Daily insights for city builders, delivered every morning at 6 AM ET. I’m Brandon Donnelly — a Toronto-based real estate developer and founder of Globizen. I’ve been writing here since 2013.

Category: Architecture

  • Yvonne Farrell and Shelley McNamara receive the 2020 Pritzker Architecture Prize

    Yvonne Farrell and Shelley McNamara, co-founders of Grafton Architects, have just been named the 2020 laureates of the prestigious Pritzker Architecture Prize. They are the first recipients from Ireland. If you’d like to read the full press release, you can do that here. But here is a copy of the jury’s citation.

    Yvonne Farrell and Shelley McNamara have practiced architecture together for forty years in a way that clearly reflects the objectives of the Pritzker Prize: to recognize the art of architecture and consistent service to humanity as evidenced through a body of built work.

    Co-founding their professional practice, called Grafton Architects, in Dublin, Ireland in 1978, they have consistently and unhesitatingly pursued the highest quality of architecture for the specific location in which it was to be built, the functions it would house and especially for the people who would inhabit and use their buildings and spaces.

    They have an oeuvre that includes numerous educational buildings, housing and cultural and civic institutions. Pioneers in a field that has traditionally been and still is a male-dominated profession, they are also beacons to others as they forge their exemplary professional path.

    Many of their buildings are located in their home country of Ireland, but through competitions, they have won major commissions for other places around the world, such as Italy, France and Peru . With a profound understanding of place gained through their research, keen powers of observation, open and ever curious explorations and deep respect for culture and context, Farrell and McNamara are able to make their buildings respond to a setting and city most appropriately, while still being fresh and modern.

    This deep understanding of “spirit of place” means that their works enhance and improve the local community. Their buildings are “good neighbors” that seek to make a contribution beyond the boundaries of the building and to make a city work better. Their North King Street Housing in Dublin (2000) is one example of this: it creates an inner courtyard and a welcome respite from the adjacent busy streets.

    Their approach to architecture is always honest, revealing an understanding of the processes of design and construction from large scale structures to the smallest details . It is often in these details, especially in buildings with modest budgets, where a big impact can be felt . For example, the Urban Institute of Ireland (Dublin, 2002) employs what the architects call a “crafted skin” to create a visually interesting building through changes in materials responding to openings, folds, needs for shade and other concerns.

    At the same time, it employs common sense, good-practice environmental control methodologies for an efficient, sustainable building . On a particularly sensitive site in Dublin, the masterful Offices for the Department of Finance (2009) attests to their knowledge and care in the selection of materials and construction techniques with a carefully handcrafted bronze railing and gate and sanded limestone on the facades.

    The architects are skilled and successful working at many scales—from large institutional buildings to a house of only a little more than 100 square meters . Without grand or frivolous gestures, they have managed to create buildings that are monumental institutional presences when appropriate, but even so they are zoned and detailed in such a way as to produce more intimate spaces that create community within . In their large buildings such as the University Campus UTEC (2015) in Lima, Peru or the School of Economics Building (2008) at Universita Luigi Bocconi, they have achieved a human scale through the composition of spaces and volumes of different sizes . The dialogues they create between buildings and surroundings demonstrate a new appreciation of both their works and place.

    A constant in their approach, the architects have an understanding of how to design complex sections of buildings in such a way that views connect deep interior spaces with the larger exterior realm and allow natural light to penetrate and animate spaces deep inside a building . Often light streams from skylights or upper story windows throughout the interiors of their buildings, providing warmth and visual interest, helping the inhabitants easily orient themselves in the spaces, and providing the ever necessary connection to the exterior.

    For their integrity in their approach to both their buildings, as well as the way they conduct their practice, their belief in collaboration, their generosity towards their colleagues, especially as evidenced in such events as the 2018 Venice Biennale, their unceasing commitment to excellence in architecture, their responsible attitude toward the environment, their ability to be cosmopolitan while embracing the uniqueness of each place in which they work, for all these reasons and more, Yvonne Farrell and Shelley McNamara are awarded the 2020 Pritzker Architecture Prize.

    Photo: University Campus UTEC Lima, photo courtesy of Iwan Baan

  • Rightsizing in Kits Point

    Architect Michael Green’s new house in Kits Point, Vancouver was recently featured in the Globe and Mail. He and his family went from a 3,500 square foot home in the suburbs to a 1,500 square foot semi-detached home in the city, close to downtown. The house is simple, sparsely decorated, and about 13-feet wide.

    Here’s why he decided to do it: “I didn’t want to have to commute by car any more,” he says. “I wanted to be able to bike everywhere. I also wanted my kids to be able to bike everywhere. I wanted them to develop a sense of freedom, to have mobility, something too many kids don’t get these days.”

    As we all know, there is typically a very real trade-off in cities between space and location. The further you move out from the core (a generalization), the more affordable space usually comes. But at the same time, your transportation costs also increase — both directly and indirectly if you factor your time and your quality of life.

    Depending on how you value each of these items, you might be inclined to pursue more space or pursue more reasonable transportation costs. A 2,000 square foot reduction in space might seem like a lot. But if you’re heavily weighted toward freedom and mobility, as Green clearly is, it could be a perfectly rational decision.

    Photo: Ema Peter via the Globe and Mail

  • I am not an architect

    After I landed in Vancouver yesterday, I opened up my inbox and found a cease and desist letter on behalf of the Ontario Association of Architects. The OAA had an issue with me using the following text description on my blog: “I’m an architect-trained and tech-obsessed real estate developer based in Toronto.” More specifically, they had a problem with “architect-trained.” They were of the opinion that I was “holding myself out as an architect.”

    When I wrote that text description many years ago, I was actually trying to be sensitive to the fact that, because I’m not licensed, I’m not allowed to refer to myself as an architect. I hold a professional master’s degree in architecture, but I do not hold a certificate of practice in Ontario. The text description I chose was actually meant to communicate that I’m a real estate developer who cares deeply about and sees the value in great design.

    The OAA and their lawyers clearly read it differently. So I have removed the derivative “architect” language from this blog. Frankly, it’s not a big deal to me. And in the almost 6 years that I have been writing this blog, I don’t think anyone has ever reached out to me thinking that I was a practicing architect. To be clear: I am not an architect. In case any of you are curious, here is a copy of the letter that I received.

  • Tacos, snowstorms, and laneway suites

    Few things go as well together as tacos and snowstorms. And so that’s exactly what I did for lunch today given the awesome — I love snow — storm that we’re having in Toronto this weekend. The garnish you’re seeing below is grilled cactus. Dave, the owner of Playa Cabana Taqueria, grows it on location and uses it for special dishes like this one here. If you haven’t been, I would highly recommend it. They’re located at 21 St. Clair Avenue East.

    In addition to tacos, I also spent the morning with Gabriel Fain Architects working on our upcoming laneway suite collaboration. Some of you may remember that our previous laneway project was refused at the Committee of Adjustment back in 2017. Well now that laneway suites are permissible as-of-right, it’s time to get going. We are not planning to seek any variances from what is currently allowed.

    But if you’re thinking about building your own laneway suite, there are still a number of issues that you might run into depending on your property. Servicing, proximity to a fire hydrant, access, and trees are maybe some of the most common. I know that the city is working to resolve / streamline some of these complications, as the objective is truly to build laneway suites across the city.

    As Gabriel and I work through our project this year, my plan is to write about it here on the blog. And hopefully when the project is complete, the posts will serve as a kind of guide for homeowners. These suites are really setup to be built by individual homeowners, as opposed to by developers. If you don’t already email subscribe to this blog and are interested in learning more, sign up here.

    In the meantime, if you have any questions about laneway suites, there are a number of experts in the city, including Gabriel Fain Architects and the folks over at Lanescape.

  • Toronto is on pace to have more skyscrapers than Chicago — so?

    I received a call from a reporter at the CBC today. She was working on a piece about the recent stat that Toronto is on pace to surpass Chicago for the most number of skyscrapers (150m or higher). The above chart is from Bloomberg.

    In particular, she wanted to know (1) what this means for Toronto and (2) if Toronto has been focusing enough on design and architecture during this period of expansion. Can and will it be as beautiful as Chicago?

    Here are the stats I was given (taken from the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat):

    Toronto skyscrapers (150m or more)

    67 done
    32 under construction
    59 proposed to be completed by 2023 latest

    = 158

    Chicago skyscrapers (150m or more)

    126 done
    8 under construction
    11 proposed to be completed by 2024 latest

    = 145

    And here is more or less what I said and what I was thinking:

    Toronto and Chicago are both important global cities. We (Slate) operate and have offices in both cities. The number of tall buildings is just one metric. Look at how few Los Angeles has. At the same time, I get what this signals. It’s noteworthy. Chicago invented the skyscraper.

    Chicago has a wonderful architectural history. (Raise your hand if you’ve been on that architectural boat cruise). But people often forget the fact that when most buildings are built there’s an economic imperative and a private client. This includes back in the day in Chicago.

    So the economic environment we have here in Toronto — where people do work to, you know, get paid and companies think about things like profit margin — isn’t necessarily all that different from the one that birthed architecture that is now widely admired (oftentimes from a boat).

    Toronto has some spectacular buildings and some shit ones. I’ll let you all decide which ones are which. But I do think that Toronto is seeing a greater commitment to design. We recognize the value. But here’s the thing: part of what makes this possible actually runs counter to what most cities want.

    Housing has become more expensive and that makes it possible to spend more money on architecture. It’s one of the great tensions of city building. We want developers to build more affordable housing, but we also want high quality building materials and “Capital A” architecture. Which is more important?

    Finally, I do think that architectural styles need time to settle in, sometimes before we can fully appreciate them. We are seeing that start to happen with Brutalist architecture. And let’s not forget about all of the Victorian homes that we tore down in Toronto. They weren’t fashionable at that time.

    It’s easy to romanticize about the way things used to be done. It’s harder, sometimes, to appreciate the now. But sometimes all it takes is a bit of time.

  • The world’s first programmable city — Woven City

    Last week was CES in Las Vegas. Some or many of you were probably there. One of the things that was announced at the show was a project by Bjarke Ingels Group for Toyota called the Woven City. Situated at the base of Mount Fuji in Japan, the development sits on a 70 hectare site and will eventually house some 2,000 people.

    The objective is for it to act as a living laboratory for a number of new city building initiatives, ranging from autonomy and mobility as a service to multi-generational living and hydrogen-powered infrastructure. Woven City is intended to house not only residents, but also researchers who can test out and learn from these new ideas.

    Below is a short video from Dezeen. It’s entirely visual. No words. There’s also an official website, but not much is up there yet. Hopefully there will be more soon. Construction is set to start next year (2021) and it’ll be BIG’s first project in Japan.

  • Foster + Partners completes its first residential tower in London

    Foster + Partners has just completed its first residential high-rise in London. It’s a 50 storey building with 299 apartments, called Principal Tower. The tower forms part of a broader mixed-use project — that now houses Amazon UK — called Principal Place. The developers were Concord London and Brookfield Properties.

    Here’s a short 11 minute video from Dezeen talking about the project:

  • The Joker Stairs

    Confession: I haven’t seen the new Joker movie. But it looks quite good and I’ll probably watch it once it becomes available through Apple TV.

    I have, however, been reading about all the photographic attention that is now being paid to the “Joker Stairs” that feature prominently in the movie. These are a long set of stairs that connect W 167th Street from Anderson Ave down to Shakespeare Ave in the Bronx. I had no idea the area was so hilly. (Click here for Google Street View.)

    Two things immediately struck me about this.

    One, these are a perfunctory set of stairs that were previously not given much attention until they were showcased in a movie and ultimately imbued with new symbolism. Put differently, the stairs didn’t change; the cultural context did. This is patently obvious, but it shows that architecture and urbanism are, at the end of the day, symbols.

    Two, people, and more specifically local residents, are very grumpy about this new tourist attraction in the Bronx. The sense is that it’s disrespectful. Here is a place where people live and it is being transformed into a backdrop for Instagram photos and internet memes. The message: Leave our neighborhood alone.

    I understand where this feeling is coming from. But I am also curious as to the point in which something like this becomes disrespectful. I live in the St. Lawrence area of Toronto, which is home to one of the most photographed buildings in the city: The Gooderham Building. On most days, the median in front of it is filled with tourists, photographers, and Manfrotto tripods.

    Now, is this disrespectful to my neighborhood? It certainly doesn’t bother me. But might this be a different situation? Is the difference that the symbol some of us hold for the Bronx is one of grit and decay? Coincidentally, this is something that has been no doubt heightened by the movies.

  • Penthouse lighting at the Massey Tower

    I am a big fan of lights on buildings. Here is a photo of the Massey Tower (by MOD Developments and Hariri Pontarini Architects) that I quickly took on my walk home from the office this evening:

    It’s not a very good photo and it’s not doing the project justice. So here’s another shot of the mechanical penthouse lighting from their Instagram.

    I’ve been noticing this lighting for a while now, and every time I see it I think to myself, “That’s really well done.” It’s simple, elegant, and it reinforces the overall architectural intent of the building.

    We are entering that time of the year, at least here in Toronto, where most of us will leave work and it will already be dark out. So the lighting on our buildings and in our public spaces can serve a particularly important function.

    Lighting can, of course, be done poorly. And we do need to be mindful of migratory birds during the spring and fall. Artificial light disorients them at night.

    But we all know how important lighting is to our interior spaces. The same is true for our urban spaces.

  • A 17.6 square meter apartment in Taipei

    Dezeen recently announced its 2019 interior award winners and this 17.6 square meter (~190 square foot) flat in Taipei was selected for “small interior of the year.” Designed by the Taiwanese studio A Little Design, the space features a 3.4m ceiling height and a queen-size sleeping loft. The design is very well done.

    But as I was looking through the photos, I couldn’t help but think, “This is about the size of a parking spot in Toronto.” Typically, the minimum dimensions for a parking space are 2.6m wide by 5.6m long. If either side is obstructed or the drive aisle is substandard, these dimensions need to be increased.

    So we’re not far off.

    Some of you will interpret this to mean that the apartment is too small; whereas some of you will interpret this to mean that the spaces we dedicate to cars are too big. It’s a matter of perspective. But what is clear is that there is a market for small urban spaces. Here are some other examples from São Paulo, Beirut, and Moscow.

    Photo: Hey! Cheese