If there are two things we like to talk about here in Toronto it’s that there are a lot of condos going up and that it’s becoming increasingly difficult–some would say impossible–to get around. Just this past weekend, I had 2 or 3 people tell me that biking is the only practical way to get around downtown and that it’s fairly easy to outwalk a streetcar on either Queen Street or King Street.

Usually these statements are followed by a question, asking what the city is doing to address these issues. The unfortunate reality is that I think urban mobility is going to get worse before it gets better (although I am thrilled about the Eglinton Crosstown line now under construction). If you’re a regular reader, you’ll know that I’m a supporter of a Downtown Relief Subway line and that I was disappointed by John Tory’s recent transit proposal.

The best way to explain why I feel this way is to talk about how and where Toronto is growing. In my post on John Tory’s transit proposal, I talked about how Toronto is developing in the shape of an upside down letter T. And the reason for that is because in the city’s Official Plan, the “Downtown and Central Waterfront” area is identified as a growth node and is shaped more or less like an upside T. It’s the light orange in the following map.

In addition to the downtown core, the areas shown in red are earmarked as “Centres” for growth. There’s one in each borough (Etobicoke, North York and Scarborough) and one at Yonge & Eglinton, which most people would consider to be the heart of midtown. Finally, you have the “Avenues” which are the greenish brown lines on the above map. Those are areas that city also hopes will accommodate future growth.

Now, let’s look at where development is happening in the city. Here’s residential development from 2008 to 2012. The biggest circle represents 2,000 proposed residential units.

And here’s non-residential development. The largest diamond represents projects with a non-residential floor area greater than 50,000 square meters (~540,000 square feet).

What should become immediately apparent is that growth–particularly on the residential side–is happening more or less according to plan. The biggest “outliers” are really the development happening along Mimico’s waterfront and all the development happening along Sheppard Avenue East. But those are because of the water and the Sheppard subway line.

In both the residential and non-residential cases though, the downtown and central waterfront area is quite clearly receiving a significant share of the development happening in the city.

Which always makes me wonder: Why are we so reluctant to build proper transit in the core?

The city’s Official Plan is clearly funneling growth to downtown and yet we continue to propose, fund, and build subway lines in areas where the population densities are lower and ridership levels will inevitably be less. Which ultimately means that the required government subsidies to keep those lines operating will be higher.

I’m not suggesting that the inner boroughs don’t also need top notch transit and infrastructure. They absolutely do. But I get frustrated when politics trumps rational city building. And so does everybody else who’s stuck with inadequate mobility options.

Images: City of Toronto

This past week we opened the doors to the presentation center for Kingston&Co Condominiums. It was pretty chaotic leading up to the opening, but everything worked out and I think our party was a great success. 

These early events are an opportunity for the media to see the project and the presentation center, and for the project team to enjoy some of the fruits of their hard work. I think those times are important. When everyone is moving quickly to meet deadlines, sometimes it’s easy for things to get impersonal. So it’s nice to be able to sit back, have a glass of wine, and tell someone that you appreciate all of their hard work.

Below is another photo from the event. I’m the second from the right, wearing a sweaty pink shirt. I had planned to go home and change before the event, but I instead got wrapped up moving things around and getting the presentation center ready. On a related note, there’s a tree trunk beside the sofa in the reception area that weighs almost 400 pounds. If you can lift it on your own, or even just move it on your own, I’ll buy you a round of drinks.

If you’d like to learn more about Kingston&Co, click here. And if you get a chance to check out the presentation center, make sure you tweet me and let me know what you think.

Images: BuzzBuzzHome

Yesterday I had a really interesting conversation with somebody about the future of the architecture profession. We spoke about how Joshua Prince-Ramus of REX believes that architects have marginalized themselves as a result of shying away from liability. We spoke about how architecture schools need to teach more about about business and making money. And we spoke about why I decided to never practice architecture and instead become a developer.

At the end of it all, he came to more or less the same conclusion that I did in this post. He felt that as more and more trained architects choose to become developers, that maybe the future will be firms that vertically integrate both architecture and real estate development. For those of you not in the building industry, this is fairly uncommon practice today. Typically, developers retain the services of an architect to design their buildings and do not handle this in-house.

But there are firms that do. DDG out of New York and San Francisco is one example. Although there’s a subtlety worth mentioning. According to their website, they say that they often act as the “design architect” for their projects. This means that there would still need to be an “architect of record”, whose name would appear on the building permit and who would ultimately end up shouldering the liability for the design.

You see, a bifurcation has happened even within the architecture profession itself. You have “design architects” who may or may not be licensed, but do a lot of the fun design work upfront for a project. And you have production oriented firms that actually produce the technical drawings needed for construction. The fees are generally higher in the latter case (unless maybe you’re a starchitect), but the work is less creative.

The emergence of these two streams of architecture is precisely what Joshua Prince-Ramus is talking about when he says that architects have marginalized themselves by shying away from liability. He believes that architects are reducing themselves to designers and stylists, from master builders. So his argument is that architects need to reinsert themselves into more of the building process.

What I’ve been suggesting is that architects should become owners. They should insert themselves into the development process. And the reason I feel this way is because I worry about the tendency for production and construction to just be farmed out to the lowest bidder. Design and development, on the other hand, are high value creation items.

Truthfully though, I don’t really know which option is better for the profession in terms of relevance. I know which one I’m most interested in, but that could just be a personal preference. What do you think?

Image: The Red List