Tag: partisans

• Converting to residential

  This week, a 1913 Beaux-Arts office building at 69 Yonge Street (here in Toronto) was conditionally approved for conversion to residential. The proposal entails preserving the existing 15-storey building, adding 6 storeys on top, and creating a total of 127 new condominium suites (14 studios, 65 one-beds, 27 two-beds, 21 three-beds, and exactly zero parking spaces).

  This is noteworthy for at least 3 reasons.

  One, it’s a beautiful old building and PARTISANS does great work.

  Two, there’s no parking. This isn’t novel for Toronto, but it’s a good reminder that you don’t need parking in urban centers (so stop mandating it). It’s also something that you often have to accept with office conversions. If the parking doesn’t already exist, you’re probably not going to build it.

  Finally, this approval demonstrates a reversal in the city’s view on office replacement. Years ago, this sort of project wouldn’t have been feasible, because the developer would have been forced to replace any demolished office space. But obviously that’s no longer the case today. And in my opinion, that’s a good thing.

  2024.02.09

• Project Profile: 1925 Victoria Park Road, Toronto

  

  A recent development proposal at 1925 Victoria Park Road (Toronto) by Well Grounded Real Estate (developer) and Partisans (architect) is noteworthy for a number of reasons:

  • The 12-storey, 168-suite residential mid-rise building is proposed to be built out of mass-timber.
  • It is targeting Toronto Green Standard Tier 4, which is a voluntary, difficult-to-achieve, and expensive sustainability target. It is the equivalent of net-zero and I believe the only projects to date that have achieved this level in the city are public projects.
  • The circulation spaces are exterior single-loaded corridors that face an internal courtyard. This approach is very common in some cities, but almost non-existent in Toronto. Usually because someone will cite our winters as being a problem and because double-loaded corridors are typically the most efficient (rentable area / gross construction area). But the benefits are that you don’t need to heat/cool these corridor spaces and you open up the possibility of suites with windows on both ends.
  • The design doesn’t generally follow the typical “pyramid-shaped confection” that has come to define Toronto mid-rise buildings, though it does seem to generally conform to the 45 degree angular planes that we love to obsess over. Instead, it is starting to resemble a typical European courtyard building. Good. For some more commentary on this, check out John Lorinc’s recent piece in the Globe and the Mail.

  This is unquestionably an ambitious project. And ambition is what cities need. So I am pleased to write about it today on the blog. If you’d like to learn more, check out their project website.

  Image: Partisans

  2022.08.20

• Project Profile: Fold House

  

  

  This is an incredible house in Hamilton, Ontario by Toronto-based architecture practice Partisans. The central idea is clearly its folding roof, which dips down to accommodate a set of stairs that lead to the roof of the house. At the same time, the sloping roof creates a wave-like enclosure for the indoor/outdoor pool that sits below it.

  Partisans is, in my opinion, one of the most creative firms practicing in the city today. This house is a good example of that. I also admire their ability to go deep into materials and construction methods, which is something you need to do when you design forms like the ones you’re seeing here. For more photos and information, check out this Dezeen article about the project.

  Photos: Partisans

  2021.01.29

• An interview about homogeneous towers

  

  My friend Randy Gladman, who is Vice President of Development at Triovest Realty Advisors, recently sat down for an interview with Alex Josephson, who is a founding partner of the Toronto-based architecture practice PARTISANS. 

  The topic of discussion was the book that PARTISANS published last year (Rise and Sprawl) and, more specifically, why Toronto’s condominiums all look the same.

  Firstly, let me admit that I haven’t read Rise and Sprawl from cover to cover. So take what you would like from my comments. Still, the book was very successful at spurring a lot of discussion within the industry and so I’ve been getting hit with it since it was released. 

  Generally speaking, I fully support and commend their call for better architecture in Toronto. Here is an excerpt from Alex:

  “There’s a subtle but critical distinction I think some people are missing about the book: We are not criticizing condominiumization; we are criticizing condo architecture. We support density and we support condos. Toronto has become a much more vibrant city as a result of the condo boom. But the values that are driving the designs are suburban. The virulent spread of homogeneous design? That’s practically the definition of suburban. The radiator balconies I mentioned? They’re the result of a hard-wired fantasy that, as Canadians, we all have some kind of God-given right to an outdoor space, namely a back or front yard. And parking lots. Why do we still own and drive cars in the downtown core? This is a serious problem totally born out of a suburban driving mentality.”

  Where I struggle with the book is that it has always felt a bit idealistic, fanciful and, in some cases, elitist (as Randy mentions in the interview). Idealism can be great for spurring discussion (and drawing attention to a practice), but what are the root economic causes for what we are seeing? Virtually every building is a “spreadsheet in the sky”, not just the condo towers in Toronto.

  That said, the discussion does acknowledge that profit will always drive projects. And I do agree with this particular comment about building heights:

  “Anything above twenty stories is inconsequential from street level. So whether it’s twenty or a hundred storeys, I’m mostly indifferent. We are so obsessed in Toronto with height. But height equals money. If we can figure out a way to allow for more height in exchange for better design, we’ll end up with better buildings. But that kind of logic is just not embraced by the city planning culture here.”

  Click here for the full interview in ArchDaily.

  2017.01.07