are as follows (see Fig. 7):

a) 60’x40’=2,400sf b) 60’x168’=10,080sf c) 60’x154’=5,240sf

The foundation, where visible, is constructed of limestone and mortar. The grade elevation changes from the north to the south elevations, and as a result the foundation is concealed at the north elevation. Vents in the foundation wall were noted at the south elevation placed at approximately every 4’.

The exterior walls of the building are constructed of clay brick masonry. These are self supported, load bearing walls. The triple wythe masonry walls at the first storey and the double wythe masonry walls of the upper two storeys are row-locked at every seventh course. Brick columns are located at each structural bay. The typical bay dimensions are 15’x14’.

2

a) b) c)

Fig. 7: Fire compartments, Google image dated 2006.


Brantford, ON


The typical interior structure is constructed of 2x10 planks oriented north to south, timber beams (oriented east to west) on timber girders (oriented north to south) supported by timber posts (see Fig. 8). The typical bay size is 15’x14’. The roof support structure is also constructed in this typical fashion.

The beams and columns at the first storey were a typical size of 12”x12”. The columns were supported by cast iron bases resting on the concrete slab on grade. The dimensions of the timber frame decrease at each level from the first storey to the third. Tension rod reinforcing was noted at the first storey at the majority of the girders through compartment b).

The floor at the first storey is poured in place concrete slab on grade.

Fig. 8: timber frame construction at the second storey of compartment b


Brantford, ON


Building 3A – 347 Greenwich Street A three storey brick masonry structure located at the North West section of the site at 347 Greenwich Street, south east of Building 1B and south of Building 2(see Fig. 9).

Fig. 9: Building 3A at the North West section of the site at 347 Greenwich Street, Google Image dated 2006

The building is constructed as a mill style building of the era. It has a self supporting exterior structural triple wythe brick masonry shell with an independent interior structure constructed of heavy timber post and beam with plank floor boards. The Building is compartmentalised into four sections by masonry firewalls.

The compartment sizes are as follows (see Fig. 10):

a) 60’x42’=2,400sf b) 60’x44’=2,640sf c) 60’x155’=9,300sf d) 60’x154’=9240sf

The foundation is constructed of limestone and mortar. The exterior grade is a hard surface, paved in asphalt and sloped east to west as well as north to south.

The exterior walls of the building are constructed of clay brick masonry. These are self supported, load bearing walls. The triple wythe masonry walls at the first storey and the double wythe masonry walls of the upper two storeys are row-locked at every seventh course. Brick columns are located at each structural bay. The typical bay dimensions are 18’x14’.

The typical interior structure is constructed of 2x10 planks oriented north to south, timber beams (oriented

b) c) d)

Fig. 10: Fire compartments, Google image dated 2006.

3A

a)

Fig. 11: Typical wood framing


Brantford, ON


east to west) on timber girders (oriented north to south) supported by timber posts (see Fig. 11). The typical bay size is 18’x14’. The roof support structure is also constructed in this typical fashion.

The beams and columns at the first storey were a typical size of 12”x12”. The columns were supported by cast iron bases resting on the concrete slab on grade. The dimensions of the timber frame decrease at each level from the first storey to the third. Tension rod reinforcing was noted at the first storey at the majority of the girders.

The floor at the first storey is poured in place concrete slab on grade.


Brantford, ON


Building 1 – 66 Mohawk Street A one storey wood frame and masonry structure located at the south east section of the site at 66 Mohawk and abuts Building 2 (see Fig. 12).

Fig. 12: Building 1 at the south east section of the site at 66 Mohawk Street, Google Image dated 2006

The Building is constructed with load bearing, double wythe masonry walls, both interior and exterior. The roof is sloped and constructed of wood frame. The gable end at the south elevation is concealed by a stepped brick masonry parapet.

This structure has the smallest footprint of all the structures reviewed. There are no fire separations within the structure.

The foundation, where visible, appeared to be poured concrete foundation with a concrete slab on grade.

The internal space is divided by two load bearing masonry walls that are oriented north to south; supporting the wood frame sloped roof above. The roof framing is concealed by OSB sheathing (see Fig. 13).

Fig. 13: Masonry wall supporting roof structure.

1


Brantford, ON


Building 2 – 66 Mohawk Street Three storey brick masonry Building located at the northwest section of the site at 66 Mohawk Street, abutting the Time Keeper’s Building (Building1) to the south (see Fig. 14).

Fig. 14: Building 2 at the North West section of the site at 66 Mohawk Street, Google Image dated 2006

The Building has a load bearing exterior structural multi-wythe brick masonry shell with an independent interior structure constructed of heavy timber post and beam with plank floor boards. The Building is separated by a masonry firewall from the three storey masonry addition located beyond the north elevation.

The triple wythe masonry walls were noted at the first storey and the double wythe masonry walls of the upper two storeys are row-locked at every seventh course. Brick columns are located at each structural bay. The typical bay dimensions are 15’x13.5’.

The typical interior structure is constructed of planks oriented north to south, timber beams (oriented east to west) supported by timber posts (see Fig. 8). The typical bay size is 15’x13.5’. The roof support structure is also constructed in this typical fashion. The wood structure is supported by brick masonry piers in the basement (see Fig. 16).

The floor at the basement level is poured in place concrete slab on grade.

2

Fig. 15: Red dashed line indicates separation between Building 2 and the addition.

Fig. 16: Brick masonry piers at the basement level.


Brantford, ON


4. OBSERVATIONS

1B – 347 Greenwich Street

FOUNDATION The poured concrete foundation, where visible, appeared to be in good condition. There were no indications of an unexpected or detrimental amount of settlement. The concrete slab on grade has deteriorated and appears to be in fair condition overall. Spalling and pitting of the surface was noted in some locations while the perimeter of the slab adjacent to the wall openings that were previously glazed, had a higher concentration of delaminated concrete.

Accelerated levels of deterioration were also noted at construction joints.

EXTERIOR (ENVELOPE & STRUCTURE) The roof was not accessible at the time of review, therefore the roof membrane condition/type could not be reviewed nor could the condition of the interior side of the parapets. The parapet condition was instead reviewed from grade level. The majority of the metal coping appeared to be in place. The brick masonry appeared to be in generally poor condition; with a number of bricks that appear to have spalled, and mortar missing from several courses. Some missing bricks were also noted (see Fig. 18).

The concrete spandrel panels, concrete columns and brick infill panels were in generally poor condition. The majority of the poured concrete spandrel panels have cracked and spalled (see Fig. 19). Bricks at the infill panels have spalled, bricks are missing and the mortar joints show advanced signs of deterioration as well as missing sections. The reinforcing steel in the spandrel panels, where exposed, have corroded with sectional loss noted at several locations. Poor coverage of the steel has been noted.

The metal frame windows are in poor condition. A large percentage of the glazing panels are either broken or missing. This only increases the effective exposure to the elements by interior structural elements. Concrete

Fig. 17: slab and columns at first storey.

Fig. 18: spalled and missing bricks/mortar at the parapet.

Fig. 19: deteriorated brick and concrete spandrel panels.

Fig. 20: Cracked concrete sill.


Brantford, ON


sills are in poor condition with cracking, spalling and exposed aggregate noted.

Several exposed bars are set less than 1” from the surface of the concrete surface (see Fig. 21). The bars are typically round undeformed bars. Some vertical bars that were visible in the rectangular exterior columns appear to be #9 or 30M bars. Sectional loss of the steel was noted at these exposed bars. Ties were not noted at these exposed sections of steel.

Cores were taken at an exterior spandrel panel and exterior column to be tested for compressive strength and pH levels (see Table 1). The pH levels of the concrete have dropped over time and will continue to do so. As the pH level drops below 9 corrosion of steel reinforcement will increase. As the concrete becomes less alkaline its strength will also decrease.

Rain water leaders were not noted. Water was noted exiting through exhaust vents at the wall.

INTERIOR The interior round concrete columns are spalling. Spiral reinforcement ties were noted in these areas where the concrete had spalled. Corrosion noted at these exposed sections of steel.

Cores were taken at the interior suspended slabs to test for compressive strength and pH levels:

Sam

ple

#

pH

Lev

el

Co

mp

ress

ive

Str

eng

th

(MP

a) Location where sample was taken

C1 10 24.4 Column at the first floor

C2 10 31.0 Spandrel beam at the first floor

C3 12 24.5 Suspended slab at the second floor

C4 8 18.7 Suspended slab at the second floor

C5 11 23.6 Suspended slab at the third floor

C6 11 21.4 Suspended slab at the third floor Table 1: Decrease in pH levels correlate with decrease in strength as the concrete ages and loses its alkalinity.

Spalling of concrete was noted where slabs were not covered by membrane. Cracks were also noted where water penetrates into the slab. This is exaggerated at construction joints. There is severe deterioration in some bays of the floor slab, including locations where concrete thickness is reduced and aggregate is completely separated from the concrete. Aggregate outlines are clearly visible from the underside of slab.

Fig. 21: poor coverage of steel reinforcing bars.


Brantford, ON


Cracking and spalling was noted at the interior side of the poured concrete spandrel panels.

Additional Condition Photos for Building 1A


Brantford, ON


Building 2 –Greenwich Street

FOUNDATION The limestone foundation generally appears to be in good condition where visible. Some mortar has deteriorated at exposed corners. Some step cracking and settlement was noted at the south west corner of the building. The way that the hard paved exterior grade slopes towards this corner would suggest that wash out of fine granular to be potential cause.

Metal vents were noted within the top course of the stone foundation. These vents would indicate that there is a crawl space, but there are no other indications of this.

An earth and debris berm has been placed just south of the foundation on the southern elevation. Vegetation has taken hold here and can present a problem to the foundation walls due to its proximity (see Fig. 22).

EXTERIOR (ENVELOPE & STRUCTURE) The roof was not accessed due to safety concerns. The membrane type and condition was therefore not reviewed.

The brick at the west elevation is in generally fair condition, with the exception of step cracking noted through the corners of window sills and heads. A point of tension was noted from the third storey sill at the second bay (from the north) to the second storey soldier course (see Fig. 23). Previous masonry repointing repairs were noted and to be expected on a building of this age. Moisture related damage was noted at the transition between dissimilar materials where some of the cracks have formed. Some concrete sills have been replaced by pressure treated timbers.

At the south elevation the brick was found to be in generally fair condition. Step cracks were noted from sills to header courses at the south west corner of the building. The exposed brick at the top of the brick piers has come loose from the failed mortar joints; which is due in part to a missing coping (see Fig. 24). Staining of the brick from metal corrosion is common where tension rods and bolts have been installed and left exposed. The original service/shipping doors at the first storey were replaced with overhead doors and dock levellers were

Fig. 23: step cracking from sill to soldier course window head.

Fig. 24: Failed masonry at the top of brick piers.

Fig. 22: step cracking from sill to soldier course window head.


Brantford, ON


installed. Therefore the openings were increased in width; by installing a steel beam with welded top and bottom plates.

A metal brace at the underside of the second storey bridge Building 2 and Building 3A has collapsed.

The later addition at the west elevation has collapsed due to fire and related damages. Cracking of brick and evidence of tension related cracking of the exterior brick is present at the east elevation (see Fig. 25).

At the north elevation step cracking was noted at the first structural bay, adjacent to the west elevation. The stone coping above the keystone at the main entrance has failed and the masonry is sitting loose (see Fig. 26), presenting an overhead danger from falling objects. The masonry below the coping at the north parapet has failed (see Fig. 27); this section of the parapet has spalled, cracked and broken as a result.

INTERIOR The review of the interior was limited due to present dangers resulting from localised collapses from fire and related damages. The entire third storey was inaccessible due to safety concerns regarding the stairs.

The interior timber frame members located closest to the collapses in compartments a) and c) exhibited moisture levels of 30% or greater when probed with a Dhelmhorst Moisture Probe.

Fig. 25: Failed masonry adjacent to window abutting the collapsed portion of the building.

Fig. 26: Failed masonry at keystone detail. Fig. 27: Failed masonry at parapet.


Brantford, ON


The Timber framing within the south section of compartment b) had moisture readings in the range of 12%to 18%.

Smoke and moisture related damage was typical throughout the accessible areas of the first storey (see Fig. 28).

The timber framing in the second storey of the accessible area at the south section of compartment b) was in good condition (see Fig. 29). Caution had to be exercised traveling through this area due to the poor condition of the floor below.

Fig. 28: Timber framing at first storey. Fig. 29: Timber framing at first storey.


Brantford, ON


Building 3A – 347 Greenwich Street

FOUNDATION The limestone foundation generally appears to be in good condition where visible. Some mortar has deteriorated at exposed corners. Some step cracking and settlement was noted at the North West corner of the building. The way that the hard paved exterior grade slopes towards this corner would suggest that wash out of fine granular to be potential cause.

Native vegetation has take root adjacent to the north elevation foundation.


The brick at the west elevation is in generally fair condition, with the exception of step cracking noted through the corners of window sills and heads at the north west bays (see Fig. 30).. Previous masonry repointing repairs were noted and to be expected on a building of this age.

The wood framed windows are in poor condition and the majority of the glazing is missing.

The concrete sills have cracked and spalled in some locations. Some concrete sills have been replaced by pressure treated timbers.

The south elevation walls at the first storey have been protected by a roof covering that was erected between Building 3 and a Building to the south. The masonry here is in generally good condition with the exception of the masonry immediately at grade which has been adversely affected by its position (see Fig. 31).

The upper storey of the north elevation at the last structural bay has leaned into the interior of the structure as result of the collapse of the interior timber frame structure from an earlier fire (see Fig. 32).

Fig. 31: Masonry at grade.

Fig. 30: Point of tension between sill and header.

Fig. 32: Masonry out of plumb.


Brantford, ON


INTERIOR The review of the interior was limited due to present dangers resulting from localised collapses from fire and related damages.

Where accessible the timber framing was in relatively good condition. Some checking was observed at the end timbers but their overall condition was fair in compartment d) (see Fig. 33).

The collapses through compartments a), b), and c) are extensive (see additional photos below). Compartment b) is completely collapsed. Compartments a) c) and d) are collapsing in various locations on each floor.

Fig. 33: Timber framing at first storey.

Additional Condition Photos for Building 3A


Brantford, ON


Building 1 – 66 Mohawk Street

FOUNDATION The poured concrete foundation with a concrete slab on grade foundation, where visible, appeared to be in good condition

EXTERIOR (ENVELOPE & STRUCTURE) A portion of the roof at the rear addition has caved in. The remainder of the roof appeared to be in fair to poor condition. The existing shingles are in poor condition and there appear to be active leaks in the building.

The exterior brick is in generally fair condition with some minor cracking at the mortar joints and some damaged bricks at the south east corner of the building.

INTERIOR The interior structural masonry walls are in good condition.

Additional Condition Photos of Mohawk

Building 1


Brantford, ON


Building 2 – 66 Mohawk Street

FOUNDATION The dimensional limestone block foundation generally appears to be in good condition where visible. The concrete slab on grade appears to be in fair condition, with some minor cracking.


The brick is in generally fair condition at the lower storey, some spalling, cracking and mortar deterioration is evident at the upper two storey’s (see Fig. 34)

The wood framed windows are in poor condition and the majority of the glazing is missing. They have been hoarded for the time being.

The masonry at the south elevation appears to be stained white from efflorescent deposits. (see Fig. 35). The parapet at the front elevation is in poor condition and presents a falling hazard due to loose masonry (see Fig. 36).

The upper storey of the north elevation at the last structural bay has leaned into the interior of the structure as result of the collapse of the interior timber frame structure from an earlier fire.

INTERIOR The review of the interior was limited due to present dangers resulting from localised collapses from moisture related damages.

Where accessible the timber framing was in relatively good condition. Some checking was observed at the end timbers but their overall condition was fair in compartment.

Major collapses were noted at the addition abutting to the north.

Fig. 34: Mortar joints deteriorated or missing at parapet.

Fig. 35: Masonry at south elevation.

Fig. 36: Leaning parapet masonry.


Brantford, ON


5. REMARKS

Design Loads The original design dead, live, snow, wind and seismic loads for each of the buildings are unknown. The current conditions of the materials that are integral components of the structure have been affected by exposure and ongoing deterioration. There is widespread moisture infiltration in the buildings on the Greenwich site. At the Mohawk site the building envelope of the structures has been compromised. Given the current state of collapse and rapid deterioration of the roof structures it is unreasonable to try and calculate the capacity of the structures for use in future development. By the time protection measures are able to be put into place, there will be an indeterminable amount of further deterioration rendering such calculations inadequate.

Once protection measures are in place and the structures stabilized, we recommend evaluating materials and existing construction for re-use in new development. At such time testing of materials should be completed for each element of the building structure. Allowances for testing are included in the appendix.

Remediation and Abatement All buildings on the site will require some form of abatement before or during any demolition or maintenance work. In addition there are contaminants in the soil throughout the site that must be remediated.

In the cases where remediation work must be completed below and directly adjacent to buildings, special care needs to be taken to maintain the integrity of the soil bearing of walls and columns that are in place. It may be preferable in some instances to work below the slab on grade within structures. The slabs may be removed from buildings provided plans are in place to divert water from within the structure to the exterior without compromising foundations.

If there are locations with shoring required within the structure, coordination should take place prior to implementation of remediation to ensure structural shoring bearing is not compromised. Alternative remediation techniques may be required in special circumstances depending on shoring and demolition directions taken.

Building 1B – 347 Greenwich Alkali Aggregate Reaction (AAR) occurs over time in concrete between the highly alkaline cement paste and non-crystalline silicon dioxide, which is found in many common aggregates. This reaction can cause expansion of the altered aggregate, leading to spalling and loss of strength of the concrete. This appears to be occurring at the suspended slabs and some columns.

There is a considerable amount of moisture infiltrating the structure, which is accelerating the concrete and reinforcement deterioration. If the building is to be protected and reused there is a considerable amount of concrete restoration to be completed.


Brantford, ON


Building 2 - 347 Greenwich There is significant damage to the East end of the structure from the major fire. The middle compartment b) is relatively untouched by fire damage, but has significant water damage in the middle bay. Section a) has little water damage but has sustained a fair amount of damage from the other fire incident in the structure.

Protection of the structure is difficult given the varying states of decay from the different types of damage occurring on each floor and roof. Within a vertical section there are few areas that are free from damage. Re-roofing the structure will mean selective demolition throughout the building. In order to commence with selective demolition, the hazardous substances will need to be abated in conjunction with temporary shoring.

Any demolition will need to commence immediately to preserve the ability to harvest usable beams, girders, and columns.

There is a considerable amount of vegetation growing in the soil berm alongside the building. In many cases there are large trees growing directly adjacent to the wall. This must be removed to protect the foundations.

Making the building weather tight for short term preservation may not be feasible unless the reconstruction of the building is to commence immediately.

Building 3A - 347 Greenwich There is a significant collapse in the second compartment b). This is due to massive water damage to the wood columns and girders. In the upper stories of compartments a), c), and d) there are various states of collapse in the floor and roof all due to water damage. The wall along compartment d) is showing signs of internal distress from collapse and possible damage from the large fire that occurred in Building 2.

Protection of the structure is difficult given the varying states of collapse on each floor and roof. Within a vertical section there are few areas that are free from damage. Re-roofing the structure will mean selective demolition throughout the building. In order to commence with selective demolition, the hazardous substances will need to be abated in conjunction with temporary shoring.

Any demolition will need to commence immediately to preserve the ability to harvest usable beams, girders, and columns.

There are large elements of vegetation adjacent to the structure. They must be removed to protect the foundations.

Making the building weather tight for short term preservation may not be feasible unless the reconstruction of the building is to commence immediately.

Building 3B and the covered area between building 3B and 3A is to be removed as part of the remediation of the remainder of the site. The covered area is not structurally supporting any of building 3A and is generally structurally separate. Demolition in this area should be coordinated


Brantford, ON


with any shoring in place for building 3A. Provided proper care is taken, there are no concerns regarding the structural integrity of building 3A in regards to removing the covered area between the buildings.

Building 1 - 66 Mohawk The Time Keepers Office is in comparably good shape. This building has to be made water-tight to maintain its integrity. Until this is completed, deterioration will continue.

Interior finishes, partitions, etc., have to be removed to expose all the structural members to determine their condition and the extent of any additional damage.

Building 2 - 66 Mohawk The Cockshutt Office is in comparably good shape. This building has to be made water-tight to maintain its integrity. Until this is completed, deterioration will continue.

Interior finishes, partitions, etc., have to be removed to expose all the structural members to determine their condition and the extent of any additional damage.


Brantford, ON


6. PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES Estimates provided below are a best guess for the conditions observed on site for each of the structures listed. Significant parts of each structure were inaccessible due to the advanced deterioration. This has added a premium to some estimates because of uncertainty in the condition and types of materials likely to be encountered.

Reuse estimates assume recommendations are followed and executed immediately. As always there may be conditions that become known once demolition is started that incur additional costs. We have tried to mitigate this using our experience on similar projects and with miscellaneous costs.

Replacement estimates are based solely on expected building types to be desired by the City at the site. Costs may be higher or lower depending on design, features, and current market demands. It is expected that heritage intent will be followed as required to maintain the integrity of the historical nature of the site.

Abatement costs are coordinated with Cole Engineering based on best guess for substances likely to be encountered. In Buildings 2 and 3A the limitations of the structures were such that a full estimate is prohibitive based on lack of available information. Instead a cost breakdown for unit cost of each type of likely material to be abated is given.


Brantford, ON


Building 1B - 347 Greenwich REUSE ESTIMATE

MAINTAIN /REPAIR/PROTECT (3 YEARS)

Item # Description Value 1 Remove and replace Existing roof membrane $ 151,200.002 Selective Demolition $ 76,500.003 Concrete Repairs (preliminary estimate) $ 850,000.004 Masonry Repairs $ 112,000.005 Miscellaneous Repairs $ 118,000.00Total $ 1,307,000.00*exclude future development costs

REUSE VALUE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS

Item # Description Value 1 Restoration to existing structure: including but not limited to

roof membrane/insulation replacement, concrete repairs, and masonry repairs.

$ 6,447,175.00

2 Renovation of existing structure into residential units and reclaiming existing materials and aesthetics

$ 6,804,000.00

Total $ 13,251175.00 *estimates based on following recommendations presented in report

REPLACEMENT ESTIMATE

REPLACEMENT VALUE MAINTAINING HERITAGE INTENT Description Value Building demolition, large urban projects, includes 30km haul, but excludes abatement, dumping fees, taxes or surcharges.

$ 385,000.00

Apartment building; 4Story with Face Brick with Concrete Frame, with aesthetic features in keeping with the existing building.

$ 9,462,000.00

Total $ 9,847,000.00

ABATEMENT

Item # Description Value 1 Type 3 abatement as recommended by Cole Engineering $ 500,000.00


Brantford, ON


Building 2 - 347 Greenwich REUSE ESTIMATE


Item # Description Value 1 Grade level Moisture Protection $ 91,152.002 Selective Demolition $ 400,000.003 Temporary Shoring $ 192,000.004 Masonry Repairs; brick replacement, repoint, seal and cap

flashing $ 380,000.00

5 Material Salvage and protection (not including selective demolition)

$ 230,000.00

6 Miscellaneous Repairs $ 200,000.00Total $ 2,313,520.00*exclude future development costs



selective demolition, concrete repairs, and masonry repairs. $ 1,350,445.00


$ 5,054,400.00

Total $ 6,404,845.00*estimates based on following recommendations presented in report



$ 500,000.00

Apartment, 3 Story with Brick Veneer / Wood Timber Frame with aesthetic features in keeping with the existing building.

$ 11,287,875.00

Total $ 11,787,875.00

ABATEMENT

Item # Description Value 1 Fittings – Type 3 enclosure $25/fitting 2 Fittings – Glove Bag $50/fitting 3 Mechanical pipe insulation – Type 3 enclosure $25/linear foot 4 Mechanical pipe insulation – Glove Bag $40/linear foot 5 Vinyl floor tiles $3/SF 6 Vinyl floor sheeting $4/SF 7 Cement board $8/SF


Brantford, ON


8 Light fixture heat shield $25/SF 9 Window caulking $10/SF 10 Drywall (ACM) $7/SF 11 Plaster and structural members (ACM) $15/SF *per unit costs as recommended by Cole Engineering


Brantford, ON


Building 3A - 347 Greenwich REUSE ESTIMATE


Item # Description Value 1 Grade level Moisture Protection $ 111,240.002 Selective Demolition $ 431,577.003 Temporary Shoring $ 193,920.004 Masonry Repairs; brick replacement, repoint, seal and cap

flashing $ 395,000.00

5 Material Salvage and protection (not including selective demolition)

$ 248,900.00

6 Miscellaneous Repairs $ 138,000.00Total $ 1,518,637.00*exclude future development costs



selective demolition, concrete repairs, and masonry repairs. $ 1,686,190.00


$ 5,856,300.00




$ 455,000.00

Apartment, 3 Story with Brick Veneer / Wood Timber Frame with aesthetic features in keeping with the existing building.

$ 11,290,750.00

Total $ 11,745,750.00

ABATEMENT

Item # Description Value 1 Fittings – Type 3 enclosure $25/fitting 2 Fittings – Glove Bag $50/fitting 3 Mechanical pipe insulation – Type 3 enclosure $25/linear foot 4 Mechanical pipe insulation – Glove Bag $40/linear foot 5 Vinyl floor tiles $3/SF 6 Vinyl floor sheeting $4/SF 7 Cement board $8/SF


Brantford, ON


8 Light fixture heat shield $25/SF 9 Window caulking $10/SF 10 Drywall (ACM) $7/SF 11 Plaster and structural members (ACM) $15/SF *per unit costs as recommended by Cole Engineering


Brantford, ON


Building 1 – 66 Mohawk REUSE ESTIMATE


Item # Description Value 1 Removal and replacement of roof and membrane $ 5,600.002 Selective Demolition $ 2,400.003 Masonry Repairs $ 1,500.004 Material Salvage and protection (not including selective

demolition) $ 2,538.00

5 Miscellaneous Repairs $ 1,200.00Total $ 13,238.00*exclude future development costs



roof membrane/insulation replacement, selective demolition, concrete repairs, and masonry repairs.

$ 237,912.00

2 Renovation of existing structure into an institutional building for public use and reclaiming existing materials and aesthetics

$ 126,875.00

Total $ 364,787.00 *estimates based on following recommendations presented in report



$ 16,000.00

Replacement of existing structure while integrating existing materials and aesthetic features.

$ 168,000.00

Total $ 184,000.00

ABATEMENT

Item # Description Value 1 Type 1 abatement as recommended by Cole Engineering $ 10,000.00


Brantford, ON


Building 2 – 66 Mohawk REUSE ESTIMATE


Item # Description Value 1 Removal and replacement of roof membrane $ 32,400.002 Selective Demolition $ 16,389.003 Parapet and corbel repairs $ 16,000.004 Masonry Repairs $ 62,000.005 Miscellaneous Repairs $ 12,750.00Total $ 139,539.00*exclude future development costs



roof membrane/insulation replacement, selective demolition, concrete repairs, and masonry repairs.

$ 564,000.00

2 Renovation of existing structure into an institutional building for public use and reclaiming existing materials and aesthetics $ 1,890,000.00




$ 80,000.00

Replacement of existing structure while integrating existing materials and aesthetic features.

$ 2,362,500.00

Total $ 2,442,500.00

ABATEMENT

Item # Description Value 1 Fittings – Type 3 enclosure $25/fitting 2 Fittings – Glove Bag $50/fitting 3 Mechanical pipe insulation – Type 3 enclosure $25/linear foot 4 Mechanical pipe insulation – Glove Bag $40/linear foot 5 Vinyl floor tiles $3/SF 6 Vinyl floor sheeting $4/SF 7 Cement board $8/SF 8 Light fixture heat shield $25/SF 9 Window caulking $10/SF


Brantford, ON


10 Drywall (ACM) $7/SF 11 Plaster and structural members (ACM) $15/SF *per unit costs as recommended by Cole Engineering


Brantford, ON


7. RECOMMENDATIONS: REUSE or REPLACEMENT There are a number of considerations regarding the reuse of a building versus the replacement, beyond the refurbishment costs and the improvement costs. These considerations ought to include:

1. The foundations must be exposed to determine the construction, condition, and depth. 2. If the buildings are reused, the envelope will need to be upgraded to today's standards in

terms of vapour/moisture barriers and insulation with consideration given to the masonry mass of these older buildings.

3. Consideration towards the impact of change of use for these structures must be considered. Additional services need to be brought into the buildings that are not currently present.

4. Mechanical load requirements for the new occupancy of these buildings. 5. New storm and sanitary requirements. 6. Structural upgrades to meet current dead, live, wind and seismic load requirements. 7. Impact on local infrastructure and services.

These are simply preliminary considerations; more detailed investigations will have to be exhausted in moving forward.

The current buildings have context, form and intrinsic details that new buildings could only attempt to mimic. In order to salvage what remains of these buildings immediate action must be taken to protect the exterior masonry facades and remove the salvageable timbers from the structures.

Currently the site is protected by a chain link fence and a guard presence on hourly patrols. We recommend each building be completely sealed from intrusion. This means all doors secured, windows and other points in ingress boarded or otherwise secured.

347 GREENWICH - BUILDING 1B

The concrete structure of Building 1B is deteriorating, showing signs of Alkali Aggregate Reaction as the concrete weakens. Interim repairs would need to be conducted in order to mitigate this in the short term and preserve as much as possible for the long term. Considering short and long-term costs, lack of heritage value as noted in Taylor Hazell’s report, we recommend this Building be demolished and replaced.

Should the decision be to maintain Building 1B, concrete restoration and reroofing must commence immediately. All windows must be hoarded to create a weather-proof envelope against the elements.

347 GREENWICH – BUILDING 2

Building 2 is a good candidate for reuse and has significant heritage value. Its internal structure must be immediately removed for salvage and/or disposal. The remaining external structure must be shored, repaired and protected to ensure that they do not deteriorate further.


Brantford, ON


We recommend demolishing compartment c) and removing the burned down section at the East end. Compartment c) has sustained the most fire damage and the interior structure is already collapsed.

The recommended approach is a deferral method to protect and maintain the structure for the next three years.

The existing interior structure of the remaining compartments should be removed and salvaged while the exterior structural walls are being shored. All salvaged material should be sorted and hoarded on site to preserve the integrity of the materials.

Once the structure has been adequately shored, the masonry walls should be repointed with lime based mortars. Replace missing or damaged masonry with period appropriate masonry materials consistent with the existing masonry and cleaned with water. Use of chemical or abrasive cleaning methods should only be conducted with caution, by professionals having experience with the preservation of historic masonry.

Facade walls should be shored and protected from the elements. The walls need to be treated with a vapour permeable water based siloxane transparent coating to repel bulk water from penetrating into the masonry. The base of the masonry walls must be protected against moisture related damage by installing membrane flashing over protection board up to 4’ above grade. The top of the wall must be capped with new metal flashing over membrane flashing.

Shoring will most likely be a temporary steel frame system that sandwiches the wall. Both sides of the wall will now be exposed and should be hoarded. Additional protection should be given to the parapets.

A temporary roofing structure should be constructed over the slab on grade to facilitate water runoff. Water runoff must not be allowed to compromise the foundations of the walls or any shoring. The roofing structure will only need to be a few feet from the ground.

If soil remediation is to occur within the structure after demolition and shoring is in place, the slab on grade may be removed. Foundations of the shoring and walls must not be compromised. Sequencing and design must be coordinated to ensure soil remediation does not hamper efforts to protect the facades. Water collection and removal must be maintained before, during and after soil remediation.

Reuse as estimated assumes the above measures are taken immediately to protect and hoard the structure. Reuse will include complete masonry restoration of the facade and a new structure in the interior using harvested materials and new materials. Wood framing is assumed to be used for an apartment or office style building.

Harvested structural materials are estimated to be hoarded and protected onsite. Materials would include wood timbers from columns, beams, and girders. Each wood material must be measured and graded for determination of soundness for reuse as either a structural member or architectural element. Masonry walls will need to be tested to ensure stability for self-support. It


Brantford, ON


is recommended that the interior structure be supported independent of the masonry wall and provide lateral bracing at each diaphragm level.

347 GREENWICH – BUILDING 3

Building 3 is a good candidate for reuse and has significant heritage value. Its internal structure must be immediately removed for salvage and/or disposal. The remaining external structure must be shored, repaired and protected to ensure that they do not deteriorate further.

We recommend demolishing compartment d) and removing the single story section at the East end. Compartment d) walls have shown a significant amount of deterioration and damage from internal collapse.

The recommended approach is a deferral method to protect and maintain the structure for the next three years.

The existing interior structure of the remaining compartments should be removed and salvaged while the exterior structural walls are being shored. All salvaged material should be sorted and hoarded on site to preserve the integrity of the materials.

Once the structure has been adequately shored, the masonry walls should be repointed with lime based mortars. Replace missing or damaged masonry with period appropriate masonry materials consistent with the existing masonry and cleaned with water. Use of chemical or abrasive cleaning methods should only be conducted with caution, by professionals having experience with the preservation of historic masonry.

Facade walls should be shored and protected from the elements. The walls need to be treated with a vapour permeable water based siloxane transparent coating to repel bulk water from penetrating into the masonry. The base of the masonry walls must be protected against moisture related damage by installing membrane flashing over protection board up to 4’ above grade. The top of the wall must be capped with new metal flashing over membrane flashing.

Shoring will most likely be a temporary steel frame system that sandwiches the wall. Both sides of the wall will now be exposed and should be hoarded. Additional protection should be given to the parapets.

A temporary roofing structure should be constructed over the slab on grade to facilitate water runoff. Water runoff must not be allowed to compromise the foundations of the walls or any shoring. The roofing structure will only need to be a few feet from the ground.

If soil remediation is to occur within the structure after demolition and shoring is in place, the slab on grade may be removed. Foundations of the shoring and walls must not be compromised. Sequencing and design must be coordinated to ensure soil remediation does not hamper efforts to protect the facades. Water collection and removal must be maintained before, during and after soil remediation.

Reuse as estimated assumes the above measures are taken immediately to protect and hoard the structure. Reuse will include complete masonry restoration of the facade and a new


Brantford, ON


structure in the interior using harvested materials and new materials. Wood framing is assumed to be used for an apartment or office style building.

Harvested structural materials are estimated to be hoarded and protected onsite. Materials would include wood timbers from columns, beams, and girders. Each wood material must be measured and graded for determination of soundness for reuse as either a structural member or architectural element. Masonry walls will need to be tested to ensure stability for self-support. It is recommended that the interior structure be supported independent of the masonry wall and provide lateral bracing at each diaphragm level.

66 MOHAWK – BUILDING 1 TIME KEEPERS OFFICE

Building 1 at 66 Mohawk is a small structure with heritage value and can be reused for a relatively inexpensive amount.

The roof must be replaced. Interior finishes must be removed to expose structural components. Masonry walls should be repointed with lime based mortars. Replace missing or damaged masonry with period appropriate masonry materials consistent with the existing masonry and cleaned with water. Use of chemical or abrasive cleaning methods should only be conducted with caution, by professionals having experience with the preservation of historic masonry.

Reuse as estimated assumes the above measures are taken immediately to protect and hoard the structure. Reuse will include complete masonry restoration of the facade and a new structure in the interior using harvested materials and new materials. Wood framing is assumed to be used for a community center style building.

Harvested structural materials are estimated to be hoarded and protected onsite. Materials would include wood timbers from columns, beams, and girders. Each wood material must be measured and graded for determination of soundness for reuse as either a structural member or architectural element. Masonry walls will need to be tested to ensure stability to provide full structural support for framing elements.

66 MOHAWK – BUILDING 2 COCKSHUTT OFFICE

Building 2 at 66 Mohawk is in relatively good condition and has significant heritage value.

The roof must be replaced. Interior finishes must be removed to expose structural components. The sections of collapsed floor must be removed to sound material and replaced with new wood plank flooring of equivalent size and of a consistent material type. Masonry walls should be repointed with lime based mortars. Replace missing or damaged masonry with period appropriate masonry materials consistent with the existing masonry and cleaned with water. Use of chemical or abrasive cleaning methods should only be conducted with caution, by professionals having experience with the preservation of historic masonry.

The warehouse portion of the building should be demolished with consideration taken to harvest desirable materials for reuse in the office portion of the structure.


Brantford, ON


Reuse as estimated assumes the above measures are taken immediately to protect and hoard the structure. Reuse will include complete masonry restoration of the facade and a new structure in the interior using harvested materials and new materials. Wood framing is assumed to be used for a library or similar community style building.

Harvested structural materials are estimated to be hoarded and protected onsite. Materials would include wood timbers from columns, beams, and girders. Each wood material must be measured and graded for determination of soundness for reuse as either a structural member or architectural element. Masonry walls will need to be tested to ensure stability to provide full structural support for framing elements.


Brantford, ON


8. Appendix

Health and Safety Reports

Page 1 of 2


Concord: Barrie:



T. 905-760-9688 F.905-760-9699 T. 705-719-7981 F:886-522-4152

Oct 11, 2011 The City of Brantford c/o John Chadwick, P.Geo. Senior Environmental Project Manager Cole Engineering Group Ltd. 70 Valleywood Drive, Markham, ON L3R 4T5 Field Review Report – Pre-Inspection Safety Review Site – Units 1B, 2 and 3A -347 Greenwich and Units 1, 2 and Time Keepers - 66 Mohawk, Brantford, ON. Project Number: 011-300B 1. Introduction: This report is intended to provide initial insight into the condition of the structures located on the above noted site so that the trained technical staff that has planned to enter the enclosures as part of the “Structural Property Condition Assessment – Project” are aware of potential structural safety risks. This Safety Review is by no means exhaustive in nature and was fully based upon the visual physical review conducted on Monday, October 3, 2011. Latent structural defects and deficiencies are likely present and may pose life safety risks to anyone who enters the enclosures.

2. Approach:

The site was visited on the morning of October 3, 2011 by Mr Alan Dyck, PE and SE of CA, Structural Engineer and Paul Johannesson, A.Sc.T., BSSO, Manager, Building Science at Picco Engineering to conduct a visual review of the enclosures. The enclosures were reviewed and obvious physical conditions were noted. These conditions were assessed and assigned a risk level which can be found attached. The risk levels were given a colour code and these codes were overlaid onto an aerial photograph of the site to provide a general visual reference. Note that the condition of the structure may vary from floor to floor and may not be accurately represented by this visual reference. Caution is

Page 2 of 2

required if entering this site as building materials and structure exposed to uncontrolled physical elements and weather may become unstable over time.

3. Observations / Recommendations:

1. We noted that every roof had some level of deterioration that may result in collapse, movement or material failure under the slightest of loads. DO NOT ATTEMPT TO ENTER ANY ROOF SURFACES, EXERCISE ULTIMATE CAUTION WHEN WALKING BELOW THESE AREAS.

2. There were numerous locations where collapse of main roof and floor structure had occurred. DO NOT ENTER THESE AREAS.

3. Exterior masonry at roof parapets may become loose and fall. DO NOT STAND ADJACENT TO EXTERIOR WALLS FOR EXTENDED PERIODS.

4. Substances that appeared to be friable asbestos and mould growth were visible throughout the units. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) is highly recommended when entering these units.

5. Units were noted as having inadequate means of emergency egress. These areas shall be treated as CONFINED SPACES within each unit.

6. Workers shall conduct themselves in accordance to the Ontario Health and Safety Act & Regulations at all times.

Please contact the undersigned if you should have any additional questions or concerns. Respectfully submitted,

Picco Engineering Div. of 688214 Ontario Limited

Paul Johannesson, A.Sc.T., BSSO Manager, Building Science Attached: Aerial site plan with risk level overlay and additional notes.

1B

3A

1

2

2

Time Keepers Bldg.

66 Mohawk Site

347 Greenwich Site

GENERAL WARNING!!

1. There are imminent dangers in entering these premises.

2. All workers shall wear approved Personal Protection

Equipment and conduct themselves in accordance with the

Ontario Health and Safety Act and Regulations.

3. These enclosures do not meet current codes for buildings

and should be treated as confined spaces where clear exits

are not present.

4. Designated substances are likely present in most areas. Use

extreme caution around such substances. Building 1B was

viewed as having Asbestos Pipe Insulation damaged and

scattered throughout.

5. Excessive levels of Mould have been observed in Unit 2.

6. There is a risk of falling masonry around the perimeters of all

buildings. Avoid extended occupation of these areas. PPE to

be worn at all times.

7. Unit 1B – Risk of materials failure increases in upper levels.

8. Upper Level access to Units 2 and 3a at 347 Greenwich and

Units 1 and 2 at 665 Mohawk sites is not recommended.

Proceed with Ultimate Caution!

Potential for falling material

exists. Pre‐plan escape route!

Proceed with Caution. Areas

exhibit potential danger from

debris and lack of lighting.

DO NOT ENTER!!! Structure has

collapsed or collapse is

imminent.

LEGEND OF RISK LEVEL

Do Not Enter Any Roof Surfaces!!

City of Brantford – Brownfield Redevelopment Site

Aerial Photograph w/Risk Level Assessment Overlay

Page 1 of 4


Concord: Barrie:



T. 905-760-9688 F.905-760-9699 T. 705-719-7981 F: 886-522-4152

October 27, 2011 The City of Brantford C/o John Chadwick, P.Geo. Senior Environmental Project Manager Cole Engineering Group Ltd. 70 Valleywood Drive, Markham, ON L3R 4T5 Field Review Report – Pre-Inspection Safety Review Site – Structures 4 to15 -347 Greenwich and Units 1, 2 and Time Keepers - 66 Mohawk, Brantford, ON. Project Number: 011-300B

1. Introduction: This report is intended to provide initial insight into the condition of the structures located on the above noted site so that the trained technical staff that has planned to enter the enclosures as part of the “Structural Property Condition Assessment – Project” is aware of potential structural safety risks. This Safety Review is by no means exhaustive in nature and was fully based upon the visual physical review conducted on Friday, October 14, 2011. Latent structural defects and deficiencies are likely present and may pose life safety risks to anyone who enters the enclosures.

2. Approach:

The site was visited on the morning of October 14, 2011 by Robert Botelho, Consultant, Building Science and Paul Johannesson, A.Sc.T., BSSO, Manager, Building Science at Picco Engineering to conduct a visual review of the enclosures. The enclosures were reviewed and obvious physical conditions were noted. These conditions were assessed and assigned a risk level which can be found attached. The risk levels were given a colour code and these codes were overlaid onto an aerial photograph of the site to

Page 2 of 4

provide a general visual reference. Note that the condition of the structure may vary from floor to floor and may not be accurately represented by this visual reference. Caution is required if entering this site as building materials and structure exposed to uncontrolled physical elements and weather may become unstable over time.

The structures were assigned numbering for the sake clarity during our safety assessment and do not

reflect the actual unit numbers of the enclosures. Further coordination of the unit numbers of the

structures will be required in future reports.

3. GeneralObservations/Recommendations:The structures were entered only where accessible and observations were limited to a visual review of

the conditions at the time of our visit to the site. Conditions of the may alter with repeated exposure to

the elements without the benefit of sound weather resistive barriers and conditioning of the enclosures.

Risk levels of the individual structures are specifically identified in the attached aerial site plan with risk

level overlay and additional notes.

a) We noted that every roof had some level of deterioration that may result in collapse, movement or material failure under the slightest of loads. DO NOT ATTEMPT TO ENTER ANY ROOF SURFACES, EXERCISE ULTIMATE CAUTION WHEN WALKING BELOW THESE AREAS.

b) There were numerous locations where collapse of main roof and floor structure had occurred. DO NOT ENTER THESE AREAS.

c) Exterior masonry at roof parapets may become loose and fall. DO NOT STAND ADJACENT TO EXTERIOR WALLS FOR EXTENDED PERIODS.

d) Substances that appeared to be friable asbestos and mould growth were visible throughout the units. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) is highly recommended when entering these units.

e) Units were noted as having inadequate means of emergency egress. These areas shall be treated as CONFINED SPACES within each unit.

f) Workers shall conduct themselves in accordance to the Ontario Health and Safety Act & Regulations at all times.

g) Further deterioration from previously noted conditions has been observed.

4. RemarksFrom previous report:

a) Structure 1B; was viewed as having asbestos pipe insulation, damaged and scattered throughout the interior of the enclosure. Risk of materials failure increases in upper levels.

b) Structure 2; excessive levels of mould have been observed within the enclosure.

c) Structures 2, 3A, at 347 Greenwich Street and structures 1 and 2 at 665 Mohawk Street; entry into these structures is not recommended. Known structural failures such as roof collapse and/or previous fire(s) have deteriorated the integrity of structural elements and may lead to further failures.

Specific conditions were noted at the follow structures:

Page 3 of 4

d) The roof structure between structures 3 and structures 5 to 8; elements of the roof structures have collapsed in some areas but the columns and beams appear to be in sound condition. Caution must be exercised those entering the structure, risk of falling material exists and an entry exit plan must be provided to those who enter.

e) Structure 4; the roof has caved in several areas, do not enter this structure.

f) Structure 5; structure 5A has completely failed, debris and ruins of the former structure are that remain do not attempt to approach the piles of debris as they are unstable. 5B the portion of the structure that is still erect has been damaged by the adjacent collapse and has been left exposed to the elements, do not enter.

g) Structure 6; the structure is intact but the enclosure has been compromised moisture damage and mould was noted throughout the lower level. The stairs have been damaged by moisture as has the floor of the upper level. Proceed with ultimate caution, beware of falling material and do not access the upper level with appropriate PPE. Preplan escape routes.

h) Structure 7;

a. 7A –Proceed with ultimate caution, preplan escape routes, beware of falling materials. Moisture damage to structural elements and mould is present. Unmarked steel drums also noted.

b. 7B – Proceed with caution.

c. 7C - Proceed with ultimate caution, preplan escape routes, beware of falling materials. Moisture damage to structural elements and mould is present. Stairs have been removed from landings; do not access the upper level through here.

d. 7D – Roof collapsed, do not enter this section of the structure.

e. 7E - Proceed with caution.

f. 7F - Proceed with ultimate caution, preplan escape routes, beware of falling materials. Moisture damage to structural elements and mould is present.

i) Structure 8 (the forge) - Proceed with caution. Unmarked steel drums present.

j) Structure 9 - Proceed with ultimate caution, preplan escape routes, beware of falling materials. Moisture damage to structural elements and mould is present. Portions of the roof have caved in at the south wall.

k) Structure 10 - Proceed with ultimate caution, preplan escape routes, beware of falling materials. Large Storage tanks noted overhead. Asbestos pipe insulation damaged and scattered throughout the interior of the enclosure. Do not attempt enter through the southeast overhead door, failure of this entry way is imminent.

l) Structure 11 - do not enter this structure, several overhead structural elements have been damaged, exhibit exaggerated deflection or have collapsed. Small sections of the roof have collapsed. Entry is limited as most of the doors and windows have been boarded up.

m) Structure 12;

a. 12A - Proceed with ultimate caution, preplan escape routes, beware of falling materials. Moisture related damage to structural elements and mould is present. Poor lighting even with the assistance of flash lights. Beware of pits; several are filled with water and other unknown substances. Some pits have been covered with metal plates and a thin cement topping, so extreme caution must be exercised in these areas since the integrity of these pit covers vary.

b. 12B - Proceed with ultimate caution, preplan escape routes, beware of falling materials. Moisture related damage to structural elements and mould is present. Poor lighting even with the assistance of flash lights. Beware of pits; several are filled with water and other

Page 4 of 4

unknown substances. Some pits have been covered with metal plates and a thin cement topping, so extreme caution must be exercised in these areas since the integrity of these pit covers vary.

c. 12C – Proceed with caution. Stairs and landings at upper levels have been compromised by water and other elements avoid entry to upper levels without PPE and preplanned escape routes. Avoid use of the stairs.

d. 12D - Proceed with ultimate caution, preplan escape routes, beware of falling materials. Moisture related damage to structural elements and mould is present. Several pools of water were noted presence of pits is unknown.

n) Structure 13 – proceed with caution.

o) Structure 14 – Not accessible.

p) Structure 15 – Proceed with caution.

Please contact the undersigned if you should have any additional questions or concerns. Respectfully submitted,

Picco Engineering Div. of 688214 Ontario Limited

Robert Botelho Consultant, Building Science Attached: Aerial site plans of the project sites with risk level overlay, and additional notes.

1 2

Time Keepers Bldg.

66 Mohawk Site

347 Greenwich Site

Proceed with Ultimate Caution!

Potential for falling material

exists. Pre‐plan escape route!

Proceed with Caution. Areas

exhibit potential danger from

debris and lack of lighting.

DO NOT ENTER! Structure has

collapsed or collapse is

imminent.

LEGEND OF RISK LEVEL

Do Not Enter Any Roof Surfaces!!

Structure not accessed. Restricted access;

assumed high risk area, do not attempt entery

without appropriate confined space safety

measures.

Roof Structure, between bldg’s

1B 2

3A

4

3B

5A 5B8

6

7A

City of Brantford – Brownfield Redevelopement Site


7B 7C 7D 7E 7F

GENERAL WARNING

1. There are imminent dangers in entering these premises.

2. All workers shall wear approved Personal Protection Equipment and conduct themselves in accordance with the Ontario Health and Safety Act and Regulations.

3. These enclosures do not meet current codes for buildings and should be treated as confined spaces where clear exits are not present.

4. Designated substances are likely present in most areas. Use extreme caution around such substances. Be aware of potential hazard of falling objects.

5. All areas are considered to be unstable, with conditions affected by time and exposure to the elements. Current conditions will deteriorate/change so long as structural elements

continue to remain exposed to the elements.

6. There is a risk of falling masonry around the perimeters of all buildings. Avoid extended exposure to these areas.

7. Site specific safety plans are to be drafted by those entering the site and shall include appropriate PPE to limit/prevent exposure to, and not limited to;

a. designated substances,

b. fall hazard,

c. confined space entry, and

d. potential hazards posed by toxic vegetation and animal life.

City of Brantford – Brownfield Redevelopement Site


Canadian War Heritage

Museum Bldg.

14 13

12D12C

12B

12A

1011

9

15B 15A


Brantford, ON


Concrete Test Report

Reference No. T040623g1 November 29, 2011 Mr. Allan Dyck Picco Engineering 350 Caldari Road, Suite 200 Concord, Ontario L4K 4J4

Re: Concrete Compressive Strength & Alkalinity Testing 347 Greenwich Street, Brantford, Ontario

Dear Mr. Dyck:

The services of Inspec-Sol Inc. (Inspec-Sol) were retained by Picco Engineering to extract six

(6) core samples from the concrete columns and suspended slabs of an industrial building

located at 347 Greenwich Street, Brantford on November 17, 2011, in order to test for

compressive strength and alkalinity content

Enclosed please find the testing results for your information and retention.

We trust this report provides the information required at this time. Should you have any

questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.

Yours truly,

INSPEC-SOL INC.

Calvin Chan, P.Eng., M.B.A. Myles A. Carter, M.Sc., P.G.

Senior Project Manager Manager, Building Science Division

347 Greenwich Street, Brantford, Ontario Date:Client: IS11-01

November 17, 2011

Maximum Type CorrectedCore Received Aggregate Trimmed Trimmed Capped L/D Correction Load to of CompressiveNo. Length Size Diameter Length Weight Density Height Ratio Factor Failure Failure Strength

(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (g) (kg/m3) (mm) (kN.) (MPa.)

C1 160.0 19.0 55.0 90.0 550.0 2573.5 96.0 1.75 0.99 74.6 Cone 31.0

C2 165.0 19.0 69.0 90.0 855.0 2541.9 98.0 1.42 0.95 96.1 Cone/shear 24.4

C3 105.0 19.0 69.0 80.0 735.6 2460.3 87.0 1.26 0.92 99.2 Cone 24.5

C4 115.0 19.0 69.0 70.0 675.8 2583.2 76.0 1.10 0.89 78.3 Cone 18.7

C5 108.0 19.0 69.0 85.0 788.0 2480.5 95.0 1.38 0.94 93.6 Cone 23.6

C6 140.0 19.0 69.0 85.0 771.2 2427.6 96.0 1.39 0.94 84.9 Cone 21.4

(cores were compression tested after dry conditioning)Table No. 1: Compressive Strength of Concrete Cores (CSA A23.2-14C)

Construction Testing Laboratories Limited7171 Torbram Road, Unit 24

Mississauga, Ontario L4T 3W4

Telephone: (905) 671-9993 Fax: (905) 671-9994 E-Mail: [email protected]

Project:

Date Received:

November 21, 2011 Report No.:Inspec-Sol

2

347 Greenwich Street, Brantford, Ontario Date:Client: Inspec-Sol Report No.: IS11-01

Date Received: November 17, 2011

Core No.

C1

C2 C3

C4

C5

C6

Note: Ph-scale 1-6 is acidic range, 8-14 is alkaline range and 7 is neutral

Table No. 2: PH-Scale

8

11

11

Locations

Column at the first floor

Spandrel beam at the first floor

Suspended slab at the second floor

Suspended slab at the second floor

Suspended slab at the third floor

November 21, 2011

Suspended slab at the third floor

PH-Scale

Construction Testing Laboratories Limited7171 Torbram Road, Unit 24

Mississauga, Ontario L4T 3W4

Telephone: (905) 671-9993 Fax: (905) 671-9994 E-Mail: [email protected]

10

10

12

Project:

3


Brantford, ON


Testing Estimates

Item # Description Per unit cost

1 Concrete Testing

2 Chloride Evaluation $ 55/sample

3 Carbonation $ 55/sample

4 Hammer Sounding $ 1,200.00

5 Compressive Strength - Lab $ 75/sample

Item # Description Per unit cost

1 Brick and Mortar Evaluation

2 Compressive Strength - Lab $ 75/sample

Structural Condition Assesment - Greenwich Mohawk 011-300

Documents

thin cement

includes 30km

trained technical

war history

personal protective

preplan escape

abrasive cleaning

large urban