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.
It has been cold and snowy in Toronto lately, which is great if you’re looking to shred pow on a snowboard, but suboptimal if you’re trying to construct buildings. It pains me deep inside my bone marrow when we lose productive days to weather. But what can you do?
I was, however, thrilled to see this first glimpse (pictured above) of the lobby / co-working space at Junction House this morning. The slightly elevated section (which is the point of view of the above rendering) is the co-working area.
The reason it’s elevated is that we needed the clearance below for our parking ramp. We thought about trying to make it retail, but a place for residents to hang out and work seemed like a pretty good idea.
A lot of us on the team are big fans of a great hotel lobby bar, but that’s kind of challenging to do in a residential condominium. This is maybe the next best thing. It’s been very popular with purchasers so far, but I’m looking forward to seeing how it performs in real life.
I have written, many times over the years, about small-scale commercial uses in residential neighborhoods. Here in Toronto, they are generally not permitted. The small convenience stores and bodegas that remain are often legal non-conforming uses.
Today I came across a great example fromCalgary. I don’t know if it was done on an as-of-right basis or if variances were needed, but it is an example of small-scale commercial on a site that used to be low-rise residential.
Here is the before (from street view):
Here is the after:
And here are a few more photos from the developer:
We did a small-scale two-storey commercial building on a 100×120 feet laneless site. Cities need to allow these as modern-day bodegas in all neighbourhoods. The shops and active urban spaces can transform communities. Definitely did here. It’s the modern-day strip mall! pic.twitter.com/OPJFbkChKq
Developed by RNDSQR and designed by FAAS Architecture, the project houses three street front commercial units that are now leased — according to their website — to an ice cream shop, a coffee shop, and a pizza + wine bar. The second flour houses office space.
Congratulations to the team behind this development. It looks like a terrific project. And in my view, being able to leave your home and walk to things is one of the greatest urban amenities out there.
In fact, a big part of what I do for a living is imagining what things could be in the future. However, the bias that humans have toward the status quo has been well documented by people like Seth Godin, as well as many others. It is easier to defend that which already exists. Here’s how Seth puts it:
All one has to do is take the thing we have now as a given (ignoring its real costs) and then challenge the defects and question the benefits of the new thing, while also maximizing the potential risk.
So as I was reading this recent blogTO article about the work of Stephen Velasco, I wasn’t surprised to see some of the responses. Stephen has built an outstanding 3D model of all the towers that are currently planned or under construction in Toronto. Here’s what that looks like:
Room to grow – Toronto’s ongoing development boom continues to reshape its urban landscape.
For some of you, this is exciting. And for others, this may look like too much density. In both cases, we might think we are being fair and reasonable in our assessment, but the reality is that it’s actually quite difficult to be a neutral judge. We are all guilty of poor logic and too much emotion.
But here’s a good mental exercise, put forward by Seth, to test your logic: flip the story and then see if you still feel the same way.
In this particular case, imagine that all of the above proposed buildings are already built. This is the city that we all live, work, and play in. This is the status quo. Now consider an exciting new proposal being put forward to demolish many/most of these buildings, create more surface parking lots in the core, industrialize our waterfront, and reduce our overall population density.
Habitat for Humanity recently announced that they have completed, in partnership with additive construction company Alquist, the first 3D-printed owner-occupied house in the world. I’m pretty sure that I’ve seen other 3D-printed homes kicking around, but this is still a big deal and one of the first of such homes for Habitat for Humanity. (It also 3D-printed a house in Arizona this year, but I guess that one wasn’t owner-occupied.)
The 1,200 square foot three-bedroom home is located at 129 Forest Heights Road in Williamsburg, Virginia. And it was “printed” in just 22 hours, which Habitat and Alquist are claiming reduced their construction schedule by approximately weeks compared to a traditionally framed house. Overall, this translated into an estimated savings of 15% on the total construction costs. (Again, according to Habitat and Alquist.)
These kind of savings are particularly important in many rural communities where it is not uncommon for homes to sell below their replacement cost. Not surprisingly, when you have a market dynamic like this, there’s zero incentivize to build new. I mean, why would you when you can just buy something that already exists for less money, and with less risk.
Alquist uses a patented concrete to print its homes. The concrete can be left exposed, or it can be finished with traditional building materials. For any load-bearing or structural walls, I understand that they print two walls with a cavity and then use typical reinforcing bars. I would imagine that this approach is particularly helpful when lumber costs are high, but there’s an obvious question around embodied carbon (concrete in lieu of wood).
Still, it’s hard not to believe that we will be seeing more, rather than less, 3D-printed homes in the future.
Last night as I was walking home, I came across the recently completed Yonge + Rich condominiums at Richmond and Victoria (I think they won awards for this name back in the day). I stopped to look up because I was curious about one particular detail — the elbows.
This tower is, in effect, two towers that are attached in middle. And the differing facade treatments are meant to reinforce this: two towers, not one.
But because they are in fact connected, there are some unavoidable 90 degree angles in the floor plates. These spaces can be extremely tricky when it comes to laying out residential suites because they skew your ratio of square footage to vision glass. Usually you get too much of the former relative to the latter. You can also get awkward facing / privacy conditions.
And so these spaces are often referred to in the industry as the “elbow” suites or sometimes the “armpit” suites. Though I think elbows are a lot nicer than armpits.
Here’s the Yonge + Rich example to illustrate what I’m talking about:
In this case, the entire stack is comprised of frosted translucent glass. So it is pretty clear that these spaces are not residential suites. Here’s the floor plate:
What was done here was to make it circulation/corridor space. This solves the elbow suite problem and adds a nice feature to each floor. These days, very few corridors have natural light. Vision glass is too precious of a commodity. You could argue that it should have been clear glass, but presumably frosted glass was used to avoid privacy concerns.
The other trade-off that needs to be considered is that of efficiency. What is the ratio of saleable/rentable area to gross construction area? Adding circulation space lowers this number. So it can come down to whether it is better to have a higher efficiency with some elbows, or a lower efficiency with no elbows.
The Institute for Transportation & Development Policy (ITDP) is a non-profit group that works all around the world — everywhere from Jakarta to Rio de Janeiro — to design and implement both transport solutions and policies that help to make our cities more livable, equitable, and sustainable. If you’re interested in learning more about the kind of work that they do, you can download a copy of their latest annual report, here.
Most recently, the group published a report called, “The Compact City Scenario – Electrified.” In it they argue that two things need to happen together if we are to move humanity toward net-zero carbon emissions and reduce global warming to less than 1.5 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. One, we need to fully electrify our transport (which I think is fairly obvious at this point). And two, we need a modal shift.
To be even clearer, ITDP argues that both of these things need to happen at the same time in order to successfully hit our targets. Full electrification of our transport without any sort of modal shift isn’t going to cut it, and the same is true for a modal shift without electrification.
Why all of this is important is because electrification is in many ways just a technical problem. We need electric vehicles, we need batteries, and we need the infrastructure in place to charge these vehicles. Among other things, this has meant building new charging stations, retrofitting existing buildings, and encouraging/requiring new buildings to make provisions for a future with predominantly electric vehicles.
But for the most part, EVs allow us to continue living the way that we have already been living. Just instead of pumping gas, we now plug in our cars at the end of the day. On the other hand, encouraging a modal shift is a fairly significant behavioral change. Though we know that one of the most effective ways to encourage less driving is to build more compact cities.
This means changing the way we live. Changing the way we get around. And accepting more intense forms of development in our own backyards. It is fundamentally linked to land use planning and so it is going to be much harder to achieve. But if you agree with the above report, we won’t be able to meet our sustainability goals without it.
Retention of an existing concrete building, and architecture that’s a sensitive counterpoint to the original. This (if built as shown) will be excellent. https://t.co/Svbcq3pLJ5
The application proposes to retain the existing 12-storey office building and both expand its floorplates to the west and build new residential on top. In the middle is a shared multi-storey amenity space that also performs some pretty cool structural gymnastics courtesy of Stephenson Engineering (see above rendering).
This approach created some interesting design challenges for the team. Typically when you’re adding onto an existing building, you want to do something new and not try and copy/bastardize what’s already there. Oftentimes this means something more contemporary.
The architecture team at Gensler Toronto tried this approach but the podium proportions didn’t feel quite right when we did it. So a decision was made to instead pay homage to the existing building’s architecture, and then kind of reinterpret it by playing with scale and other details.
This way the original building remains architecturally legible, but the entire podium still reads as one and its proportions feel much better. We hope you like it as much as we do.
One, the sales gallery for One Delisle has now officially closed in preparation for demolition and construction (above is a photo from moving day). None of us expected it to close so quickly after only having launched sales in May, but of course this is a good problem to have. We are now just waiting on our demolition permits to arrive, which we expect will happen sometime between the next few days and several weeks. The official groundbreaking ceremony will happen early in the new year once we have a clean/flat site to work with. Shoring and excavation works after that.
Two, we just announced a partnership with Technogym for Junction House. Our team was all in the office one day and I asked a question about who makes the best performing and most design-forward gym equipment. Technogym was immediately mentioned and so we reached out. They’ll now be equipping the entire fitness center at Junction House and the plan is to make it a longer-term relationship. If you aren’t familiar with Technogym, you can check them out here. They were the official supplier for the recent Olympic Games in Tokyo, as well as 7 other Olympics, which I suppose is something.
Earlier this year, California joined Oregon to become the second state to pass policy that would allow additional housing density in single-family neighborhoods. Set to take effect on January 1, 2022, Senate Bill 9 requires that communities across California allow duplexes — and in some cases four units if they sever their lot — in most low-rise neighborhoods.
This is similar to what Toronto is looking at doing, though the details seem to be different. But as I mentioned before, sometimes you can have the broader permissions in place and yet very little building actually takes place because of other land use restrictions or market factors.
People in California seem to get this dynamic, because the Los Angeles Times just reported that some/many cities in California are now looking at local policies that would mitigate the effects of Senate Bill 9. In other words, they’re looking at policies that would make it harder to build the housing that this new law was hoping to unlock.
Lately, I’ve become very interested in live/work uses. This is not something that I have written much about over the years, but it is now on my mind for a few reasons.
One, many of us tried working from home for the first time over the last 21 months or so, and my understanding is that some people enjoy it. It’s not my preference, but I don’t represent everyone.
Two, photography is a hobby of mine and I’ve always thought it would be super fun to have a studio space to play around with on the weekends. If any of you have any suggestions or spaces available, please let me know.
Three, there are lots of urban conditions where retail doesn’t work, but a bit more ground-floor animation would be nice. This is commonly how live/work uses have been used. That said, I can think of a number of unsuccessful examples of this in Toronto. It’s tough to execute on.
And four, there are lots of instances of older non-conforming spaces throughout our cities serving this purpose: inexpensive spaces for people to live, work, and create in. Though often “illegal”, I believe they are important for fostering new ideas.
Here’s an example that I was reading about this morning in The Spaces and that triggered this blog post. It’s about sculptor Andreas Anastasis and his live/work loft on the west side of New York.
I don’t know what building this is and whether or not work functions are technically permitted (presumably they are), but it’s an example of what I’m talking about. Take a spin through the video embedded above. If you can’t see it, click here.
Should we be designing and creating our new residential spaces with multiple uses and this kind of flexibility in mind? Is there a big enough market for it? Does it devalue the pure residential aspect of the building knowing that your next door neighbor might have an office in their space, an artist studio, or a short-term Airbnb rental?
These are some of the things that I’ve been thinking about and I would love to hear thoughts in the comment section below.
