We are getting ready for first occupancies at Junction House and it is exciting to see how many young families -- with children -- are looking forward to moving into the building's larger 2-storey suites. (These are the suites that gave the project its name -- Junction House.)

From the outset, this was always a part of our development thesis. You can't, or at least it's very difficult, to pre-sell an entire building of larger suites in Toronto. But we figured that in a submarket like the Junction, which is very popular with young families, that there had to be some buyers who would want a house-like residence.

Meaning, two floors of living spaces, upstairs bedrooms (better acoustic separation), larger living spaces, and a terrace for BBQing and gardening, among other things.

We are now seeing this play out with the wonderful people coming in for their pre-delivery inspections, and it's a really nice thing to see. Not only as a developer, but as a dedicated urbanite and lover of Toronto. I am not suggesting that it's for everyone. But clearly there is a segment of the market that wants this.

For a list of available homes at Junction House, including floor plans and pricing, click here.

This is an incredibly well done video by Pablo Casals Aguirre of BIG's recently completed IQON tower in Quito, Ecuador. What's great is that it both showcases the building's architecture and gives you a sense of what it might be like to live in a tower like this. And it does this beautifully.

If you can't see the embedded video above, click here.

We have spoken about Paris' Tour Montparnasse before on the blog, and spoken more broadly about the city's discomfort with tall buildings. The Tour Montparnasse is the only skyscraper within the city limits of Paris. If you include the Eiffel Tower, it is one of only two really tall things, though this will soon increase to three with the addition of Herzog and de Meuron's new trapezoidal-shaped tower (now under construction).

The Tour Montparnasse turned 50 this year and so people are now writing about it again. In my opinion, this recent piece in the New Yorker, by Colin Marshall, is particularly thoughtful. Here are two important points that he makes. The first has to do with the fact that kind of old usually isn't enough when it comes to architecture. You need buildings to be really old before they get fully appreciated:

Architectural fashion treasures hundred-and-fifty-year-old structures but derides fifty-year-old ones; hence the works of brutalism that have faced the wrecking ball in recent years. “The destruction of brutalist buildings is more than the destruction of a particular mode of architecture,” Jonathan Meades says, in his television documentary “Bunkers, Brutalism and Bloodymindedness: Concrete Poetry.” “It is like burning books. It’s a form of censorship of the past, a discomfiting past, by the present. It’s the revenge of a mediocre age on an age of epic grandeur.”

The second point is maybe an obvious one:

Aberrations like the Tour Montparnasse only underscore how much Paris remains Haussman’s city, its core frozen in a nineteenth century whose built environment can be restored, and in some cases discreetly renovated, but which—so the severity of the restrictions implies—can never fundamentally be improved upon.

This is, however, a crucial point. Because it directs to why the Tour Montparnasse is so jarring to many, or perhaps most. It is jarring because it is so obviously different from its surrounding 19th century context. It is clearly not that. But as Marshall points out, one way to address this would be to simply add more 21st century context throughout the city.

Of course, this is easier said than done. It would require a new mental model -- one that accepts that the built form of Paris is not static and can be allowed to evolve. We're not there yet. But maybe the current renovation of Tour Montparnasse, or the city's new triangle tower, will give people a fresh set of eyes when it comes to buildings taller than 37 meters.

Photo by Maeva Hemon on Unsplash