CoStar recently published an article titled “Architectural stars appear on the skyline of Canada's largest city — Toronto reaches a new level of global reach and ambition.”
What the article is talking about is a slew of iconic, under-construction projects designed by some of the world's most celebrated living architects. Namely, Forma by Frank Gehry (Los Angeles), One Delisle by Jeanne Gang (Chicago), KING Toronto by Bjarke Ingels (Copenhagen), as well as a handful of other noteworthy projects by some of the best local firms in Toronto.
It is no doubt an exciting moment. These are projects that, I think, the world will come to associate with our great city. They will strengthen the global brand of Toronto.
But let me also state the obvious: These projects are the result of a particular moment in time and a particular point in the last real estate cycle. They wouldn't exist today, irrespective of our level of ambition.
This is not to say that this calibre of project won't exist again in the future — it will. But for right now, these are special and differentiated architectural treasures that truly stand alone, showing us what is possible when we bet on the unknowable future.
The American Institute of Architects (AIA) just announced its 2025 Architecture Award winners. This is a program that celebrate the best contemporary architecture in the US, spanning all scales and budgets.
Firstly, I'm obligated to share that Studio Gang won an award for its Kresge College Expansion at the University of California, Santa Cruz. This is a beautiful project consisting of 4 new mass-timber buildings — three residential halls and an academic center — in the middle of a redwood forest in northern California.
But since we talk a lot about housing on this blog, I also wanted to highlight two projects by Brooks + Scarpa. The first is 11NOHO in North Hollywood, CA. This is a 5-storey apartment consisting of 60 suites, 12 of which are affordable (which allowed for a density bonus).
The second is the Rose Mixed-Use Apartments in Venice, CA. This one is a 4-storey apartment and is 100% affordable. I'd like to know how they got the pro forma to work, but regardless, it's proof that Europe doesn't have a monopoly on beautiful social housing projects.
What I really wanted to point out, though, are the projects' courtyards. Southern California has a rich history of courtyard buildings and these two projects offer a contemporary interpretation of this tradition. Both include an elevated courtyard and both have found a way to maintain a connection to the street.
What I like about this approach is that it's simultaneously extroverted (there's a connection to the broader urban context) and introverted (residents get a semi-private amenity).
I think this duality can be particularly helpful when you're designing and developing in a context that maybe isn't the most conducive to intimate urban spaces. It allows you to create your own new ground plane, while not turning your back on the city.
Coincidentally, it also happens to be one of the design moves that Globizen put forward in a recent submission to Salt Lake City for the redevelopment of a full city block in the Granary District.
Photos from Brooks + Scarpa
Is this a true or false statement?
"It is through media, of course, that we primarily consume architecture.”
Witold Rybczynski recently spoke about this on his blog. Initially he thought it was a preposterous statement. But then he begrudgingly accepts that it is actually the case today. This in turn leads to an interesting distinction between what it means to experience architecture versus consume architecture.
The former takes more time. You have to do laborious things like actually be in the space, walk around it, and generally just experience what it's like to be there. Consuming, on the other hand, is much easier. Maybe it's as simple as an image in your social feed that you forward to a friend so that they can in turn respond with a single fire emoji. Cool. Consumption done.
Naturally this distinction translates into different ways of thinking about architecture. In the words of Witold, when you're a consumer of architecture, you want to be "amused, titillated, and entertained." You don't have time for subtleties -- things like tactile materials, historical references, light, and shadow. This is about consuming architecture.
Now, I'm not sure if Witold has given any thought to what web3 and a mixed-reality future will mean for architecture, but it's an obvious and interesting question. Intuitively, one would think that the more time we spend with digitally mediated experiences, the less time we will have to experience architecture the way nature intended it. Though maybe that's not the way to think about this.
I tend to be a bit more rosy about the current state of affairs and the future than Witold, but here are two points. One, consumption allows more people to interact with a piece of architecture. In fact, before writing this post I consumed Studio Gang's recently completed project in Hawaii. It was nice, and maybe one day I will also experience it. That, I agree, would be even nicer.
Two, architecture is always a product of the zeitgeist at the time. Part of its job is to reflect culture and, for better or for worse, speak to who we are as a society. And so if architecture has become effective at reflecting our current milieu, isn't it doing exactly what it is supposed to be doing?