Toronto Sugar Wharf Condominiums (Phase 2) | 283.6m | 85s | Menkes | a—A

[Jeff Morgan]

Drilling equipment onsite

 

[hawc]

I remember reading once that the weight of the earth removed is roughly the weight of the skyscraper that is built on top of it so the two basically cancel each other out. True?

 

[ProjectEnd]

I remember reading once that the weight of the earth removed is roughly the weight of the skyscraper that is built on top of it so the two basically cancel each other out. True?

Nope. If you excavated to a P3 level (for example) and built a 10 storey building, that's going to weigh significantly less than excavating to a P3 and building a 40 storey building (or 50 or 80 etc.).

 

[evandyk]

I think it's probably correlated more closely with the number of cars that will be parked underneath than the weight of the building.

 

[maestro]

Why would one even have to cancel the other?

 

[evandyk]

"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction"

 

[Amare]

Also to add, there are cases where cities/areas are literally sinking partially due to the sheer amount of pressure their buildings place on the earth below. New York is a famous case of that:

New York sinking under its own weight: study

If New York is the city that never sleeps then how's this for keeping you up at night? It is also sinking.

phys.org

 

[C-mac]

Drilling equipment onsite


View attachment 540626

Does this mean the status will finally get changed to "under construction" in the database?

 

[FastidiousHack]

I remember reading once that the weight of the earth removed is roughly the weight of the skyscraper that is built on top of it so the two basically cancel each other out. True?

"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction"

I think you're thinking of buoyancy calculations, the weight of water displaced equals the weight of the boat.

Building's don't need to consider this kind of action; the only reason we dig down is to provide substructure floor area for things like parking, foundations, and elevator pits. It would actually be substantially easier to build if you didn't require underground parking - you could avoid most of the water ingress and lateral earth pressures, and save a ton of embodied carbon by not pouring so much concrete.

Also to add, there are cases where cities/areas are literally sinking partially due to the sheer amount of pressure their buildings place on the earth below. New York is a famous case of that:

New York sinking under its own weight: study

If New York is the city that never sleeps then how's this for keeping you up at night? It is also sinking.

phys.org

Mexico City is probably a better example, but this has to do with soil quality. The buildings would likely sink regardless of "how much soil is removed" from the excavation, so long as their foundations are inadequate for the "soil" they rest on.

 

[cManfredi]

Taken this morning at 8.30 am

 

[mburrrrr]

Looks like more bore samples to provide a more accurate analysis then the preliminary samples.

 

[wmedia]

^ Agreed. It's a sampling drill, not a caisson drill, so I wouldn't qualify this as "under construction" yet.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

...I guess they had a lot a of weird things sitting in LCBO storage and what not if leaked into the ground could cause future residents to sprout new limbs or organs. So gotta take care of that first!

 

[mburrrrr]

I am curious if the foundation slab is going look more like Sugar Wharf PH1 or Pinnacle PH1&2. That S.W. PH1 raft slab was more fun to watch. I guess these core samples might provide that answer.

 

[Koops65]