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

  • Climate lessons from 16th century England

    We don’t like coal today, but it certainly transformed Victorian-era architecture:

    “It is the biggest transition in the history of our species, with the possible exception of starting to use fire at all in the first place,” says Barnabas Calder, author of the groundbreaking study “Architecture: From Prehistory to Climate Emergency.” Fireplaces had to be redesigned for coal, smaller, and more efficient, and could now be distributed throughout the house, warming a sequence of smaller rooms that contained heat more efficiently. Brick, which also requires substantial amounts of energy to produce, became affordable. And glass, too, was accessible to ordinary people. “Coal affects the way you can achieve comfort conditions in a building, and it is a very affordable way of producing a significant amount of warmth, which allows for bigger windows. Even more significant is that it opens up a series of new building materials.”

    But as new technologies transformed how we thought about it architecture, they also transformed how we thought about climate. Buildings used to have to be carefully “tuned” to their local environment. You had to think about where the sun was coming in, how you were going to trap it during the winter months, and how you were going to release it during the summer months, among many other things.

    Eventually though, this stopped mattering.

    We had building systems that could take care of these matters, which then meant that we were free to aspire to build the exact same architecture in Phoenix as in London. But we now know that that this doesn’t make much sense. And this recent architectural tour from the Washington Post, which starts in 16th century England, is a good reminder that the lessons learned many centuries ago are in fact still relevant today.

    Maybe even more so.

  • Consuming architecture

    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?

  • Lobbies as pseudo-public spaces

    This is a good idea (taken from a recent FT article by Edwin Heathcote):

    The hotel lobby is already understood as a kind of public space, the corporate lobby should belong to that same world, a place open to the functions of the city, porous and welcoming. It is no accident that the vast lobbying industry has that name, lobbies are where encounters occur.

    Sometimes we do this. Maybe there’s a coffee shop or some other activations in your lobby. But more often than not, a “good” corporate lobby is about grandeur and security, which means that they do very little to animate the street.

    In the above article, Edwin reminds us that before the invention of the modern office building, the entire city functioned as a kind of dispersed workplace. Places like coffee shops and pubs were, of course, central to this.

    While this is still partially the case today — people continue to like coffee and beer — it is interesting to think about what more we could be asking of our office lobbies. And I do think it is more.

  • Weekend walking tour

    I had a friend — who I know from architecture school — visiting from Detroit for the weekend, so we did a little building tour on Sunday morning.

    This is the elevated (and half-finished) CIBC Square Park that spans over the rail lines leading into Union Station. The benches are beautiful. On the right side of the second photo are also fire pits that are in the process of being setup.

    This is us nerding out (photo credit to Neat B).

    And this is the view looking down Bay Street from the stairs that lead up to the park. We tried to snoop around inside a little but a security guard asked us to leave.

    This is T3 Bayside — a new timber office building going up on the waterfront. Apparently it is the tallest of its kind in North America at the moment. I am also embarrassed to say that I just learned that T3 stands for timber, transit, and technology, and that it is part of a broader office development strategy that Hines is rolling out.

    This is Tridel’s Aquavista. I’m looking forward to the ground floor spaces getting leased up in this area. All of the ingredients seem to be here for a vibrant waterfront community.

    This is the next Aqua-something project. We all assumed that there must be strict umbrella rules in place.

    This is Monde by Moshe Safdie & BDP Quadrangle (architects) and Great Gulf (developer). It kind of reminds me of 56 Leonard Street (New York) from this elevation. I guess I’m not used to seeing it from the south side.

    Finally, this is Sherbourne Common, which is both a park and an important piece of stormwater infrastructure. It treats stormwater before it gets discharged into Lake Ontario and it also helps to reduce poop from flowing into Lake Ontario as a result of combined sewer overflows.

    It’s fun being a tourist in your own city. We should all do it more often. It makes you appreciate what you have.

  • Which is the most important when it comes to new housing?

    If you can’t see the Twitter poll below, click here:

    At the time of writing this post, affordability was number one, followed by design and beauty, and then sustainability.

    Some of you were right to point out that these options are not always mutually exclusive. Affordability and sustainability, for instance, can be mutually reinforcing.

    Building in walkable and transit-rich neighborhoods where parking is not needed is both good for overall affordability (parking is usually a loss leader) and better for the environment.

    But in other cases, sustainability costs more. Triple-glazed windows might perform better than conventional double-glazed, but they’re also more expensive.

    Now, as a general rule, I believe in working hard to find the mutually reinforcing opportunities. How can we check all of the boxes and not have to compromise?

    But sometimes there’s no other option. So it is interesting to see how people answer the above question. Not surprisingly, affordability is top of mind.

    Which would you pick?

  • Frank Lloyd Wright hated tall people

    I have been in a few of Frank Lloyd Wright’s houses and in every case it turned out like this:

    The Prairie School (of architecture), for which Wright was a pioneer, was all about horizontality. That typically meant flat roofs, deep overhangs and, in the case of Wright’s work, exceptionally low ceiling heights.

    I’m about 6’3”. Many of his clear heights were less than 7’ and I believe his doorways were often 6’2”. This clearly doesn’t work for me, but it mattered for what Wright was trying to do. And I don’t think he was the type to worry about small matters like the comfort of tall people.

    The above photos were taken at Taliesin West in Scottsdale, Arizona. Wright bought the land (495 acres) in 1937, and turned it into both his winter home and a teaching studio.

    Apparently Wright paid $3.50 per acre at the time, which feels like a pretty good deal to me. It shows you the power of just buying and holding things over long periods of time.

    Today, Taliesin West is the home base of Wright’s foundation and also a UNESCO World Heritage Site. I’m glad I was able to finally visit it after reading about it for so many years in architecture school.

  • Project Profile: Social housing in Vienna by trans_city architecture

    I stumbled upon this multi-unit housing project in Vienna because I thought it looked beautiful and I started thinking about the solid wall-to-window ratio on its facades. But it turns out that this project is far more than just a pretty face.

    It’s actually a social housing project on the outskirts of Vienna, where the city transitions into the countryside. And it incorporates a number of interesting design features:

    • The complex is heated using groundwater heat pumps (geothermal) and domestic hot water is provided with the help of rooftop solar panels.
    • The structural system consists of concrete slabs and columns (no shear walls) and was all poured in place. But the envelope consists of “prefabricated thermo-brick walls” which were craned into place (see below image). The curving balconies also look to be prefabricated elements.
    • The suites have been designed with a saw tooth pattern and the circulation mirrors this through a zig zagging pattern. The result is units that are akin to what you will find at King Toronto (Bjarke Ingels), though on average the suites here look to be bigger than what we typically design in Toronto.
    • The zig zagging corridors also incorporate skylights that let light down into the middle of the building. I think these run through multiple floors as well, and not just through the top floor of the building.

    This certainly looks like a nice place to live.

    Sources: Architecture by trans_city (Christian Aulinger, Mark Gilbert). Photography by Daniel Hawelka and David Schreyer. Both via ArchDaily.

  • Sustainable living means living in a city

    The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has just published its latest climate change report. Available here. As a follow-up to this report, Dezeen spoke with Hélène Chartier of the sustainable urbanism network C40 Cities. And she makes some very good points about the importance of cities in combatting climate change.

    In fact, she goes so far as to say that sustainable living is only really possible, at scale, in cities. Because to live a more sustainable lifestyle, you need the right kind of infrastructure in place. And to have the right kind of infrastructure in place, you need density.

    This crucial point is often forgotten (though never on this blog). If you are truly concerned about climate change, then you should be for urban density. And if you are out there fighting against urban density, then your actions are undermining this global imperative.

    Chartier rightly points out that “architects have a huge responsibility” when it comes to addressing climate change. And this is entirely true. Their job is the built environment. But with all due respect to architects, the problems that need solving are ultimately much broader. Architects can only do so much if they’re hamstrung by dumb land use policies and angry neighbors, among other things.

    This needs to be a coordinated effort. We all have a huge responsibility.

    Photo by Kaspars Upmanis on Unsplash

  • Good design is about caring

    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.

  • Do, and then theorize

    Architecture school has a way of indoctrinating you with an appreciation for the past. One of the ways that is done is through architecture history and theory classes.

    In my case, I was taught to appreciate the work of Le Corbusier, Mies van der Rohe, Louis Kahn, Adolf Loos, and many other influential architects from the 20th century.

    It was okay to disagree with their ideas, but you at least had to learn about all of the important stuff that they had done and/or thought about. It’s a standing on the shoulders of giants kind of thing.

    But as Witold Rybczynski argues in this recent post, it’s important to keep in mind that history and theories are written after the fact:

    “Some buildings are, in a sense, experiments, and when something works, and is taken up by others, it eventually becomes a rule of thumb, perhaps even a theory.”

    For me, this is yet another reminder that the world moves forward as a result of doing, creating, and making new things happen.

    Sometimes you’ll get it wrong and do the wrong things. But sometimes you’ll do something wonderful that nobody else has thought of before.

    And when then happens, the world will have moved forward such that it’s then possible to look back at what happened and make sense of it all.

    As Witold puts it, “first you build a flying machine, and later you discover the aerodynamic theory that supports flight.”