Author: Brandon Graham Donnelly

• Canada has a new passport and nobody seems to like it

  

  I love my Canadian passport. It is both a part of my own identity and my ticket to the rest of the world. And as much as I also love technology, I hope that we never do away with old fashioned passport stamps administered by grumpy customs officials. I don’t care if the data is being stored on a blockchain somewhere — which will likely be the case — I would really like a barely legible and awkwardly placed stamp inside of my personal paper folio.

  Of course, now there’s a new passport.

  This week, Canada unveiled a new design featuring enhanced security features (presumably all of which are vitally important) and a lot more images of nature. Perhaps not surprisingly, it has received a lot of criticism. But it doesn’t seem to be the usual, “this is new and I just don’t like change” kind of criticism. It seems to be the “this is objectively bad” kind of criticism.

  Supposedly, many of the visual changes were done because they were thought to better represent who we are as Canadians. Really?

  Families, Children and Social Development Minister Karina Gould, who helped announce the changes, and who oversees Service Canada, said that the redesign – including images of polar bears, people jumping in a lake, and birds in winter – capture the “spirit of who we are as Canadians.”

  At the highest level, I think it is clear from this redesign that we are struggling with our own sense of national identity. Who are we? And what kind of nation do we aspire to become? This is evident through at least two features of this new passport:

  1. The way we are communicating the monarchy of Canada
  2. The iconography that we believe captures the “spirit of who we are as Canadians”

  The current passport design — which I have in front of me right now — features the Arms of Canada prominently in the middle of the cover. The new design (pictured above), moves the Arms of Canada to the bottom left, though it appears to remain the same size as before. However, this move makes room for a partial maple leaf to tuck behind the Arms in the center of the cover.

  Ignoring that these two objects feel visually incongruent with one another, I generally hate both designs simply because I hate the fact that Canada is a constitutional monarchy. However, I will give credit to the previous design and say that at least it was decisive. It had one visual image in the center of the cover that clearly communicated something: our monarch is first and foremost.

  Now what we have done is decided to timidly introduce a partial (and minimal) maple leaf behind it. It is perhaps the softest way we could have done it: “Sorry, mind if I just insert this here?” But rather than assert brand Canada, it merely signals that we’re shy, and we don’t really know who we are.

  If it were up to me (and it isn’t), the Arms would come off the cover completely (it can go somewhere inside as part of our history), and I’d place a single small red maple leaf under the word “Passeport.” Nothing on the back cover. Ironically, I think this would be infinitely more impactful — and confident — than what is shown here.

  

  The next problem has to do with the iconography that we believe captures the “spirit of who we are as Canadians.” As of 2021, it is estimated that over 82% of Canadians live in an urban center, and this number continues to increase. So while I appreciate that we have a very large land mass and that our natural environment is precious, it does not actually reflect the current reality of how the majority of Canadians live.

  Perhaps the argument is that deep down inside we all secretly wish that we were living in the woods next to nature (or at least in a luxury “cottage” in Muskoka). This is the true “spirit of who we are.” I don’t know, maybe it is for some. But there’s something to be said about recognizing the reality we live in today and the importance of our cities in driving the Canadian economy forward.

  Equally important is recognizing the people, moments, and symbols that form part of our history. Much of that was stripped from this new design. So is it time to go back to the drawing board? I think so. Our visual symbols tell the story of who we are and who we want to become. If we can’t get these right, then how will we actually get to where we want to go?

  2023.05.13

• Consumer city and playground city — are they any different?

  

  One conventional way to think about cities is that people migrate to urban areas in order to make more money. This remains true today and the data is pretty clear that, if you live in an urban area, you’re likely to make more money than if you didn’t — even if you’re just as educated. You’re also likely to make even more money if the city is really big (there’s a correlation between income and city size). And you probably also walk a little faster given that, you know, time equals money.

  But there are other reasons for wanting to live in a city. And probably the biggest is that they can bring us pleasure. Back in 2001, Edward Glaeser, Jed Kook, and Albert Saiz published this paper called, “Consumer City”, where they showed that high amenity cities have tended to grow faster than low amenity cities. They also went on to demonstrate that, in high amenity cities, urban rents have tended to increase faster than urban wages, suggesting that there are other reasons for wanting to live in a city beyond simply wage growth.

  Fast forward to today and Ed Glaeser has a new opinion piece in the New York Times arguing the following:

  New York is undergoing a metamorphosis from a city dedicated to productivity to one built around pleasure. . . The economic future of the city that never sleeps depends on embracing this shift from vocation to recreation and ensuring that New Yorkers with a wide range of talents want to spend their nights downtown, even if they are spending their days on Zoom. We are witnessing the dawn of a new kind of urban area: the Playground City.

  I saw City Observatory comment that they thought it was odd Glaeser didn’t mention his previous work on the Consumer City. But I wonder if this is him not wanting to suggest that this was a trend decades in the making. Maybe instead, he wanted to position it as a dramatic and profound shift brought about by a pandemic. But how can you not ask this question: Is the Playground City truly something novel, or are we just following a trend line?

  In my view, they’re not all that different. The basic idea is that people like cities that are cool and fun, and so they will pay a premium to be in those kinds of places. This was true in 2001 and it’s still true in 2023. The only difference today is that we now believe we have too much office space in some markets, and so we’re trying to recalibrate around work vs. pleasure. But even with this, the work component of our cities isn’t going to zero.

  Photo by Jan Folwarczny on Unsplash

  2023.05.12

• Fourplexes are here — now what?

  The thing that we have been talking about for many months on this blog finally happened: Toronto City Council voted (18-7) in favor of allowing fourplexes as-of-right across all residential areas of the city. (If you’re curious, here is a map of which Councillors voted yes and which ones voted no. It’s not all that surprising.)

  This is a major accomplishment and milestone for Toronto. So congratulations to everyone who has been working to make this happen. But of course, now is when the rubber hits the road: Will the market actually build this new housing typology (for Toronto) at scale? Is it actually feasible?

  Jeremiah Shamess of Colliers came out this morning saying that the answer is no. These multiplexes aren’t feasible and it is “not going to solve our housing crisis or even come close.” He may be right, but I think a lot of people — myself included — are now looking closely at their feasibility.

  In fact, this morning I ran into a lender on the street — look what happens when you come into the office — that is seeing if these can be built using CMHC financing. And this is just one example of the work happening all over the city right now.

  There is also the question of scale. Small development projects are challenging. The general rule of thumb is that if you have the resources, you should build as big as you possibly can to drive economies of scale. So if these are actually feasible, who will want to build them?

  The margins on a build like this are almost certainly going to be somewhere between negative and marginally positive. But I still think there’s something to be said about being directionally right. There’s more work to be done and these policies will likely get adjusted, but I think that’s just fine as long as we’re moving forward.

  And that’s what we’re doing today.

  2023.05.11

• LVMH’s Cheval Blanc Hotel faces opposition in Beverly Hills

  I am sure that most people aren’t going to feel bad for LVMH, but it is facing some opposition in trying to bring the first Cheval Blanc Hotel to North America. Last year, Beverly Hills City Council approved the hotel development on Rodeo Drive, but since then, enough signatures were collected that a special election is going to be held later this month for the ~22,000 residents who are registered to vote in Beverly Hills. And from the sounds of it, the results will decide the fate of the project.

  As I understand it, there are two mains groups that are upset:

  1. A union representing hotel workers
  2. Local area residents

  The official message from group #1 is that they want affordable housing. But there is speculation that they just want the hotel to be unionized. I don’t don’t, so let’s move on to group #2. Why would residents be opposed to this project?

  One way to think about this is that LVMH is trying to build a fancy new $2,000 per night hotel in one of the richest cities in the US, on one of its most luxurious streets. So, you would think that there would be a fit and that more than a few rich people would be excited about such a development. I guess this is true — and Council did vote in favor last year — but clearly there are other concerns:

  …some people were unhappy a 109-room hotel, framed by Rodeo Drive, Little Santa Monica Boulevard and Beverly Drive, would rise nine stories on one side and tower over surrounding retail and commercial spaces sitting at three and four stories high. Four buildings would have to be razed, and the idea of more traffic coming to the area was unsettling.

  It seems to be about scale:

  …Cheval Blanc opponents want to keep that small town vibe. “The area is charming and beautiful right now, and, if and when they are able to put that project out there, it will not be. It is very nice to be around low-rise buildings. You can sit at a sidewalk café in Beverly Hills and look across the street and see the hills. It is a very good feeling,” said Darian Bojeaux, an attorney who has lived in the city for 35 years and signed the petitions launching a special election. “Let them build a code-compliant hotel that is three stories high. Let them build something nice that doesn’t ruin the city.”

  Here’s an aerial of said small town vibe for context (I’ve marked the number of proposed storeys):

  

  What’s interesting about this situation is that it seems to isolate the concerns. Because what is being proposed here is an obviously compatible use. It is a rich thing in an area for rich people. Residents don’t seem to be saying that this is a problem. Instead, it is height that could potentially “ruin the city.” (Ignore for a second that there’s already an office building of similar height across the street.)

  What this tells me is that if you’re thinking about proposing nine storeys of Ferragamo and Balenciaga, that’s probably not small town enough. Saint Laurent needs to be no more than three.

  2023.05.10

• Not for sale!

  One of the things that I have wanted to do since I was in architecture school was visit the Venice Biennale. Partially because I would hear people say, ” so and so exhibited at the Biennale this year”, and that made it sound cool. But mostly because it’s the oldest cultural exhibition of its kind in the world — it was inaugurated in 1895 — and because there’s an entire section of it dedicated to architecture. So I’m excited to say that it looks like this month is going to be the month.

  The way I am told the Venice Biennale of Architecture works is that there are two main components. There are the national pavilions in the Biennale Gardens, and there is the Arsenale, which is where lots of different nations exhibit under one roof. Canada is one of the 29 countries that has its own pavilion and, if you aren’t familiar with its history, it’s worth watching this short video:

  At the time of writing this post, it only had 277 views, so I’m guessing that most of you have not seen it. I felt patriotic when I watched it, because the purpose of these pavilions is that they host each country’s official representation during the Biennale. It’s Canada to the world and that makes me proud. This year, Canada is being represented by Architects Against Housing Alienation (AAHA) with an exhibit called “Not for Sale!”

  Here’s an excerpt from the project description:

  Real estate speculation is a form of extortion. It converts homes into spatio-financial assets, changing the form, function, and aesthetics of housing to better serve the logics of wealth storage and speculation. The process is violent, resulting in an urban environment that is racist, sexist, and classist at a systemic level. This global phenomenon is nowhere more visible than in Canada, a country whose economy is now dominated by real estate.

  In other words, it looks like the pavilion is going to be turned into a scathing criticism of what I do for a living: real estate development. How neat! The other neat thing about the Venice Biennale is that One Delisle is going to be featured in an exhibition called, “Reconceptualizing Urban Housing.” Our team has been working on this project with Studio Gang since 2016, and so it’s a great honor to have it recognized on such a global stage.

  It also means that the Venice Biennale is going to simultaneously tell me that my work is doing some amount of good for Toronto, and that I’m also contributing to racism, sexism, and classism at a systemic level. I can’t wait.

  2023.05.08

• Yes, I want a pair of these 3D-printed shoes

  3D printing, or additive manufacturing, is often referred to as the next industrial revolution. And we are certainly seeing it creep into the mainstream economy in meaningful ways. You can soon buy a 3D-printed home for under $99,000, and already you can buy a home in the world’s largest 3D-printed community. We also now make bridges using additive manufacturing, which in this case in Amsterdam, was prefabricated off site and craned in.

  Many of the architects we work with also use 3D-printed models to rapidly prototype, which I am guessing is disruptive to the whole unpaid architectural intern thing. But what has been missing, for me at least, is a comfortable pair of 3D-printed shoes from the future. Thankfully, Denmark-based RAINS (in collaboration with Zellerfeld) announced their first 3D-printed pair at Paris Fashion Week earlier in the year.

  And now they’re available for order:

  

  Maybe you like the look of these, or maybe you don’t. I would definitely wear them. But what’s interesting is that they’re 100% recyclable; they’re printed upon order (so no excess supply); and they’re made using a fully automated production process — meaning there’s little to no labor component and there’s no overseas factory. This sounds like something!

  I mean, presumably this completely changes where shoes want to be made. Previously you wanted an overseas factory where labor was cheapest. But if labor is no longer a meaningful input, do you now just want to produce these things closer to where your customers actually live and reduce shipping costs? From what I have read, Zellerfeld’s factory is in Hamburg and it currently takes something like 40 hours to print one pair of shoes.

  Decentralization was always one of the great promises of 3D printing. And to be honest, it’s not hard to imagine a world where you walk into a store, have your feet scanned for optimal sizing (already the company lets you do this online with your phone’s front camera), and then you get a new pair of shoes printed for you right on the spot. Maybe you even get to play with the design a little so that no two shoes are ever exactly the same.

  Of course, along with this, you’d also get an NFT version of your shoes indicating where you printed/minted them. This would be your decentralized blockchain record for your decentralized physical shoes. This sounds weird and consumers won’t necessarily think of it in this way, but it’ll be what’s happening behind the scenes. What consumers will care about is being able to flex their new shoes both offline and online.

  On that note, let’s get back to the basics here: Would you ever order/wear these shoes?

  2023.05.07

• All lit up in the Junction!

  Friday was a busy day at Junction House.

  In the morning, we gave a hard hat tour to Toronto’s City Planning Division. They are currently revisiting the Mid-Rise Building Performance Standards, and so this was an opportunity to see what these standards translate to when you’re on site trying to actually build a mid-rise building.

  It was great to see the group so highly engaged and looking for ways to improve the delivery of this housing typology. Thanks for taking the time to visit Junction House.

  

  Then we had the “official lighting ceremony” for the placemaking art. And by official lighting ceremony, I mean that there were a handful of us playing around with a drone and trying to get cool pictures on our phones. However, did we have one actual videographer, so stay tuned for some proper video footage of the installation.

  Finally, in the evening after sunset, we got to see it illuminated for the very first time. And it was everything we had hoped for! An idea turned into reality, many years later. Shout out to the Urban Toronto community for spotting one of our earlier prototypes online and then encouraging us to make some design changes. We are happy we listened.

  

  

  But what do you all think? I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comment section below.

  2023.05.06

• The Well is a very impressive masterplan

  

  

  

  

  I am so impressed by The Well. I walked through it this afternoon after a meeting at BDP Quadrangle’s office, and I think that once it’s fully open and stabilized, it’s going to become an instant icon and destination in the city of Toronto. So much so that when people visit Toronto, they’re going to come to The Well to take a photo under its glass canopy. Just watch.

  Right now, only a portion of it is accessible to the public and it’s because there’s a BMO bank branch on the lower level that is open and operating. It’s all by itself right now, though, so if you bank with BMO, maybe pop by and say hello.

  Now, if you’re a naysayer, I would imagine you’re probably thinking at least two things. You’re thinking of the office space that Shopify left behind. And you’re thinking that open-air malls maybe aren’t well suited towards the Toronto climate. When our group walked through it today, Matt Young (of Republic Developments) immediately said that it felt like something from California.

  I don’t really get this climate argument though. Mainly for two reasons: (1) because winter clothes exist and (2) because we have lots of other open-air malls throughout the city that are doing just fine. Except we don’t call them open-air malls, we just call them streets. And the way they work is that people walk outside, and then go into various retail establishments.

  On the office piece, well, you all know how I feel about office.

  Congratulations to everyone involved in The Well. It is an accomplishment that you should all be very proud of, and our city is better for it. I look forward to seeing it continue to take shape.

  2023.05.05

• The negative externalities of Toronto’s “yellow belt”

  My friend Randy Gladman, of Colliers Strategy & Consulting, recently published this important opinion piece in Urbanize Toronto. In short, it is about how little of our land we dedicate toward high-density housing (about 5%), what that results in, and why it should change:

  TenBlock’s efforts are appreciated; more homes are desperately needed in Toronto, especially near transit. Intensification in all forms should be welcome. But there should be a better way to create the homes we need that minimizes demolition of the ones we have. We don’t have a shortage of low-density land near transit infrastructure in our city. Rather, we have a shortage of the political will needed to combat the calcified forces aligned against intensification. Looking at the development process in Toronto, we can see just how inefficient and confused our system of land planning has become when we consider how we treat low-density areas compared to the very small percentage of the city where greater density is accepted. 

  I think there’s growing awareness in this city and others about why this approach to land use needs to be modernized. And there is certainly positive change underway. But there’s still work to be done. So I’m happy that Randy decided to write about it.

  For the full article, click here.

  2023.05.04

• Everything looks in place here

  

  I was in the mood for some light reading before bed earlier this week, and so I pulled out this comparative critique of Euclidean zoning. Many of you are probably familiar with how single-use zoning works. It is the dominant form of zoning in North America and it is predicated on the idea of “everything in its place.” Meaning, land uses are best off when they are segregated and put into distinct zones: commercial here, industrial over there, residential in these areas, and so on.

  But there are a whole host of arguments for why this is bad cities. Among other things, it makes them less sustainable, because typically you need to drive between zones when you want to do things. It makes them less resilient, because you’ve now created monocultures. And it also encourages segregation, because if this zone is only for 2-acre single-family lots, then only people who can afford a 2-acre lot get to live there.

  I’m sure that many of you are already aware of these arguments. So what I found most interesting from this light bedtime reading was the comparison to the French model of urbanism. One of the key differences in cities such as Paris is that the French have historically preferred to zone for structures over uses. In other words, aesthetics and how buildings look have long been a priority, but what happens inside of them has been less of one.

  The result is an incredible mix of uses that makes the city what it is today. And this is perhaps the great irony of Paris. Its visual harmony might make you believe that “everything is in its place.” But really things are often all over the place — as they should be in a city. Adding to this irony is the fact that many single-use cities do not actually appear very orderly, even though they’re kind of supposed to by design.

  I thought this was an interesting way of looking at these two different models of urbanism. It makes the case that not everything needs to be in its place; maybe it just needs to look that way and the rest will figure itself out.

  2023.05.03