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?

Slate Asset Management, RAD Marketing, and the top producing brokers for One Delisle were fortunate enough to be able to tour a Studio Gang-designed project in Amsterdam today called the Q Residences. A huge thanks to the developers — Kroonenberg Groep and Neoo — for their time and hospitality this afternoon.

Here are two photos of the exterior:

The building, which is a mixed-income rental apartment, is still under construction, and occupancy is expected sometime this fall. The structure is poured-in-place concrete, but the balconies were all pre-fabricated and installed on site. You can tell this by looking near the top of the above photo.

Here are a few other interesting takeaways from the tour:

- 40% of the complex is social housing (which is housed in an entirely separate but similarly impressive building); this is a mandatory requirement

- The land is owned by the city and is being leased to the developers; the lease rate was discounted to account for the social housing requirement

- The entire building uses in-floor heating and cooling, so there are no ducts or bulkheads in any of the suites (slabs are all about 300mm to accommodate this)

- The balconies all have a rainwater collection system, which is mounted and concealed on the exterior of the building (it rarely goes below freezing here I am told)

- The parking ratio for cars is very roughly about 0.5 per unit and the bicycle parking ratio is very roughly 3 per unit (remember this is the bicycle capital of the world)

- Structural system is mostly shear walls; they also have some post-tensioning in the slabs

- Less reliance on metal wall studs; instead they use a more expensive block-like system that offers more rigidity and better sound attenuation (I will look for the exact specification)

- There is also this odd/interesting requirement that all of the suites have an operable window that can provide both natural ventilation and sound attenuation; in other words, it needs to let air in and block sound at the same time

Here’s what that looks like at Q Residences:

We don’t have a requirement like this in Toronto and so that’s why I used the word odd. We have ventilation and sound requirements, but they don’t need to be solved simultaneously in this same way.

Why I also think this is interesting is because I think it speaks to a greater reliance on natural ventilation over active mechanical systems. In Toronto, the underlying thinking is that if it’s too hot and noisy, it’s just a matter of shutting your windows and turning on the AC.

Of course, we obviously we have to manage around a very different climate, so I don’t mean this as a criticism of Toronto codes. It’s just an observation.

If you aren’t familiar with the Q Residences, or the work of Neoo and Kroonenberg, I would encourage you to search around online. The project is gorgeous and so is the rest of their work.