Tag: design

• A look at One Spadina Crescent

  

  One of the projects that I’m most excited about here in Toronto is the renovation and addition to One Spadina Crescent. The building sits in the middle of a roundabout along Spadina Avenue and occupies what is easily one of the most ceremonial positions in the city.

  But for as long as I can remember, the building hasn’t been living up to its full potential. So much so that in the 1960s it was going to be demolished in order to make way for the proposed Spadina Expressway. That would have been an absolute tragedy. Thankfully, our friend Jane Jacobs stopped that one.

  Today, exciting things are happening at One Spadina Crescent. The Daniels Faculty of Architecture, Landscape, and Design at the University of Toronto is in the midst of renovating and expanding the building, and will eventually relocate there from its current location on College Street.

  When it’s all said and done, One Spadina Crescent will look something like this (via Daniels).

  From the south:

  

  From the west:

  

  From the north:

  

  What’s most exciting to me about this project are the following 3 things:

  First, it’s an opportunity to connect One Spadina Crescent to the surrounding urban fabric. Today, it feels very much like an island in the middle of the street. 

  Second, it’s a wonderful example of the new layering on top of the old, which is something that I believe we should aspire to do in our cities. The University of Toronto has become quite good at doing that on campus.

  And finally, the intent is for this building and site to include a number of research centers and public facing functions devoted to architecture, design, and city building. And so One Spadina could become quite the hub in the city. That’s exciting.

  If you’d like to take a look inside the building (pre-renovation), check out these great photos by Peter MacCallum. The picture at the top of this post is his.

  2015.01.10

• STEM + Art = STEAM

  

  Most of you have probably heard of the STEM subjects. STEM stands for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. These academic fields have been the focus of many federal governments around the world as they have been seen as the key to driving innovation.

  But what you may not have heard of is something called STEAM. I hadn’t heard about it until this morning. STEAM is an initiative being led by the Rhode Island School of Design to integrate art and design into national agendas pertaining to STEM. STEM + Art = STEAM.

  Here’s a snippet from RISD:

  The goal is to foster the true innovation that comes with combining the mind of a scientist or technologist with that of an artist or designer. RISD offers endless examples of how art and design education teaches the flexible thinking, risk-taking and creative problem solving needed to solve today’s most complex and pressing challenges – from healthcare to urban revitalization to global warming.

  I couldn’t agree more with this initiative. As somebody who thought a lot about how to combine design and technology in my own career, I believe that there are huge benefits to a multidisciplinary approach to problem solving and innovation. In fact, it’s one of the reasons I decided to go to Rotman for my MBA (see Business Design).

  So if you feel the same way, I would encourage you to add yourself and/or your company to the “STEM to STEAM map” that RISD has created. Click here to do that.

  2015.01.07

• That’s a wrap

  

  Today is the last day of 2014.

  It felt like a frenetic year for me, and so I have to say that I’ve been really enjoying this holiday break. I needed the downtime. I needed the time to think and strategize. And I got all of that this holiday. (The only thing that would make this break even better would be some more snow on the mountains.)

  I’m super excited for the new year and what’s ahead, but before getting into that, I thought it would be worthwhile to look back at what happened in 2014.

  I was initially going to list out some of my thoughts, but then I figured that a better way would be to simply list out the most read Architect This City posts. That way it’s my (daily) thoughts, but curated according to what readers cared about most this past year.

  Click here for the top 15 most read Architect This City posts of 2014. I’ve listed them on a “topics” page that I plan to update every year.

  If you’re looking for some other 2014 themed reading material, I recommend also checking out the best #cityreads of 2014 by CityLab; the best articles of 2014 from ArchDaily; and what just happened? by venture capitalist Fred Wilson.

  Happy new year everyone! Thanks for reading. See you in 2015.

  Image: Family and friends lunch at Pizzeria Libretto, University

  2014.12.31

• The unmet demand for real estate education in Canada

  

  I continue to be amazed by the unmet demand for real estate (development) education here in Canada.

  Following yesterday’s post on the real estate development process, I received a few emails from readers asking about the best university programs (MBA, MRED, etc.) and the best approaches for becoming a developer.

  I also had a good conversation on Twitter, which covered off some details that I had left out from my post (for simplicity) and which resulted in me suggesting that a real estate development school needs to be started here in Toronto:

  @donnelly_b I’m game. The Donnelly-Hassan Institute for the Dark Arts.

  — SymmetryDevelopments (@symmetrydevelop)

  December 30, 2014

  //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  @symmetrydevelop @donnelly_b would be your first student. damn! could’ve stayed in Toronto if there was a program.

  — Kuok-Kei Hong (@KuokKei)

  December 30, 2014

  //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Now, part of the reason things are the way that they are, I think, is because the real estate industry has been historically dominated by private rich families. People didn’t go to school to learn how to be developers. They learned by doing and that was then passed down to the next generation. All it took was chutzpah.

  But as the real estate industry continues to institutionalize and become run by pension funds and large publicly traded companies, I think the point of entry will also become increasingly institutionalized. And that’s where dedicated real estate programs will continue to come in. 

  I’ve spoken to a few people at the Rotman School – where I did my MBA – and there doesn’t seem to be a huge interest in a dedicated program such as a Master of Real Estate Development (they already offer real estate courses). It’s more of a “longer term” strategy. 

  But I think that’s a mistake.

  I’m confident there’s strong demand from the student side, so hopefully a wealthy donor will step forward to help make this happen. The University of Toronto has both a great business school and a great architecture school. That feels like a great recipe for a first-in-kind joint degree offering.

  Image: Urban Learning (via Flickr)

  2014.12.30

• My identity crisis

  If you’re a regular reader of Architect This City, there are many things that you might know about me. 

  You might know that I was initially trained as an architect, but that I immediately transitioned into real estate development after grad school (where I studied both architecture and real estate).

  After becoming a real estate developer, you might know that I completed an MBA with a focus on innovation and entrepreneurship (which happened by default as a result of the electives I ended up being interested in).

  And finally, you might know, given the content of this blog and my startup history, that I have a significant interest in technology. More specifically though, you might know that my interest is in figuring out how technology will continue to infiltrate and impact “non-tech” industries such as real estate.

  But what you might not know is how I even ended up in architecture and real estate in the first place. Unlike a lot of people who seem to have grown up wanting to be an architect – perhaps because they had a relative who was one – I didn’t decide to study architecture until a bit later on.

  Growing up my primary interests were: art and computers.

  During high school, my art teachers used to tell my parents that I was going to be an artist. And my computer teachers used to tell my parents that I was going to be a computer geek – or maybe they said computer scientist.

  Maybe it had to do with timing and the emergence of the commercial internet in the 1990s, but computers sort of won out during that point in my life. I spent a lot of time building them from scratch, playing with software, and asking my mom not to pick up the phone because I was literally dialed-in to the internet.

  So when it came time to enrol in university, I fairly effortlessly decided on computer science. It just seemed to make sense. But after about a year I realized that it wasn’t for me. I didn’t love programming like my classmates did and the thought of doing it for a living scared me.

  At the same time, I felt like I needed to feed the artist in me. I wanted something both artistic and technical. So I decided to drop out of computer science and give architecture a try. It just seemed like the perfect marriage of my interests.

  I immediately fell in love with architecture. And I spent the next 7 years studying it across 2 degrees.

  But during that time, two things hit me. First, I came to the realization that real estate developers are the ones who really have the most say in terms of how our cities are built. And second, that technology was having a massive impact on business and life.

  This told me that design alone wasn’t going to be enough. I also needed to engross myself in real estate, finance, business, and technology. So that’s what I set out to do. And I really enjoyed it. On the technology side, it felt like I was coming full circle in a way.

  But today, I feel a bit like a 3 legged stool. There’s the design leg. The real estate/business leg. And the technology leg. And oftentimes I feel like life would be a lot simpler if I could just balance on one of those legs – instead of trying to stand on all three. But that’s simply not me.

  These are my passions and I need all of them to stand-up.

  2014.12.24

• The power of architecture

  

  Architect Bjarke Ingels recently gave a talk at the WIRED by Design conference. I’m a big fan of his work and so I think you’ll really enjoy the talk. What I like is how process driven his firm is. As he explains at the beginning of the video, they always start by researching and analyzing the situation before figuring out how they’re going to intervene. That’s what informs their designs.

  Click here to watch the video. It’s about 20 minutes long.

  2014.12.21

• Muuto stacked shelf system

  I don’t have a lot to say today. I had a busy day and then this evening I set up some new shelving in my apartment. Here’s what it looks like:

  

  There’s a bulkhead directly above it (that you can’t see in this picture) and so I’ve been wanting to put shelving in this corner ever since I moved in almost 2 years ago. I haven’t really organized the contents yet, but I did get some wine into the bottom of it. First things first.

  Initially I thought about getting built-in shelves. But custom millwork is expensive and, to do something even remotely interesting, the pricing got stupid. So I searched and searched and eventually stumbled upon the Muuto stacked shelf system designed by JDS Architects.

  This is the picture that sold me:

  

  My setup doesn’t look nearly as impressive, but I’m still thrilled with it.

  The way it works is really simple. You stack up the boxes however you would like and then, once you’re satisfied, you just clip them together. That’s what those yellow things are in my picture. You can hide them at the back if you want, but I purposely ordered yellow ones in order to highlight how the system actually goes together.

  It wasn’t the cheapest option out there, but I’d rather have fewer things of higher quality. I already have too many things.

  2014.12.19

• A labor of love

  

  We’ve taught generations of architects to speak out as artists, but we haven’t taught them how to listen.

  This is a line from a recent New York Times op-ed that has been making the rounds online today called: How to Rebuild Architecture. 

  The premise of the article is that architects have marginalized themselves by being pompous elitists who increasingly serve only the rich and don’t respond to public opinion about architecture.

  For too long, our profession has flatly dismissed the general public’s take on our work, even as we talk about making that work more relevant with worthy ideas like sustainability, smart growth and “resilience planning.”

  The author’s recommendation is that architects need to get better at listening to their clients and listening to the public. 

  Reconnecting architecture with its users — rediscovering the radical middle, where we meet, listen and truly collaborate with the public, speak a common language and still advance the art of architecture — is long overdue. It’s also one of the great design challenges of our time.

  What’s interesting about this viewpoint is that it’s precisely the sort of thing that entrepreneurs and business people are trained to do today. The mantra is that you should never build your product or service in isolation. Get out of the building. Talk to customers. Get feedback. Adjust. And iterate.

  But architects don’t like to do this. Why is that?

  The answer, at least partially, comes down to taste. As the author correctly pointed out, the kinds of buildings that architects like are often not the same ones that the general public likes.

  I don’t have any hard data to support this claim, but I suspect that most people out there – particularly those with money – would prefer their home to look like something that Robert Stern designed as opposed to a glass box designed by Philip Johnson.
  

  And yet the latter is what architects and architecture students make pilgrimages to. I certainly did when I was in architecture school. 

  In fact, I think you’d have a difficult time getting into any architecture school right now with a portfolio of work as traditional as the work of Robert Stern. It’s simply not part of the architectural discourse at this stage.

  So to many architects, it can be difficult – even painful – to listen to what the public wants. Architects are not trained in terms of market size and profit maximization. It’s about passion. It’s a labor of love. And when you’ve already fallen in love, it can be hard to change your mind.

  Image: Flickr

  2014.12.17

• Renovating Architect This City

  

  I’ve made a few changes around here. If you’re reading this post on the actual site (as opposed to via Tumblr, your email subscription, or some other feed) and you’re a regular reader, you might notice that I’ve completely redesigned the look and feel of Architect This City. If you can’t see it and want to take a look, click here.

  It’s something that I’ve been meaning to do for awhile now. And it’s because I haven’t been happy with how this blog showed up on mobile devices. It wasn’t responsive. That made ATC less enjoyable to read on your phone and it made it a bit of a pain to leave comments. And since almost 35% of readers are on mobile (and that number is only going to go up), it was time to make a change.

  This site now looks more or less the same whether you’re viewing it on your desktop or on your phone. I also made sure to make the font nice and big so it’s an easy read on mobile. I think it’s a big improvement. But I’d love to also get your feedback on the redesign. I hope you like it as well and I hope it leads to more frequent discussions in the comment section 🙂

  2014.12.10

• Panel: What is Smart Now?

  

  This Tuesday evening at 630pm, WORKSHOP – which is a design studio, gallery, and retail shop located in Yorkville, Toronto – will be hosting a panel discussion titled: What is Smart Now?

  On the panel will be a building scientist, a computer scientist, and two architects. The moderator will be Larry Wayne Richards, who is Creative Director of WORKSHOP and the former dean of the Faculty of Architecture, Landscape, and Design at the University of Toronto. He was dean when I was completing my undergraduate degree and is one of my favorite people in the world of Toronto architecture.

  Here’s a bit more on the panel:

  For more than half a century, visionaries and companies such as Monsanto, Hewlett-Packard, Microsoft, and Samsung have promoted the concept of technologically smart homes with highly integrated, interactive systems.  However few of these homes have actually been realized, leaving us to wonder why.

  Meanwhile, architects, builders, and home owners have become aware of the advantages of being smart in terms of energy efficiency and sustainability, from using common sense to selectively employing high-tech.  

  But now, with the digital realm and software advancing rapidly, will sophisticated smart home systems merge with recent advances in high performance materials and energy-efficient construction, making “totally smart” (and affordable) homes commonplace? Will we finally be living in the magical future that was imagined 50 years ago?  And what are the implications for architects and architectural education?

  And here are the panelists:

  • PAUL DOWSETT, Architect and Founding Principal, Sustainable TO
  • SRINIVASAN KESHAV, Professor of Computer Science, University of Waterloo
  • TED KESIK, Professor of Building Science, University of Toronto
  • JANNA LEVITT, Founding Partner, LGA Architects, Toronto
  • LARRY WAYNE RICHARDS (Moderator), Creative Director, WORKSHOP

  Given the current “Internet of Things” trend and the fact that software is creeping into so many non-tech fields, such as housing, I think this is a really timely discussion to be having. I also think it’s critical for these kinds of conversations to be cross-disciplinary. There are infinite opportunities in the housing market for people who are able to think in that way.

  If you’d like to attend, click here to sign up. It’s free and open to the public. WORKSHOP is located in the lower concourse level of 80 Bloor Street West.

  Image: WORKSHOP

  2014.12.07