Is it the architect? The developer? Or perhaps the city? The correct answer, it would seem, is whoever has the most followers on social media:

For the Norwegian branch of the social media movement Architectural Uprising, this revision was another feather in its cap. Founded in Sweden in 2014 as a public Facebook group, the Uprising is a collective of citizen design critics who object to what organizers call the “continued uglification” of developments in Nordic cities, and push for a return to classically informed design. With more than 100,000 social media followers across some 40 different branches, the group now serves as a significant platform for those who assert that the public, not just bureaucrats, architects, developers and property owners, ought to have a voice in the design of their built environments.

As a developer and person who studied architecture, I find this frustrating. Imagine you're a painter working in a busy public square. And every time somebody walks by and shouts a new criticism, you need to change your art. How would you feel about your work?

Now assume that your painting is an expensive commission. Your clients just re-mortgaged their home to pay for it and they specifically asked you for a painting that looks like something from Henri Matisse's "Blue Nudes" collection.

Unfortunately, the crowd in the public square wasn't a fan of the color blue or of abstract figures, and so you've instead rendered dozens of well-fed Renaissance figures sitting in a lively garden eating grapes. "Sorry, hope you like it. This is what the critics wanted."

Look, I may be stretching here. I fully appreciate that architecture is inherently a more public form of art than painting. I just think it's important to give entrepreneurs, artists, and other creatives the freedom to experiment.

If we force everyone to look toward the past, how will the misfits ever create the future?

P.S. I have no issue with voting on publicly-funded architecture. I actually think that's a good idea.

You can tell a lot about a place by the quality of its public toilets. I don't know about you, but if I'm at a restaurant and the toilets are filthy, I automatically assume that the kitchen is at least as filthy.

And so what does it say about Japan that it decided to hire the country's leading architects to design 17 new public toilets in Tokyo?

I first wrote about "The Tokyo Toilet" back in the summer of 2021. But now that the majority of them have been constructed, I figured it was time to revisit the project.

The two toilets designed by Shigeru Ban are particularly noteworthy in that they are clear glass boxes that become automatically opaque when in use. This was done so you can see if there's anyone lurking inside.

I also love this one by Kazoo Sato.

But of course, all of them are remarkable and all of them are probably better than the general level of public architecture that you'll find in most other cities.

I was in a “design charrette” meeting earlier today where the topic of good architecture and why some cities do better than others came up. It got me thinking about my recent post about the quality of Canadian architecture and so I’d like to revisit that discussion today. The Walrus article that I previously cited focused a lot on uninspiring public architecture and the procurement processes that generate them behind the scenes. But here are a few other things to consider.

1/ Design guidelines and planning policies have an impact on our built environment in more ways than most people probably appreciate. For example, there are design moves in some of our projects that I really dislike. But we were given no choice. In fact, in one instance I remember us advocating for less area/density (shocking for a developer) because we thought it made for better architecture. We ultimately capitulated, and the additional area was certainly a nice to have, but it wasn’t our opening position.

2/ Nice stuff does often cost more money. There is no question that a project like One Delisle is more expensive to construct compared to a “typical” building. However, we made the decision to invest in high quality architecture and we built our pro forma around this approach. In this regard, it is helpful to be in bigger and more expensive cities/submarkets so that you can generate the kind of revenues that will support high-quality architecture.

3/ At the same time, there is no reason that thoughtful design needs to cost more. Good design is simply about being creative, responding to constraints, and, frankly, just giving a shit about what you’re doing. You want to see that somebody cared. So while nice things and elegant details do often cost more money, we shouldn’t use this as a crutch. The same is true for climate. Colder climates shouldn’t be considered handicapped. Creativity and thoughtfulness can thrive anywhere. We just have to give them the opportunity.