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: design

  • Field Guide to Indoor Urbanism

    A few months ago, one of my old professors from architecture school — Phu Hoang — reached out to me through this blog. That’s one of the benefits of writing publicly — it becomes your calling card. In this case, it had been at least 16 years since I was in his design studio.

    We connected over a call. He told me about his and Rachely’s firm, MODU Architecture. And he let me know that he’s no longer teaching at Penn. He is now the Head of Architecture of the Knowlton School at Ohio State University.

    Then, following the call, he was kind enough to send me a copy of his new book, Field Guide to Indoor Urbanism:

    The typical approach to modern building design is to have clearly defined boundaries between interior and exterior spaces. The outside is the outside. And the inside is a climate-controlled space that is, for the most part, sealed to the outside.

    Most of us spend the vast majority of our lives in these latter spaces. In fact, since the advent of modernism and the International Style over a century ago, the general idea has been that these spaces can and should be mostly the same.

    HVAC systems make it so that you don’t really need to worry about context or the environment. What works in Toronto can work in Phoenix. You just need to dial up your cooling loads.

    This is so much the case that whenever I’m in a city with a fairly benign climate, such as somewhere in California, I always find myself fascinated by the fluidity between interior and exterior spaces. It’s such a foreign concept to me that it stands out: “Wait, how is this not sealed?

    Indoor urbanism, on the other hand, makes the argument that this binary approach is the wrong way to think about spaces. Here’s an excerpt from a recent Metropolis article about MODU:

    They call this approach “indoor urbanism,” which privileges the blurred boundary between what has traditionally been considered interior space and exterior space. This in-between space–straddling open and closed, artificial and natural–deserves architects’ keen attention, especially as the planet warms. “Indoor urbanism recognizes that architecture and cities are situated on an environmental continuum, as a matter of degrees rather than absolutes,” write Hoang and Rotem in Field Guide.

    Examples of this thinking can be found throughout their work. This project in Jackson, Wyoming is one of my favorites both because I love Jackson and because it’s a cold and snowy place. And yet, even in this climate zone, their design includes for several “semi-exterior areas” that serve to connect you to nature.

    This is a decidedly different way to think about architecture and urbanism. But as our climate crisis intensifies, it’s only going to become more relevant.

  • When do iconic chairs actually become iconic?

    Search for the most iconic chair designs in the world and you’ll likely come across a list that includes:

    • Wassily Chair by Marcel Breuer (1928)
    • Barcelona Chair by Mies van der Rohe (1929)
    • Grand Consort by Charlotte Perriand, Le Corbusier, and Pierre Jeanneret (1928)
    • The various Eames Chairs (starting in 1945)
    • Wishbone Chair by Hans Wegner (1949)
    • Wiggles Side Chair by Frank Gehry (1972)
    • And the list goes on.

    Most of these chairs also look as if they were just designed yesterday. Meaning, they’re timeless and have stood the test of time. But they are mostly older designs. Which raises an interesting question: How much does the passage of time play in a role in determining whether or not something is “iconic”?

    There are some more recent designs that you could call iconic. The Roly-Poly Chair by Faye Toogood (2014) and the Louis Ghost Chair by Philippe Stark (2002) come to mind. This suggests that really great designs can become immediate classics. (Though, this latter example is a reinterpretation of a classic French chair that in and of itself is an icon.)

    What I think is the mostly right answer is that, yeah, sometimes you can catch lighting in a bottle. The Louis Ghost Chair, for instance, is one of the top selling chairs of the 21st century. It’s a clever and modern take that used new technologies (as is often the case) to revisit an old classic. Starck nailed it.

    But more often than not, you probably need time. Time is what allows the object to form cultural associations in our mind and to prove that it is, in fact, timeless. However, if this is truly the case, then it makes it difficult to determine if we’re still producing as many design icons today as we did in the past. We won’t really know until they become old.

    Image: Louis Ghost Chair via Knoll

  • Fashion and design capital of the world!

    The first and only other time that I have visited Milan was over 20 years ago. I was 19 or so, and a close friend and I decided to take the train into Centrale without a place to stay and without a plan, other than to get into some trouble.

    We ultimately succeeded at this ambitious plan. But I clearly didn’t see enough of the city, and I left thinking that it was a bit of a grimy and sleepy place. I was disappointed. I thought it would be fashion everywhere, and it wasn’t for me. And this impression has lingered with me ever since.

    Boy have I been missing out.

    I have fallen in love with Milan on this very short trip. It really is a capital of fashion and design. This is not a city of meandering tourists looking for the Pantheon (okay, there’s still some of that); it is a big city of business and culture. And if I had to compare and contrast it to other cities, I would say this.

    Its built form is not nearly as manicured and as fussy as Paris’. In fact, in some ways, it’s a bit like Toronto. Its overall urbanism is messier, and you have to scratch beneath the surface and sneak into some courtyards before you really uncover its true beauty. But once you do, it’s magical.

    At the same time, its street fashion strikes me as being slightly fussier. There is an effortlessness in Paris that doesn’t seem as pronounced in Milan (though it is still there). Here, there’s a little more flash and a little more, “I’m sexy and stylish, and I would like you to be aware of that.”

    But this is not to say that you won’t see men and women in suits and stilettos riding a bicycle. It still feels effortless. It still feels natural. And when you’re here, you can’t help but feel like you’re probably not stylish enough for this capital of fashion and design.

  • Lufthansa unveils new multi-seat layout in business class

    Maybe it’s my design background or maybe it’s the extreme discomfort in my legs, but usually when I’m on a plane I can’t help but think about redesigning the cabin interior. Of course, there are only so many options in economy when your femur doesn’t fit between the seats. However, in business class, where airlines actually make their money, the options are endless.

    Below is a redesign that Lufthansa just launched this spring. Co-created with Pearson Lloyd, the concept is based on three distinct travel experiences: calm, focus, and share. The idea here is that maybe you just want to sleep (calm). Maybe you just want to work (focus). Or maybe you want to work and/or hang out with someone beside you (share). And depending on what you’re looking for, your seat should reflect that.

    The result is 7 different seat types that are bookable depending on what “job you’re looking to hire it for.”

    It is about consumer choice instead of one size fits all. But I’m curious:

    • Were they able to maintain the same number of overall seats in business class, or are they betting on higher revenue per passenger because the seats are now better?
    • How does booking work? What happens if I really want “calm,” but the only available seat is “share”? And then what happens if my “share” neighbor is really talkative?
    • Has anyone looked at multi-seat arrangements in economy? Or is it a non-starter because you really need to squeeze femurs in order to make the math work?

    Lufthansa, if you’re reading this and you’d like me to do a thorough review of your new Allegris Business Class seating, I would be happy to accept a flight to Paris sometime this summer. Until then, you can all find more information about this new seating layout and the design process, here.

    Images: Pearson Lloyd

  • 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.

  • 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?

  • A flexible parkade in Calgary

    As a general rule, I believe that our cities should be striving for less rather than more parking. Which is why it still baffles me when allegedly progressive cities continue to mandate ludicrous parking ratios (even when the sites are next to transit). You know who you are.

    But if you absolutely have to build it, the new 9th Avenue Parkade + Innovation Centre in Calgary is a good example to look to.

    Designed by 5468796 Architecture in collaboration with Kasian Architecture, Interior Design and Planning, the project does all of the things to ensure that it doesn’t look ugly today and it doesn’t need to remain a parkade in the future once we all switch over to electric scooters and flying autonomous vehicles.

    Some of the moves include 4m floor-to-floor heights and generally flat floor slabs that only rise 1-2%. This was done so that the floors can be more easily retrofitted to residential and/or office in the future.

    And in fact, this flexibility already gotten proven out during the design process. Originally the ~335,000 square foot building was going to be entirely parking. But then an innovation centre called Platform came to the table for 50,000 sf, and a portion of the building had to be converted to flexible office space.

    Let’s hope this trend continues. But in the meantime, here are some pretty pictures:

    All photos by James Brittain.

  • Playful parkades

    This is perhaps the wrong post to be writing right now with gas prices where they are, but lately I’ve been thinking about parking garage designs. We have talked a lot about parking minimums and other related topics on this blog, but let’s put all of these aside for today and assume that parking garages are a thing that will continue to exist in our cities.

    Generally speaking, parking garages are fairly utilitarian spaces. They store cars and they usually aren’t that nice. And in the case of public garages, they often smell like urine. But there are some extraordinary examples out there. Miami immediately comes to mind as a city with some pretty cool garages. I mean, when you have one designed by Herzog & de Meuron (1111 Lincoln Road) that is usually a pretty good indicator.

    When I was there in January, we went walking one night through the Design District and we ended up on the roof of “Museum Garage” to take some photos and take in the views. Once we got there, we found people doing everything from eating dinner to filming TikTok videos. Great spaces attract people. It also helps when all of your parking is above-grade, which is the case in Miami.

    Here is another example from Sydney (also pictured above). In this case, it’s a residential parking garage and Craig & Karl were hired to create a colorful geometric mural. Garages are a perfect place to be a bit more playful and have some fun. I think we should do more of this.

    Photo via Craig & Karl

  • 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.

  • ✈️ Off to France and trying something new

    Neat B and I are off to France for the next two weeks. We optimistically booked this trip at the beginning of the year and assumed that the world would be fairly normal and well-vaccinated by now. While there remains uncertainty, things are at least better than they were last winter when we were all caved at home.

    Regular readers of this blog will know that I aim to post 365 days a year, regardless of what may be going on in my life. And that will remain the case for the next two weeks. But I have decided to challenge myself and try something new.

    I’m going to exercise my photography passion a little and instead post a single photo each day. On some days it may have a caption or a short description, but on other days there may be no accompanying text at all. The plan is to shoot entirely on my Fujifilm X-T3. Or at least that’s the thinking right now.

    I’m sure that there will end up being some great content for those of you who are interested in the built environment (architecture, design, planning, real estate). But if travel and beautiful photos aren’t your thing, feel free to check back in two weeks for our regularly scheduled programming.