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.

Tag: architecture

  • Architecture bike tour

    I am in New York right now and I spent the day riding around on a Citi Bike looking at architecture. Atop two wheels is such a fast way to get around.

    The first stop was the new transportation hub at the World Trade Center. Here’s a photo of the Oculus:

    The main station house (above) is absolutely breathtaking, but the exterior (in particular the entrances) felt a bit unresolved to me.

    Here’s a photo of 56 Leonard by Herzog & de Meuron:

    People call it the Jenga tower.

    And here’s a photo of a building on Broadway in Soho:

    Look at how the overhangs fold down and adjust the window dimensions so that it matches the building to the left. Bigger windows towards Broadway. Smaller windows as you move inward. I thought this was really neat.

    And now back to New York City. See you tomorrow.

  • Franchise starchitecture

    Back in 2014, Witold Rybczynski (who taught at Penn while I was there) wrote an article in The New York Times Style Magazine called The Franchising of Architecture. In it, he argued against the trend of “starchitecture.” 

    Here’s an excerpt:

    “Architecture, however, is a social art, rather than a personal one, a reflection of a society and its values rather than a medium of individual expression. So it’s a problem when the prevailing trend is one of franchises, particularly those of the globe-trotters: Renzo, Rem, Zaha and Frank. It’s exciting to bring high-powered architects in from outside. It flatters a city’s sense of self-importance, and fosters the perception of a place as a creative hotbed. But in the long run it’s wiser to nurture local talent; instead of starchitects, locatects.”

    Following this, James Russell (a longtime architecture critic) wrote a searing rebuttal called The Stupid Starchitect Debate. He called Witold’s story a piece of utter laziness and urged us to stop whining about celebrity architecture.

    Here’s an excerpt:

    “Celebrity architecture is not a franchise (McDonalds is a franchise), but branding. Branding is repellently ubiquitous, and it is pure romanticism to think architecture can escape a trend that so powerfully guides spending. A friend became a museum director in part because building a new building was part of the job. I thought he would bring up an energetic young local talent, but he ended up with an international big name because, he said, only the stars would bring in the donors. That’s sad, but emblematic of an era when private wealth builds the cultural facilities the public won’t pay for. That’s why celebrity architects are brands—a title none of them sought, though all are adept at exploiting. Even wealthy, sophisticated trustees like to bask in the glow of a name that’s got cachet, rather than look hard for someone with obvious talent but who is not well known.”

    This is a fascinating debate. And I would be curious to hear your thoughts in the comment section below.

    My own view is that, yes, it is wonderfully romantic to think that we can go back to a period of time when London architecture was designed only by English architects, Paris architecture designed only by French architects, and so on. But the world has changed. The genie is out of the bottle on that one.

    I also don’t think that brand needs to be a dirty word in the context of architecture. There’s value in brand equity. And everything can be construed as a brand. This blog is part of my personal brand. That’s our world.

    The problem I have with this line of thinking is when architecture gets reduced to style, to form, to a veneer. Architecture is an opportunity to solve problems and respond to real (including local) constraints. That also creates value – arguably much more value. And I don’t believe that only “locatects” have the ability to respond to that challenge.

    There’s so much more that can be said about this topic.

  • The Edge — The World’s Greenest Building

    When I was in grad school, I used to search around online and make lists of real estate developers that I felt were philosophically aligned with my own view of the world. I didn’t want to work for just any developer, I wanted one that cared about design, technology, sustainability, and so on.

    One of the developers on my list was OVG Real Estate in Amsterdam. They describe themselves as “the largest real estate technology company in The Netherlands” and they have recently completed The Edge, which is being called the greenest office building in the world. It received a 98.36% sustainability score from BREEAM-NL.

    The building uses 70% less electricity than the “typical office building” and uses solar panels on its rooftop, as well as on some neighboring university buildings, to produce more energy than it consumes. The building is also a great example of the Internet of Things. Anchor tenant Deloitte created its own mobile app so that employees can control lighting, climate, and so on.

    The building also has an on-site gym. I’m a big fan of mid-day workouts.

    There’s a lot going on with this building, so here’s a video from Bloomberg describing how it functions (click here if you can’t see it below):

    [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSzko-K7dzo?rel=0&w=560&h=315]

    Photos of the building here.

  • Building crap

    Last night I participated in an excellent dinner discussion with a group of planners, architects, city officials, and politicians from Amsterdam. They were visiting Toronto to see first hand what rapid intensification has done to this city. And I very much appreciated the invite. Thank you.

    My message was that intensification has created a far more vibrant and exciting city compared to 15 or so years ago. It’s hard to know what exactly could be correlated with intensification, but we have certainly seen an explosion of culture, innovation, and pride in this city – among many other things. (It could be all Drake’s doing.)

    However, the counter argument at the dinner table was that Toronto is letting unfettered development produce unremarkable architecture. We are simply building glass tower after glass tower. And I know that, for many of you, this will ring true. I hear it all the time, including in the comments of this blog.

    Now, I will be the first to admit that there has been a lot of shit built in this city. No argument there. Some people have no taste. But at the same time, I think it’s myopic to assume that it’s strictly because of profit-motivated developers. 

    Oftentimes the perception is that development projects are awash in cash. There’s tons of money in which to do the right thing. Developers just need to stop being so greedy and start being more creative.

    The reality is that developers operate within a market. There are real limits to what people will pay for new space. And when, for instance, land prices go through the roof (an input), municipal fees jump (cost of doing business), and approvals drag (time value of money), guess where everyone starts looking for savings? In the build.

    I say this not to justify building crap. If I had it my way, everything would be beautiful. I champion design whenever possible. I say it simply to shed light on the process. Because when we all understand the factors at a play, I believe we all become more effective at finding solutions.

  • Building the future

    Toronto-based heritage architect Michael McClelland recently published a piece in Spacing called: Misuse of Heritage Conservation Districts can deaden both past and future

    Here are a couple of snippets:

    The City of Toronto believes it has found a silver bullet to control development pressure in the downtown core through the use of a tool known as a “heritage conservation district” (HCD).

    The problem is that HCDs are meant to conserve intact and bone fide heritage areas, such as Wychwood Park, Rosedale, or Cabbagetown. They were never intended to control development downtown.

    In preparing for a HCD designation, consultants trained in history examine an area’s context and determine what is of value historically. They do not generally study the growth potential of an area, its future, nor any economic considerations, nor the larger planning policy framework, or even an evaluation of the built form generated by other market forces. HCDs look at heritage.

    The rigidity of the proposed new urban design controls introduced by the HCDs effectively prohibits innovative and thoughtful architecture in the downtown core.

    My own view is that it should be a balance between preservation and progress. We should respect our past, but at the same time look towards the future. Don’t fear change. Michael argues that HCDs achieve neither of those things. It’s worth a read.

    Speaking of the future, the CityAge conference is returning to Toronto on October 6 and 7. Their mission statement is about “building the future.” I was on one of their panels last year and it was an overall great event.

    If you’d like to attend, use the code “CITYAGE” to save $100. And if you’re a young professional (under 35) and/or a startup, email Marc Andrew to get an even sweeter deal. Tell him you’re a reader of this blog.

    Image: Photo by me taken at People’s Eatery on Spadina Avenue

  • $10,600 per square foot

    It was just announced that the full floor 8,255 square foot penthouse in the Rafael Viñoly-designed 432 Park Avenue (New York) has closed at a sale price of USD$87.7 million. That works out to be just over $10,600 per square foot.

    It was purchased by Fawaz Al Hokair and is currently the most expensive sale in the building. However, the most expensive sale, ever, in New York remains the penthouse of One57, according to Curbed. It was purchased for $100.5 million.

    Architecturally though, I much prefer 432 Park Avenue. I love its simplicity.

    Each floor plate is 812 square meters. But because of the building’s height (424 meters / 1,395 feet) it appears a lot smaller. The ratio of building width to building height is about 1:15.

    Because of this “slenderness ratio” the building is split up into 7 distinct volumes with a void between each. These voids – which are completely empty save for the building’s core – reduce wind loading and help with the building’s overall structural stability. (I’m sure it’s fine.)

    The structural system is the exposed concrete grid. This leaves the interior of the floors completely column-free. Every window within this grid is exactly 10 square meters. 

    Here’s a good interior example of that:

    On a none architectural note, the building also features a private restaurant. I am curious how a private restaurant can operate sustainably in a building with 100 and some apartments owned by many people who probably don’t spend all (or much?) of their time in New York. Perhaps it’s partially carried by the ~$2.10 per square foot monthly maintenance fee.

    Occupancy is available immediately if you happen to be in the market.

    Images: 432 Park Avenue

  • Weekend architecture roundup

    image

    Things have been far too serious around here this week with talk of interest rates, unrealized gains, flooding, and the EU referendum. So let’s change that and do a bit of an architecture roundup. It has been on my agenda for a few weeks now to move toward some sort of regular post about architecture and design.

    1.

    DUS architects of Amsterdam recently completed a fully 3D printed urban cabin (pictured above). It totals 8 square meters and was printed using “bio-plastic,” which means the entire structure could be shredded and reprinted into something else. The Urban Cabin is a research experiment, but the thinking is that 3D printed homes could serve as an “on-demand housing solution” in rapidly urbanizing cities, in disaster areas, and so on. That said, the niche use case can quickly become the mainstream use case.

    2.

    REX has just released their design for a Performing Arts Center on the World Trade Center site. The design is a minimalist “mystery box” that provides an infinitely customizable interior canvas for directors. I have long been interested in the work of REX because of the hyper-rationale approach they quite often bring to architecture. It’s about allowing architecture to emerge from the project’s constraints, programmatic requirements, and so on. Here’s a video of the project.

    3.

    Finally, this Swiss chalet (not the restuarant) in the town of Anzère has got me pretty excited about the upcoming snowboard season. It was designed by the Amsterdam-based firm SeARCH. And I love the dichotomy between the raw exposed concrete and the softer wood details. Also note how the garage, situated beneath the house, is built into the mountain. It is connected to the house above via an elevator that is also carved into the mountain. Sadly, my ski retreats don’t typically involve James Bond-style lairs.

    Image: Copyright Ossip

  • BARED: David Wex, Urban Capital Property Group

    image

    David Wex started his career working for one of the big Seven Sister law firms in Toronto. But right from the outset, it was clear that he wasn’t in it for the long run.

    In fact, only a few days after he started, David had the clever idea of turning his desk around so that it faced the window, instead of the hall. That way, he could avoid eye contact with partners as they walked by his office, and reduce his chances of being assigned a file.

    Of course he couldn’t avoid being tracked down all the time. But whenever someone would try to assign him work, he would simply say: “I’m sorry, but I’m really busy working on something right now.” His nickname quickly became “One File Wex” and it was clear that he was headed towards the departure lounge and not a corner office.

    But already, David had his mind set on doing something related to cities. So while still working as a lawyer he decided to complete his Graduate Record Examination (GRE) in preparation for going to planning school. Ultimately, he decided not to go back to school, but instead leave the firm and just figure things out. He left in 1992.

    After leaving, he did in his words, “nothing” for a few years. He lived off his savings, spent some time working with a bunch of guys cleaning up the Don River, and tried to figure out a way to put together a development project.

    Eventually he met a friend of the Goodman family and this led to an introduction to the Dundee Corporation.

    It was the early 90’s and nothing was happening by way of development in Toronto. The real estate industry was in a deep recession. Ask anyone who was “active” during this time. It was a painful time to be in the business. But the Goodmans told David that he if could find a suitable site to develop, they would invest. Lesson: Developers are constantly leveraging other people’s money.

    So David went out and found a site on a sleepy street named Camden in Toronto’s Fashion District. This is not the Camden Street of today, which has an Ace Hotel currently in the works. It was a dead zone. By this point we are in 1995 and few people believed that anyone would want to live on a downtown street like Camden.

    Given the perceived undesirability of the site and the continued lull in the market, David tied up 29 Camden for C$700,000 with a 2 year option. What this means is that he had 2 years to figure out if he actually wanted to close on it. He could put very little money down and get the project going before having to worry about carrying the land. It wasn’t until midway through sales that he actually went firm.

    It’s hard to imagine being able to do this in today’s competitive real estate market, but that was the market at the time.

    Of course, the flip side to all of this is that it also took him 2 years to sell about 20 condominium units (out of a total of 55), at an average price per square foot of $195. Today you could sell those units in 2 hours at $800 psf.

    Brad Lamb – who was just starting out at the time – was the broker on the project. And activity at the sales office was so scant that everyone would get excited even when a car would drive down Camden Street. That’s how dead it was in the Fashion District.

    Eventually Dundee got impatient. Sales were slow. A lot of money had been spent on marketing. And the partners didn’t believe that “the bump and grind of Queen Street” (original marketing pitch) was the right way to position the product. David was also in the midst of rebranding his company from Red Rocket (named after our transit commission) to Scrappy Dog Real Estate Investments. By that point Dundee came in and said: “You’ve fucked up this project. You’re out.”

    David had felt like he had made it and become a developer with Camden Lofts. But just like that – before construction had even started – he was off the project.

    The deal that David struck with his partners was that he didn’t want any money out of the project (it didn’t end up making much money anyways). But he wanted to stay involved and be able to call Camden Lofts his project. And so to this day, Camden Lofts remains the first development project of his very successful real estate career.

    But Camden Lofts didn’t solidify David as a real estate developer. After the fumble, David took on the role of managing a loft conversion for what turned out to be some pretty dodgy landowners. The total management fee was a princely $5,000, but David wanted to complete his own project from beginning to end. And so he did just that with Century Lofts at 365 Dundas Street East. He also spent a great deal of time learning Illustrator, Photoshop, and other design tools so that he could do all of the marketing himself. This is an experience that would later manifest itself in his company’s business model.

    After tuning his craft for a couple of years, David met his current business partner, Mark Reeve. Mark was a corporate real estate developer and planner, and they talked about doing something together. So they did, and the result was Urban Capital Property Group. Mark was also able to planning consult on the side and that helped fund their fledgling business as they worked on breaking into the development game.

    The first project to come out of this relationship was The Sylvia, which was also on Camden Street (#50). However, you won’t find this project on their website because it was done in partnership with developer Intracorp. The relationship ended up not being a productive one and both David and Mark vowed never again to be involved in a project that they weren’t actively managing themselves. That vow continues to this day.

    The first project that Urban Capital did on their own was the 66-unit Charlotte Lofts. It’s the first project they completed from A to Z. They sourced the site, secured the financing, worked on the design, marketed it, and constructed it. It was a success.

    The partners did well but the learning curve remained so steep that neither felt that they had really “made it” with this project. Indeed, my interviews have uncovered that this is a common experience amongst new developers. It can take a few projects before they really hit their stride and, in some cases, even make any money.

    But who ever remembers the stumbles?

    Today, Urban Capital has completed over 4,000 urban condominiums and has another 2,500 in the works. They have developed over $2 billion worth of real estate to become one of Canada’s most influential urban infill developers.

    Unlike other Toronto-based condo developers, they have branched out beyond Toronto: east to Montreal, Ottawa and Halifax; and west to Winnipeg and Saskatoon, with other cities on the horizon. Their mission is to act as an urban regenerator by bringing high design urban living to new markets across the country.

    They have come a long way since the days of Scrappy Dog Real Estate Investments. Clearly David is the furthest thing from “One File Wex.”

    You can follow Urban Capital on Twitter and on Facebook.

    Image: River City 2, Toronto

    ———————————————————

    This is the first post in my new blog series called BARED (Becoming A Real Estate Developer). More posts to come in the following weeks. Subscribe to stay in the loop.

  • 3 thoughts from Rem Koolhaas

    Earlier this year, architect Rem Koolhaas of OMA spoke with Mohsen Mostafavi (dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Design) to close out the 2016 AIA convention

    I still remember my first architectural theory class where the professor told us all that Koolhaas was the most important living architect of our time. And today, if you think about all of the stars that have grown out from his firm – such as Bjarke Ingels and Joshua Prince-Ramus – it is certainly a defensible argument.

    Koolhaas is generally very critical of globalization and the market economy when it comes to creating good architecture. His view is that “pure profit motives” are leading to cities that are basically not designed.

    This is a fairly common belief within architectural circles, which is why many celebrated names would rather work on a museum over a residential condo project. The latter is too motivated by profit. It’s not architecturally interesting.

    I, on the other hand, have always believed in working within the confines of the market to try and promote great architecture and city building. I’m not saying that the market is perfect, but profitability is a constraint that every industry deals with. Architecture is no exception.

    That said, there are other things that I agree with Koolhaas on. Below are 3 verbatim highlights taken from a Fast Company article summarizing his talk with Mostafavi: 

    Communication needs an overhaul.

    “Architecture has a serious problem today in that people who are not alike don’t communicate. I’m actually more interested in communicating with people I disagree with than people I agree with.”

    "To have a certain virtuosity of interpretation of every phenomenon is crucial. We’re working in a world where so many different cultures are operating at the same time, each with their own value system. If you want to be relevant, you need to be open to an enormous multiplicity of values, interpretations, and readings. The old-fashioned Western ‘this is’ ‘that is’ is no longer tenable. We need to be intellectual and rigorous, but at the same time relativist.”

    Architecture’s greatest value in the future might not even be architecture.

    “Architecture and the language of architecture—platform, blueprint, structure—became almost the preferred language for indicating a lot of phenomenon that we’re facing from Silicon Valley. They took over our metaphors, and it made me think that regardless of our speed, which is too slow for Silicon Valley, we can perhaps think of the modern world maybe not always in the form of buildings but in the form of knowledge or organization and structure and society that we can offer and provide.”

    Preservation is a path forward.

    "We’ve tried to discover domains and areas in architecture which are not a simple vulgar multiplication of uninspired global projects. Recently, we have looked at preservation. The beautiful thing about preservation is you begin with something that already exists and therefore is already local. By definition, a preservation project is an homage to earlier cultures and mentalities to which you can add a new dimension, a new function, a new beauty or appeal. Almost every impulse signals that globalization needs rethinking or adjustment.”

  • For the love of compactness

    I’m in Provincetown, Cape Cod right now. One of the things that is great about this town is the scale of it. It’s compact and many of the streets feel like laneways or alleys (I’m obsessed, I know). It’s all about pedestrians here. Even the main drag, Commercial Street, is effectively a pedestrian street – though it’s not technically closed to cars most of the time.

    There’s something liberating about being able to get where you need to go by walking or biking or skateboarding. And all of those things are done here. I enjoy the inherent efficiency that compactness brings. That’s why I was excited to learn this morning about the following proposal at 24 Mercer Street in Toronto (via Urban Toronto):

    image

    It’s a 12 unit, 17 storey building on a 195 square metre lot. The proposed FSI is 16.8. And it will have zero parking. I would be incredibly curious to know what the construction costs will be and how the overall project pencils out. But regardless, it’s exciting to see someone trying to make use of such a tight site. I would love to see more of this in Toronto and I am certain we will.

    What do you think about projects like this? Some of you may call this “poor planning,” but I see the efficient use of resources.