Brandon Donnelly

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.

Subscribe

Tag: architecture and design

  • Who should decide what new buildings look like?

    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.

  • The Local Project

    Regular readers of this blog will know that I am huge fan of the YouTube channel Never Too Small. I have seen most of their episodes and I like to tell people about it even when it is only remotely related to the conversation at hand.

    I love the urbanity of it all. There is just something so satisfying about turning constrained spaces into homes that are both beautiful and functional. It also makes you question how much space you really need.

    But if constraints aren’t your thing, and you’d like to see a wider variety of homes, another great channel to check out is The Local Project. The homes — which are all in Australia and New Zealand — are equally as beautiful, but tend to be more, uh, extensive. See above video.

    What are some other channels worth checking out? It seems to me like Canada needs something similar to The Local Project. Maybe it already exists.

  • Is Canadian architecture bad?

    Tracey Lindeman over at the Walrus recently asked: Why is Canadian architecture so bad? Is it because Canadians are too passive and apathetic when it comes to good design? Or is it because we’re too cheap and don’t like our tax dollars being spent on unnecessarily lavish public buildings?

    Whatever the case, there is an argument out there that we maybe had this wonderful period between the 50s and 70s where we really excelled in modern architecture and design (including graphic design), but that we kind of stopped caring and have built mostly banal stuff since then.

    Part of Tracey’s argument is simply that we’re cowards. We’re more interested in “checking boxes instead of taking chances.” We’ve become too bureaucratic when it comes to procuring new public architecture. And she’s not wrong.

    Why we accept it is a patently Canadian phenomenon: our national psyche has us much more interested in checking boxes than in taking chances. Our standard process for contracting buildings often gives projects to the lowest bidders, even if a vastly more beautiful design is just a little bit more expensive. We have become so devoted to frugality and bureaucracy, and are so readily appeased by basic functionality, that we have lost the fortitude to take and demand risks, even if the outcome could be the most beautiful thing we’ve ever seen.

    Great architecture requires not only great architects, but also great patrons of architecture. That has generally been the way all throughout history. But here’s the fortunate thing. We have lots of wonderfully talented architects in this country and lots of people who see the value in architecture.

    In fact, I think you could argue that over the last 5-10 years we have seen the quality of architecture in our cities step up dramatically. Some of these projects have been designed by top Canadian architects and some have been designed by leading international architects.

    In both cases it’s because we see the value proposition and have decided to invest in architecture and design. Now we just need to be bolder across the board and get bureaucracy and checkboxes out of the way of Canadian creativity.

  • We are hiring for the Development team

    Slate Asset Management is hiring.

    We are looking to hire an Associate or Director to join the Development team here in our Toronto office. The full set of responsibilities can be found over here on LinkedIn, but at a high level, we are looking for someone who wants to join an entrepreneurial team and lead — fairly independently — a portfolio of urban infill projects.

    Our approach to development really stems from the broader Slate platform. We are bold and thematic investors who work to create long-term value for our investors and partners. From a development perspective, that translates into an unwavering commitment to design & culture, innovation, and disciplined project execution.

    We pride ourselves on working alongside the world’s best architects and designers, and uncovering opportunities that others may be overlooking. We are proactive and hands-on in everything that we do. We also feel an inherent sense of responsibility for the buildings that we create and we want the work that we do to help improve our cities. We stand behind our product.

    If this sounds like a mission that you can get behind, then I would encourage you to learn more about us at slateam.com and submit an application via LinkedIn. Please note that we are also asking candidates to introduce themselves through a short video.

  • Design makes everything better — architecture as product

    https://dmeb.castos.com/episodes/interview-with-david-wex

    My friend David Wex of Urban Capital Property Group — who I featured in my “BARED” blog series back in 2016 — was recently interviewed by architect Vincent Van den Brink (of Breakhouse) for the firm’s podcast called, Design Makes Everything Better. It’s a great listen and I particularly like the bit around branded vs. opportunistic real estate development. In the case of Urban Capital, David would describe his firm as being a branded developer. They build a specific product and it doesn’t really change when they build across Toronto and in other markets. Expect exposed concrete ceilings and exposed ducts, among other things. If you can’t see the embedded podcast above, you can have a listen over here.

  • Project Profile: Side Gallery Barcelona

    Side Gallery opened up a new 700 square meter exhibition space in Barcelona last month that is worth showcasing. It’s a beautiful space. Designed by Spanish architect Guillermo Santomà, the space sits within an old 19th century factory that used to house an Italian pasta company. It’s minimal and stark white, but the architecture of the former factory still comes through. There’s also a prominent greenhouse featuring flora that is local to South America. Fitting given that the gallery focuses on Latin American design. Have a look.

    I also love these images from the architect, which (I think) use light to completely transform the space.

    All photos via Side Gallery and Guillermo Santomà

  • Form follows what?

    Late 19th century and early 20th century architecture and industrial design is known for the axiom, “form follows function.” I think of the German Bauhaus School when I hear this, but supposedly it can be attributed to American architect Louis Sullivan. Either way, it was meant to represent a functionalist approach to architecture and design, which was, as is often the case, a reaction to what had come before it.

    It was Modernist architects eschewing decorative elements or what was referred to at the time as “ornament.” If it didn’t serve a functional purpose, it was to be removed. Nothing was to be superfluous. And similarly, if the function of something didn’t change, there was no need to change its form.

    Of course, if it was truly all about function, one could argue that there should have been a great deal of variation in the resulting forms. But instead, the designs that emerged out of schools, such as the Bauhaus, are some of the most recognizable in the world. That is true even to this day.

    Which is why I think this is a great line from Witold Rybczynski (taken from a recent post about the book iBauhaus): “It is also a quintessentially Bauhaus example of form follows predetermined aesthetics rather than form follows function.” Ouch. The difference here is that Witold obviously isn’t a fan of the Bauhaus or of Modernism, whereas this period of time is what inspired me the most as a student of architecture.

    Photo by Marina Reich on Unsplash

  • Superkül wins Designer of the Year for 2020

    Designlines Magazine is out with its annual “Designer of the Year” issue and this year’s winner for best overall designer is Superkül — the award-winning architecture firm behind Junction House. Pictured above are Andrea D’Elia, Meg Graham and the team. (The JH project team spends a lot of time in the boardroom that you see in this picture.)

    Other winners for this year include Omar Gandhi, Paolo Ferrari, and LGA Architectural Partners. They were awarded best restaurant, best product, and best public space, respectively. If you aren’t familiar with the work of these four firms, I would encourage you to check them all out. They are truly some of the best in the city. Congrats everyone.

    If you’d like to buy a copy of Designlines, you can do that here. We will also make copies available at our temporary Junction House showroom, which is located at 2843 Dundas St W.

  • Architect I.M. Pei dies at 102

    Architect I.M. Pei died this week in New York City. He was 102. Being a centenarian is noteworthy enough. He was born in Hong Kong in 1917. I would love to join that club. Imagine how much change he experienced throughout his life. But, of course, Pei was also a celebrated Pritzker Prize winning architect.

    For those of you in Toronto, you can look to Commerce Court West to see an example of his work (Page & Steele was the local architect). Completed in 1972, it was the tallest building in Canada until 1976. But perhaps his most well known project is the Louvre Pyramid in Paris (pictured above).

    In reading some of his obituaries, I was intrigued — but in no way surprised — to learn that the Louvre Pyramid was deeply hated by Parisians at the time it was being proposed and built. Supposedly, for the first few years after completion, Pei couldn’t walk the streets of Paris without people berating him.

    However, if you surveyed Parisians today, I would bet you that the approval rating of the Pyramid would be extremely high. And I would also argue that it has since become one of Paris’ most globally recognizable symbols. (Parisians, please weigh in below in the comments.)

    All of this, once again, suggests to me that we’re often not very good at evaluating the merits of things that are new to us. Pei’s Pyramid, beyond being a new circulation strategy for the broader complex, was a radically different style of architecture.

    Appreciating that sometimes requires a bit of time.

    Photo by Uriel Soberanes on Unsplash

  • City building reading list (and an event)

    Today’s post is going to be about a handful of things that have caught my attention.

    – Gary Hack, who is the former dean of the University of Pennsylvania School of Design, recently published a book called Site Planning: International Practice. It is a textbookish guide to planning processes, new technologies, and sustainability, with an emphasis on rapidly urbanizing countries. Thank you to my friend Michael Geller for bringing this to my attention.

    – Sidewalk Labs Toronto is opening a new experimental workspace here in Toronto at 307 Lake Shore Boulevard East (Queens Quay & Parliament) on Saturday, June 16th from 12 – 6pm. It’s an old fish processing plant that they have turned into their office. The team will work there during the week and on the weekends they will open to the public to showcase what they’re up to. Register for the June 16th event, here. I just did.

    – Alexandra Lange has a recent piece in the New Yorker called, The Hidden Women of Architecture and Design. It’s about the important role that women have played in the “design of childhood”, which is the title of a book by Lange. There’s also a short but interesting story about Detroit’s Lafayette Park (Mies van der Rohe) at the beginning of the article.

    – Finally, here is a blog post by Witold Rybczynski where he talks about the shortcomings of architectural education. Obscure theories. Technical or made-up jargon. And no concern for budgets and schedules. I have always shared a similar view and have long felt that there needs to be more business school in architecture school.

    Hopefully there’s something in here that is of interest to you.