The construction process can be a pain in the ass. It’s messy. It’s inefficient. It’s always filled with surprises. And you could argue, as many have before, that every job is really a custom job — a kind of prototype. But at the same time, there is something so deeply satisfying about seeing a building come to life. Part of that satisfaction no doubt comes from the fact that it usually takes years and years to get to the point in which you’re digging holes, pouring concrete, and framing out spaces. It’s almost as if we don’t want things to get built. It’s a feeling of “finally.” But perhaps the bigger part of this satisfaction stems from the fact that building is creating and making something new. It’s about imagining what something could be and then going out and doing everything you can to make that a reality. Some people won’t like what you’re trying to build. But they might when it’s finished. And it is almost certainly not going to be an easy process. But it’s a fulfilling one. Few things are as rewarding as creating and making something new.
Tag: construction
-
Latest artist collaboration: Juanita Lee-Garcia x Slate Asset Management x Junction House
Today I’m excited to announce the latest artist collaboration at Junction House. (For a background on the others, click here.) Bogota-born, Toronto-based Juanita Lee-Garcia has created a series of hand-cut collage panels for the construction hoarding at Junction House (the background color is the project’s signature electric blue color).
In this installation, Lee-Garcia uses repetition and image repurposing to investigate the limits and the potential of decor in consumer culture. Her work uses simple gestures such as slicing, inserting, folding, and layering to build these new and abstract forms. They are intended to feel both fresh and unfamiliar, as well as comforting — perhaps because of some of their cultural associations.
We love these sorts of collaborations because we want every single one of our development projects to be more than just a new building. We want it to be a catalyst for positive city building change. So the next time you’re in the Junction, I would encourage you to stop by 2720 Dundas Street West and take in Juanita’s work. Limited edition prints of the panels are also available on her website.
-
Land and improvements
At a high level there are two components to the value of a house. There’s the value of the land and there’s the value of all the improvements. That is, the bricks, wood, and other stuff that form the actual house. When a media outlet runs a sensational headline about some shack in Toronto selling for, oh I don’t know, a million dollars, what it actually means is that the land in this particular area was just valued by somebody at this number. In fact, if the property is very clearly a “knock down” the improvements sitting on the land become a liability/cost rather than anything of value. Because whoever buys the land will almost certainly need to remove the improvements before they can build whatever it is they want to build.
This distinction between land and improvements is a valuable one for many reasons. Here’s one example. In cases where the improvements aren’t some shack, you may be faced with a scenario where a property can be valued in two different ways. You can value it based on the development potential of the underlying land or you can value it based on the income (either in-place or potential) that the improvements are generating, or could be generating with some hard work on your part. If the development value is greater than the value of the improvements, then there will be pressure to redevelop. Conversely, if the opposite is true, it is likely that not much will happen other than maybe capital expenditures applied to the existing building(s).
Of course, you could also run into a scenario where there’s little development potential and there’s zero ability to invest in the existing improvements, either because the market rents are too low in the area or because they’re capped and/or controlled in some way. In this scenario, it’s likely that not much will happen other than the normal and expected depreciation of the improvements. Maybe one day the development/investment math will work. But in the interim, you probably won’t be seeing any of those sensational media headlines.
Photo by Andre Gaulin on Unsplash
-
A few thoughts about housing supply
Here are a few things to consider.
One, the home you live in was likely built by a person or company that was trying to make a profit.
Two, when your home was being developed and built, it probably upset a bunch of people. Both because something new was coming and because construction can be annoying.
Three, your home was built using materials and construction techniques that were readily available at the time. Some of those materials and techniques may no longer be practical.
Four, when your home was complete, somebody probably thought, “boy, they don’t build them like they used to.”
Five, the need for new housing doesn’t stop just because you now have a home.
-
How local is local, really?
Real estate, as they say, is a local business. Every market has its local nuances. For example, once of the first things that Studio Gang asked us when we started working together was, “does Toronto do PT?” What they were referring to was post-tensioned concrete and our answer was, “not really.” There are certainly examples of localized applications within buildings (such as for a specific transfer slab) and there are examples of buildings that have used it throughout (see Pier 27 Tower below — it’s how they managed to get such deep balconies). But for the most part, it’s not widely used and it’s certainly not as common as it is in markets such as New York. This subtle difference has an impact on how you design, which is why Studio Gang asked it from the outset.
Despite some of these local differences, there is a criticism out there that we have descended upon a kind of bland global design sensibility. No matter where you’re building, every building now looks the same, which, at the end of the day, was kind of the point of the International Style of architecture. One design approach applied universally. This recent article by Edwin Heathcote takes things even further by saying that our interiors have also been sterilized to look more or less the same as a result of “digital aesthetic seepage.” The article is called, “The curse of the Airbnb aesthetic.”
One the one hand, there is something inevitable about this outcome. We — including our supply chains — have become more interconnected than ever. And because of the high cost of labor, the way we build today is centered around as much factory automation as possible. Minimize what needs to be done on site. And given that I would expect more, rather than less, automation going forward, one has to assume that this trend is destined to continue. At the same time, local places matter and one of the reasons why so many of us love to travel is that we want to see places that are different than our own. I for one don’t want that to change.
-
Preferred method of communication
I was “on site” this morning for the installation of the helical piers for my laneway suite (that will be the topic of a separate post). More often than not, I’m in the office. But I like going on site because, well, building things is fun. One of the things that I find interesting about being on site, though, is that my preferred method of communication always seems to change. When I’m in the office, I have a bias toward emails. That is the case for two reasons: 1) I’m usually focusing on something and I find that calls can be disruptive, and 2) emails can be a highly efficient way to communicate. Tell me what you need (in the shortest email possible) and I’ll try and respond as succinctly as I can. However, when I’m on site, all of a sudden I don’t want to do emails. I would rather talk on the phone. That becomes the most direct way to deal with things. I am mentioning this because communication is paramount. And many of us have different preferences for how we like to do it. Knowing those preferences can be helpful when you’re trying to get things done.
-
Australia 108
One of my favorite YouTube channels is the B1M. Apparently it is the most subscribed-to channel focused on construction. If you don’t already subscribe, you can do that over here.
Below is a recent video about Australia 108 in Melbourne. It’s still under construction, but it is topped out and it is now the tallest building in the country at over 300m. That makes it a “supertall.”
When you’re building this tall, it can make a lot of sense to segment and occupy portions of the building before construction is fully complete. Among other things, it helps to manage risk. And that’s exactly what they’ve done here.
The contractor building Australia 108 is Multiplex. They also happen to be our construction management partner on Junction House. Except our project is a bit more boutique than Australia 108.
-
Guideway and Greenway
Just northwest of the intersection of Lansdowne Avenue and Dupont Street here in Toronto, there is something known as the Davenport Diamond. It refers to the intersection of two rail lines. Going north-south is the Barrie GO corridor (regional rail service). And going east-west is a set of Canadian Pacific Railway tracks. The problem with this Diamond is that it is one of the busiest train intersections in North America and these two corridors meet at grade. So it is a problem for service levels on this corridor.
To address this bottleneck, Metrolinx has been working on a project called the Davenport Diamond Guideway and Greenway. First and foremost, what it will do is elevate the Barrie GO corridor between Bloor Street in the south and Davenport Road in the north, allowing trains to pass over the CP tracks (rail over rail), as well as over streets like Wallace Avenue (rail over road). Metrolinx expects to have this guideway complete by spring 2023 and it will be a good thing for rail service levels across this region. Construction activity is already happening.
But the other thing this guideway does is open up the ground (literally) for a new greenway. Metrolinx is calling this the public realm component of the project, and it expects to procure this work separately, as well as complete it only after the guideway is operational. The ETA for this is 2024. However, a design was completed for the greenway back in 2018. It was completed by gh3 — one of my favorite architecture firms in the city. And it is my understanding that this original design will be the foundation for the public realm design. Or at least, I hope it will.
If you haven’t yet seen gh3’s design, you can check it out over here.
Image: gh3
-
Every building is a prototype
Witold Rybczynski’s recent blog post about architecture’s “curious business model” gets at one of the core challenges of new construction: “Every project is, in effect, a custom job; there are no real economies of scale.” There are also no reoccurring cash flows for the architect, Witold explains, unlike a writer who might earn ongoing royalties or a business owner whose wealth will grow as the business grows.
There are two items to discuss here: (1) The “curious business model” used in the practice of architecture and (2) the inefficiencies of construction.
The first one is not unique to architecture. You could say the same thing about the planning and real estate lawyers who also work on new buildings. But I take Witold’s point in that even a painter’s work could appreciate in value after it’s done, whereas there’s typically no mechanism for any of this to accrue (to the architect) in the world of architecture.
When I was young, I was told that there are two ways to make money. You can either trade your time for money or you can own assets that make you money. An example of the latter might be a farm where the tenant farmer pays you rent every month. You’re not trading your time by actually doing the farming, you just own the asset.
This may seem obvious, but it’s fundamental. And it’s one of the reasons why, when I was in architecture school, I admired the practices of people like Jonathan Segal out of San Diego. Jonathan is one of the pioneers of the “architect as developer” approach. He simply became his own client and started building his own projects.
Moving on to topic number two.
Everyone in the business of building new buildings is looking for repeatable methodologies. Many have thought: How do we make the construction of buildings more like the assembly of cars? How do we create a standardized kit of parts? And that has lead to longstanding efforts around prefabrication. Today, as you know, we are also looking at how 3D printing might make this easier/cheaper.
In some ways, that is happening. There are examples of prefabrication and panelization, and there are developers who are using this approach. (See H+ME Technology.) But for the most part, we still build on site and it’s still a messy process with lots of waste and inefficiencies. If there was a cheaper and more effective way to do it, the industry would certainly move in that direction. Eventually that will happen.
In the meantime, we will continue building our prototypes.
Photo by Ivan Bandura on Unsplash