Tag: architecture

• Should we go backward to go forward?

  Robert A.M Stern–who is a fairly traditional architect (stylistically) and Dean of the Yale School of Architecture–recently coauthored a book called “Paradise Planned: The Garden Suburb and the Modern City.” It’s over 1,000 pages. I haven’t read it yet and I likely won’t, but I did just read this op-ed piece in the New York Times by Allison Arieff and I wanted to comment.

  In the book, the authors argue that the solution to our suburban problems is to return to a “tragically interrupted, 150-year-old tradition” known within urban planning and architectural circles as the Garden City movement. Here’s how Arieff describes it:

  The garden suburb is — because it still exists in many places — a planned, self-contained village located usually outside a major city. Ideally, it features a variety of housing types, though by variety, we’re talking single-family homes and a few low-rise multifamily buildings.

  In contrast to the suburbs we’ve come to be most familiar with, these featured homes are situated in a comfortably dense, highly walkable environment designed around a public center or square.

  But in addition to being more dense and walkable, the big difference for me is that the garden city (to use the original terminology) was initially intended to be self sufficient economically–rather than just serve as a bedroom community for the central city.

  

  It was all incredibly rational. As one garden city reached its population and employment projections, the next garden city node would be created and connected to the network via road and rail. And by using land relatively intensely, it meant that more of the countryside could be preserved as undeveloped land.

  But while I would agree that the suburbs aren’t going to go away (I’ve said this before) and that we should be making them more dense and walkable, the book (well, the article) got me wondering to what extent the Garden City model applies from an economic standpoint. Should we be trying to create poly-centric cities with tidy little self-sufficient pockets of employment? Or should everything primarily feed a central city?

  The irony of the decentralized information economy is that it appears to be encouraging centralization across and within cities. But even before the rise of the internet and other technologies, there have always been real economic benefits to firms clustering in cities. Known as agglomeration economies, it’s one of the reasons cities even exist in the first place.

  Certainly, there’s a lot we can learn from the way we used to build and plan our cities and towns (they were designed around people as opposed to cars). But something doesn’t sit right with me in terms of the way the Garden City movement thinks about cities, economically. It seems idealistic.

  2014.04.19

• Culture in our society and economy

  Last week I was reading the blog of James S. Russell, who used to be the architecture critic for Bloomberg News. He’s no longer the architecture critic, because Bloomberg got rid of his column:

  My column, along with almost all cultural coverage, was eliminated at Bloomberg late last year in favor of a yet-to-be completed revamping that focuses on luxury and lifestyle. 

  Obviously, the decision saddens me personally, but it’s also a regrettably powerful signal that culture doesn’t matter in our society and economy.

  As someone who spent a great deal of time studying art, architecture and design, his post really resonated with me. This is a depressing thought. It may be hard to measure the ROI of the arts, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a return.

  Ironically, Bloomberg–the former mayor of New York–understood this:

  As Mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, the company’s founder, championed arts as valuable to the vibrancy of the city and as a powerful force for economic development. The city has seen unprecedented growth in arts facilities, thanks both to his administration’s efforts and his personal philanthropy. His post-mayoral activities are intended to nurture cities as fields of wealth creation by helping them become cauldrons of innovation, which he recognizes is entwined with vibrant cultural and lifestyle trends.

  That sounds about right.

  2014.04.06

• Can the creation of urban destinations transform or hinder a city’s development?

  I was recently asked by a Canadian architecture website called sixty7 Architecture Road to respond to the following: Can the creation of urban destinations transform or hinder a city’s development? It was for a regular Q+A series they do on their website. Here is my response (I was specifically asked about Dundas Square):

  The best line I’ve ever heard about public spaces and urban destinations was from Bruce Kuwabara of KPMB Architects. He said that the outside of buildings need to be thought of as the inside walls of the public realm. And I think that’s a really great way of framing this discussion. We often think of buildings inwardly and as self contained objects, but by virtue of their existence we’re creating and framing many other spaces.

  With that in mind, I absolutely believe that beautiful and well designed urban destinations–whether public or private–can transform a city and its development patterns. A perfect, but perhaps overused, example of this is the High Line in New York. Not only has it become a destination (“Have you been to the High Line yet?”), it has become an unbelievable city building catalyst. All of a sudden development is happening in, on and around the High Line, where as before developers would have tried to completely ignore it. And so today, the High Line, as an urban destination, is almost being continually reinvented by new development.

  To talk specifically about Toronto, I think that downtown needed a “public” space like Dundas Square. The design could have been less unidirectional (towards the Eaton Centre) and the building to the north is repulsive, but it provided a forum along Toronto’s main street in the heart of downtown. I also believe that good urban destinations give areas a sense of identity, which is why I’m somewhat bothered by the loss of the square at Yonge & Eglinton. Sure it was bad, but we could have made it better. It is the heart of midtown in my mind.

  So not only do urban destinations have the ability to transform, I would argue that they are essential to any great global city. Whether it’s the High Line in New York, the Spanish Steps in Rome, the old Love Park in Philadelphia, or Trafalgar Square in London, these spaces are integral to those city’s brands and identities. What do ours say about Toronto?

  For the full Q+A, click here.

  2014.04.02

• White peaks

  I like airports. And this past weekend was my first time in Denver’s. Its most obvious feature is its white fabric roof, which is intended to evoke the snow-capped mountains that surround the region (as well as teepees apparently).

  Here’s what it looks like from the inside:

  

  And here’s what it looks like from the outside (via Wikipedia):

  

  What I like about it is that it speaks to the place. In our increasingly global world, more and more of our buildings now look the same. This is what Modernist architects wanted, but I’d argue that that was a different time and place.

  Today, there’s something nice about landing in a new city and feeling like you’re somewhere different. There’s something special about architecture that speaks to its environment.

  Is there an airport that stands out for you?

  2014.02.04

• A new model for the architecture profession

  Last week I provided a few suggestions for how architects might be able to transition over to real estate development. And I ended by saying that I loved architecture school, but that it could use a few more business and entrepreneurship classes. Today, I’d liked to expand on that idea.

  When I was doing my Master of Architecture at Penn, I spent a lot of time thinking about hybrid models for the architecture profession. I was trying to figure out a way to reconcile my love of design with my desire to be more of a building entrepreneur.

  I was interested in what Jonathan Segal was doing down in San Diego with his “architect as developer” approach. And I was really taken by a lecture that Joshua Prince-Ramus (formerly of OMA, now REX) gave where he talked about how architects have marginalized themselves (away from being the master builder) by shying away from liability.

  Out of all the models, conflating architecture and development seems to me like a real possibility. I believe that good developers understand good design and that good architects understand what’s good for the market. So why not merge the two?

  We know that the architecture profession is facing significant challenges; fewer and fewer architecture school grads are getting licensed and actually become a bona fide architect. Some think this calls for licensure reform, but I’m also interested in revisiting the model in its entirety.

  Imagine if every architecture school taught students how to design a building and then go out and actually get it leased up and built. Is this too much to ask of one discipline?

  I can see firms naturally splitting up roles between those who prefer the design side and those who prefer the selling and business side, but is there any reason why the same firm couldn’t be handling both?

  2014.01.20

• Transitioning from architecture to development

  A few years ago during a class at the Rotman School when we were all introducing ourselves, I had a professor ask why all architects seem to want to become developers. He asked it because there were 3 architects (or at least architect-trained) in the class who were either currently working in development or planning to move into development following their MBA.

  Indeed, it is pretty common for architects to make this jump. So much so that I’m often asked (as recently as last night) about how I made the transition from architecture to development. Given the frequency of this question, I figured it would be worthwhile to turn my response into a blog post—particularly since I did make the decision to write more about what it means to be a developer.

  The first thing I should say is that I’ve never really worked as an architect. I interned at an architecture firm one summer, but that’s about it. I’m not licensed as an architect and I have no plans of ever becoming licensed. Therefore, I’m technically not allowed to call myself one, which is why I often say “architect-trained.”

  However, this doesn’t mean that I didn’t face a certain degree of stigmatization while I was completing my Master of Architecture and looking for my first real estate job. The real estate community often perceives architects as being impractical, fanciful and generally poor with money and business.

  Part of this, I think, has to the with the fact that design schools often don’t like to talk about making money. It’s taboo. Design is supposed to be something purer and grander than money. Maybe that’s why it’s not uncommon for even the most famous of architects—such as Louis Kahn—to die deeply in debt.

  But I think this perspective is bullshit. Which is why I spent every single one of my electives during my Master of Architecture over at the business school taking finance, economics and real estate classes. I was determined to be just as good as the MBAs at “the numbers.” And even became a teaching assistant for a real estate economics class.

  So my first piece of advice to architects looking to make the transition to development is that you need to overcome the perception that you don’t understand money and business. You need to demonstrate that you can crunch numbers and that you know how to make money for investors.

  This could mean getting an MBA or Master of Real Estate Development, taking extracurricular classes, starting a blog, or just convincing somebody in real estate to give you a chance so that you have it on your resume. Whatever it is, you need to reposition your personal brand so that it no longer says architect.

  This is important because, from my experience, if a real estate company is used to hiring people with business degrees, then it’s going to be tough to get them to pay attention to you and your architecture degree. They just don’t understand the value that you might be able to bring to the organization (and you do bring value).

  My second piece of advice is to find developers who have an architecture background and specifically reach out to them. There are lots of us. They’ll be sympathetic to your background and will probably give you more time of day. But you’ll need to come prepared with the right tool chest. Demonstrate to them that you have the skills necessary to be a developer (see above).

  As I’ve said before, developers are, in many ways, a jack of all trades. So the more you can master all of those trades, the more likely you’ll get some hiring manager to take a risk on you. But when you do finally make that transition, I believe that you’ll be better for it.

  Not only because architects understand the building process, but because architects are trained to have an inherent sense of responsibility for the built environment. We get upset when building are ugly and public spaces suck. But we also know what will make them better.

  The way I see it, by becoming a developer you’re really just learning how to execute on your ideas. It’s one thing to know what makes a building beautiful, but it’s another thing to go out and raise the capital and build the damn thing.

  So I don’t regret any of my architecture degrees. I got so much out of them. And I firmly believe that design is only going to become more important. Designers, after all, are the new rock stars. We just need a few more business and entrepreneurship classes in architecture schools.

  2014.01.17

• The story behind the name “Architect This City”

  I was having drinks with an old friend a couple of weeks ago and I told her about my blog. She immediately asked me what it was called. At the time, it was just called “Cities.” And truthfully, I hadn’t given the title much thought. I just knew that I wanted to take a multi-disciplinary approach to examining cities.

  After that night I started thinking more about the idea of a proper title for my blog and I came to the conclusion that I did need something more creative. I should have a stronger brand and identity. So I experimented with a few names and, as you’ve probably noticed, I settled on “Architect This City.”

  Now that I’ve been using the name for a few weeks, I thought I would share my thinking behind it.

  I wanted the name to convey 3 things. (1) I wanted it to be clear that this blog was about cities. (2) I wanted it to be something personal to me. (3) And I wanted to somehow demonstrate that this blog isn’t a siloed look at any one particular discipline, such as architecture, planning or real estate. It’s more than that.

  Given my background in architecture and the fact that “city” is in the name, I think that objectives 1 and 2 made it through. But what I hope is also clear from the name is that the term “architect” is supposed to refer to something much broader than just building design. It’s about the underlying systems, processes and structures of our cities—which could tie into the real estate market, our governance structures or some new technological innovation. Cities are complex and there are many “architects.”

  Finally, I wanted the name to be a directive—a call to action. I wanted it to be a reminder that cities don’t just build themselves. They require careful thought, planning and deliberation. And that’s fundamentally what this blog is all about: city building.

  What do you think about the new name? I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comment section below.

  2013.12.20

• I got 88 buildings

  The NH Deutscher Kaiser Hotel building in Munich looks like this:

  

  It’s a fairly conventional tower on top of a podium.

  However, photographer Victor Enrich decided to reimagine what this tower and podium could look like. In fact, he did it 88 times. Here’s the video. And here’s one example:

  

  The realism of each is incredible. It’s also a fascinating—albeit outlandish—study of what could be.

  2013.12.18

• Mirvish+Gehry and the story of 4 heritage buildings

  I am a real estate developer and I believe in progress. But I also fundamentally believe in balancing progress and preservation. I’ve said this before.

  This morning, Alex Bozikovic of the Globe and Mail, published a piece on the epic Mirvish + Gehry proposal for Toronto’s Entertainment District. It’s called, “Frank Gehry and David Mirvish’s tall order in Toronto.”

  Now, I’ve said before that I like this project. I don’t mind the height and I don’t buy the argument that there aren’t enough public spaces in the area. There’s David Pecaut Square directly to the south that could use a few more warm bodies in it.

  But as I also said before, I think the key concern here is one of heritage. There are 4 heritage designated buildings on the site dating back to as early as 1901. Here’s where they sit:

  

  The Anderson Building (1915) is particularly unique. Here’s a larger photo (via blogTO):

  

  So while I’m excited by the prospect of a real Gehry project in Toronto, I think we need to figure out a way to find a balance. Preserve the facades, build on top, or relocate them. Do something besides wipe the slate clean.

  As Bozikovic rightly points out in his article, “Toronto has a sophisticated culture of working with heritage buildings.” There are lots of great examples of how we managed to move forward as a city, without erasing our past.

  And in many ways, I see this ability to work with and build upon heritage buildings as an emerging Toronto vernacular. I mean, what could be more appropriate for the most diverse city on the planet than an architectural style—of our own—that blends and layers history with disparate design ideologies.

  I sense an opportunity.

  We could have Gehry’s white sinuous curves drape over the heritage buildings. Make them become a literal unveiling of Toronto’s past and a metaphor for the sophisticated way in which we build upon legacy.

  It’s too easy to just demolish everything. We’re better than that.

  2013.12.07

• Who knew Gherkins were so aerodynamic

  Lately I’ve been learning a lot about wind and how certain building forms can create dramatically different microclimates.

  In light of this, I’ve gained a new appreciation for the 30 St Mary Axe tower in London (colloquially known as “the Gherkin”). I’ve always been a fan and I was well aware of its sustainability initiatives, but I didn’t fully grasp how much wind played a role in its design.

  Because of its cylindrical shape and the fact that the tower tapers as you move towards the top, the bulk of the wind hitting the building either flows around it or gets pushed upwards, towards the sky. This is in contrast to a typical square or rectangular building where the bulk of the wind often gets pushed down towards street level.

  

  The benefit of this is that it obviously creates a more pleasant environment for pedestrians at street level. However, in addition to this, it also means that the wind loads against the building were brought down to a minimum and so the structure of the building could also be reduced. 

  This is the kind of architecture I love: architecture that performs.

  2013.11.24