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.
One of the pedestrian overpasses in Central has an exhibition running right now called Density 2.0. Here is a photo of one of the posters talking about Hong Kong’s typical “8-units-per-floor” tower plan.
Noteworthy is the fact that the floor plates contemplate minimal tower separation distances. This allows multiple towers to be built right beside each other. As a point of reference, the guideline in Toronto is 25m between tall buildings.
Alexis C. Madrigal recently published a piece about the Salesforce Tower in San Francisco called: The Tower at the Heart of the Tech Boom. At 61 floors and 1,070 feet, it is now the tallest building in San Francisco and the second tallest building west of the Mississippi River after the Wilshire Grand Center in Los Angeles.
Hines and Boston Properties are the developers of the building. Pelli Clarke Pelli is the architect. And Salesforce is the anchor tenant. In April 2014, it was announced that they had leased 714,000 sf on floors 1, 3-30, and 61. (Get that top floor.) So almost half of the building.
Perhaps not surprisingly, Madrigal calls the Salesforce Tower the “the most visible monument to the industry [tech] in the region and the country.” It is a demonstration of the power and reach of Silicon Valley. San Francisco has a new symbol. The TransAmerica Pyramid now feels inadequate.
Though interesting, this is actually not what I want to talk about today. I’d like to talk about what it took to build such a tall building in a seismically active city like San Francisco. Unfortunately, this feels timely given that the sinking Millennium Tower is getting so much attention right now.
The structural engineer for the Salesforce tower is Seattle-based Magnusson Klemencic Associates (MKA). They are a world-renowned structural and civil engineering firm that have been around since the 1920s. Other projects they are currently working on include the third tallest building in Chicago.
The tower’s seismic force-resisting system is made up of reinforced concrete shear walls that surround the central elevator and exit stair core. These walls are 24 to 48 inches thick. Here is a plan taken from a STRUCTURE Magazine post written by Ron Klemencic of MKA:
The tower’s foundations have been well documented, or at least frequently mentioned, because of how deep they had to go down. The site has poor soil conditions (fill, sand, San Francisco “old bay clay”, and weak bedrock), and so given the weight of the tower the only option was to go down to bedrock – approximately 250 feet below grade.
The foundation system they ended up going with uses something called Load-Bearing Elements (LBEs). The typical LBE measures 5′ x 10.5′. The entire foundation system uses 42 LBEs and a mat foundation that varies in thickness from 14′ around the core to 5′ around the perimeter. (See image below.) The LBEs were brought down to rock. And in some cases, they went down more than 310 feet below grade.
As a condition of buying the site, the Transbay Joint Powers Authority required proof that any future tall building would not negatively impact the surrounding structures – including the adjacent Transbay Transit Center – and that it would perform under a Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) event.
So while the tower itself may be a symbol for the new world, its structural system also achieves many firsts in terms of how to build a supertall in a seismically active region.
Please keep in mind that I am not a structural engineer. I just pretend to be an architect sometimes. If you’re interested in more of the details, check out the post by Ron Klemencic. All of the above information was taken from there.
Today I am excited to announce that we (Slate) have retained Studio Gang Architects to design a new mixed-use residential tower at Yonge + St. Clair in midtown Toronto.
Alex Bozikovic was first to break the news in the Globe and Mail, but you can now also read about it at UrbanToronto.ca, in ArchDaily, and likely some other places.
Here is something I said to Alex that we feel strongly about:
“We’re considering the whole community,” Donnelly says. “By thinking of city-building rather than individual tower buildings, it opens up new possibilities.”
This is particularly true because of Slate’s broader position at Yonge + St Clair.
And here is something that Stefan Novakovic wrote over at UrbanToronto.ca that we were happy to read – thank you:
With no renderings, no precise indication of height, scale, or programming, and no hint at the building’s aesthetic—yet—it’s already a lock to be one of Toronto’s most anticipated upcoming developments. That’s because Studio Gang is no ordinary firm.
I’ve also pasted the full press release at the bottom of this post.
One thing you may notice is that we’ll be hosting a public consultation later this spring. This will be before we submit anything to the city. It’s part of our research and information gathering phase, and it will be used to inform the ultimate design.
I’ve been admiring Studio Gang’s work from afar for well over a decade. So it’s personally very exciting to be starting work with them on an actual project. We are thrilled about this announcement and I hope that many of you are as well.
Image: Folsom Bay Tower, San Francisco
—————————————————————
Slate Asset Management commissions acclaimed architecture practice’s first building in Canada
March 10, 2017 (Toronto)—Slate Asset Management announces it has selected internationally celebrated architecture practice Studio Gang to design a mixed-used tower at the south-west corner of Yonge and Delisle. The announcement is the latest in a series of high-profile commissions by Slate, including an eight-story mural by international street artist Phlegm. The project will be Studio Gang’s first building in Canada, and is part of Slate’s overall effort to reimagine Yonge + St. Clair through the use of public art, world-class design, vibrant streetscapes and open spaces.
“Yonge + St. Clair is on its way back. Having occasion to bring Studio Gang’s first project in Toronto to the neighbourhood signals to the rest of the city that we would like to create something special here,” says Brandon Donnelly, Vice President of Development at Slate Asset Management.
The announcement comes just as Studio Gang Founding Principal, Jeanne Gang, is set to receive a 2017 Honorary Fellowship from the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada (RAIC) in May. The Honorary Fellowship is the latest in a series of accolades for Gang including a 2011 MacArthur Fellowship and the Architectural Review’s 2016 Architect of the Year.
“As our practice’s relationship with Canada grows, we’re excited to explore Toronto and to understand the unique DNA of the Yonge + St. Clair neighbourhood,” says Jeanne Gang. “We hope to design a building that will strengthen relationships within the neighbourhood and the city.”
Based in Chicago and New York, Studio Gang is widely recognized for elevating the urban environment while building connections between people and their environments. This ethos is visible throughout Studio Gang’s diverse portfolio, which includes Aqua Tower in Chicago, Folsom Tower in San Francisco, and 40 Tenth Avenue along the Highline in New York—each of which emphasizes connections between people, the city, and nature.
With a practice rooted in research, engagement, sustainability and the innovative use of materials, Studio Gang will work with Slate to host a public consultation later this spring to gather community input prior to a design submission to the city. The final building will be primarily rental, with retail space at grade, in keeping with Slate’s long-term vision for the area. And while the design for the building is not finalized, Donnelly says a couple of decisions have already been made.
“It’s not going to be a typical all-glass tower,” says Donnelly, citing a need to introduce material variety into Toronto’s ever-booming skyline. “We want to push boundaries in terms of sustainability and building efficiency, which means we are thinking carefully about the building envelope and its materials.”
The decision to commission Studio Gang was made after an exhaustive selection process emphasizing design methodology, site context, and Slate’s aspirations for world-class architecture and a fresh vision. Yonge + St. Clair is a transit-rich node with a subway and dedicated streetcar tracks. At the same time, the dense urban realm is a short walk from some of the city’s most beloved neighbourhoods and a ravine system, offering direct access to quiet green space. This juxtaposition of natural and built environments will serve as an inspiration for the project.
“There is a hill that crests at Yonge + St. Clair, which means the build site acts as both a pedestal and a view terminus from way uptown,” says Donnelly, detailing another unique advantage of both the site and the neighbourhood. “The challenge will be to develop a building worthy of being showcased, but we feel confident that we have the right team in place to do just that.”
Over the last four years, Slate has purchased ten properties in the area, including all four corners of the intersection at Yonge and St. Clair. The Studio Gang commission will be the first ground-up tower in the area by Slate, marking a unique collaboration that combines global experience and high design with a serious investment in the neighbourhood. The area’s transformation kicked-off last summer with the introduction of the eight-story mural by Phlegm.
Gang is being honoured at the RAIC/OAA Festival of Architecture in Ottawa, May 24–27. She will be named an Honorary Fellow of the College of Fellows of the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada and will deliver the keynote address at the festival.
-30-
For more information and images please contact kg&a
Vakis Boutsalis
Vakis@kga-inc.com
416-537-0954
About Slate Asset Management L.P.
Slate Asset Management L.P. is a leading real estate investment platform with approximately $4.0 billion in assets under management. Slate is a value-oriented manager and a significant sponsor of all of its private and publicly-traded investment vehicles, which are tailored to the unique goals and objectives of its investors. The firm’s careful and selective investment approach creates long-term value with an emphasis on capital preservation and outsized returns. Slate is supported by exceptional people, flexible capital and a proven ability to originate and execute on a wide range of compelling investment opportunities. Visit slateam.com to learn more.
About Studio Gang
Founded by MacArthur Fellow Jeanne Gang, Studio Gang is an architecture and urbanism practice based in Chicago and New York. Known for creating innovative buildings that enhance the public space around them, Studio Gang has completed award-winning projects such as the Aqua Tower and Nature Boardwalk at Lincoln Park Zoo in Chicago, Illinois, USA, and the Arcus Center for Social Justice Leadership in Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA. The Studio is currently designing towers in Chicago, San Francisco, New York, and Amsterdam. In addition, Studio Gang is currently engaged in cultural and educational projects across the Americas, from the new United States Embassy in Brazil to the expansion of the American Museum of Natural History in New York and a consolidated campus for the California College of the Arts in San Francisco. In 2016, Studio Gang was recognized as Firm of the Year at the Architizer A+ Awards and Jeanne Gang was named Architect of the Year by the Architectural Review. Visit www.studiogang.com to learn more.
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.
At the time of writing this post, it’s still 2015 – at least here in Toronto. But by the time you (subscribers) get this post in your inbox, it will be 2016. So happy new year! I am thrilled about getting this year started and I hope you feel the same way.
To kick things off, I thought I would share a great interactive post from Guardian Cities called, A history of cities in 50 buildings. It’s a look at our urban history through 50 important and pivotal buildings. Buildings such as Southdale Center, which was the first fully enclosed, climate-controlled shopping mall, and Chicago’s Home Insurance Building, which was a building that really set the stage for the modern skyscraper that we know today.
Not all of these buildings have left a positive legacy on our cities. I am sure that some of you would argue that the creation of the suburban shopping mall, with its corresponding “sea of parking”, was not a step forward for cities, but a step backwards. The architect behind Southdale Center, Victor Gruen, has even gone on record saying that he refuses “to pay alimony for those bastard developments.” He hated the shopping mall.
But like them or not, these buildings are part of our urban history, and I think it’s not only interesting but important to understand their impacts. If you want to see which important buildings were missed, at least according to Guardian readers, click here. I have to say that I was happy to see both Montréal and Toronto represented in the original list, as well as a few other buildings that I’ve written about here.
On that note, happy new year to you all, again, and many thanks for reading Architect This City. If you have any suggestions for content you would like to see on this blog in 2016, please leave it in the comment section below. This may be my personal blog, but my goal is to make it valuable for all of you. Hopefully I achieve that sometimes.
This evening I participated in a roundtable discussion at WORKshop here in Toronto. It was part of an exhibition that they currently have on called, Toronto 2020: Where Will We Live? They are located in the concourse level of 80 Bloor Street West, so go check them out.
The discussion this evening was all about the dramatic change in Toronto’s urban form over the last decade. In other words, the condo boom. We covered everything from the life cycle of buildings and urban design to demographics and policy. It was a lot of fun and I am certain the group could have continued talking all night.
But one thing that I was reminded of this evening is how important it is for great city building to be cross-disciplinary.
Take, for example, architects and (real estate) developers.
The stereotypical developer is greedy and only concerned with money. They don’t care about the impact that their buildings have on the built environment. On the other hand, the stereotypical architect is only concerned with design and not with the economic feasibility of projects. (I’m exaggerating here for effect.)
The point is that neither of these participants in isolation could build a great city. A beautiful design doesn’t have much value if it can’t be financed and built. And a highly financeable project could end up contributing nothing to the city. In some cases it could actually detract from the built environment.
So if we really want to build truly great cities, I believe it needs to be a collaborative effort. We need to bridge the divides in thinking and leverage each other’s strengths.
I have felt very strongly about this since I first started studying architecture as an undergraduate student, which is how I ended up taking business and real estate classes. I felt and continue to feel that the greatest opportunities exist at the intersection of different ways of thinking.
Completed in 1952, the Unité d’habitation in Marseille, France (more specifically known as the Cité radieuse) is one of the most famous buildings by Swiss-French architect, Le Corbusier. Every architecture student learns about it at one point or another.
It’s famous because it was a model for a new way to live and build cities. Le Corbusier envisioned the apartment building as a kind of vertical city. The corridors weren’t thought of or referred to as corridors, they were instead called streets and lined with shops and businesses.
Of course, Le Corbusier later became famous for inspiring an entire generation of buildings that many people now hate. Some believe he was completely misguided and others believe we simply bastardized his intents. But whatever the case may be, he certainly had a profound impact on cities.
So if you happen to be in Marseille between July 4 to 19 (2015), you should check out an installation at the Unité d’habitation called Apartment N°50.
It’s an installation put on by Jean-Marc Drut and Patrick Blauwart. They are the owners of Apartment N°50 and, since 2008, they have invited a designer or studio to come in and renovate it on an annual basis. They then open it up to the public during the summer. I think that’s a really neat idea and would love to visit sometime.
Click here for the official Apartment N°50 website (it’s in French). The image at the top of this post is from Curbed.
Thorncliffe Park Drive (TORONTO) by Jenver Rosales on 500px
Between the 1950s and 1980s, Toronto built a lot of towers. A 2010 report by the Centre for Urban Growth and Renewal identified 1,925 rental apartment towers of 8 storeys or more across the Greater Toronto Area.
That’s the second largest inventory of apartment towers in North America – many or most of which are in car-oriented suburban neighborhoods.
Of course, Toronto continues to build a lot of towers. But this second and current wave of towers is quite different than the last. Virtually all of them are now condo (as opposed to rental) and most are concentrated in central neighborhoods that are generally well-serviced by transit.
This has created a lot of positives for the city. It brought more people into the core to live, which in turn brought more retailers and employers into the city. It has created what I believe is a more vibrant and exciting 24/7 city.
But this return to city centers (as well as the economic spikiness it has created) is now well established both in Toronto, as well as in other cities all around the world. Every real estate conference or panel you go to now talks about Millennials and their desire to be in walkable communities. We got it.
And relatively speaking, those kinds of communities aren’t that difficult to create when you’re infilling city centers. Certainly not at this point. The street grid and bones are usually all in place. And the urban form is often conducive to transit.
The real challenge – and thus opportunity – for Toronto and lots of other cities is how to urbanize the (inner) suburbs and in particular these “towers in a park”. If you follow this space, you’ll know that there’s a lot more that we could be doing.
How do we rethink their relationship to the rest of the city? How do we better connect them through transit? How do we plug them in economically? In my opinion, these are far more difficult tasks. But they’re important ones for the long-term success of our cities.
A controversial design proposal for the tallest building in Europe has been making the rounds online over the past few days. Designed by Morphosis Architects, the 381 meter-tall tower is being proposed in Vals in the Swiss Alps.
And pretty much everyone seems to hate it.
When I first came across the design, I truthfully had to do a double take to see if it was actually a real proposal. But it seems to be. Everyone is writing about it.
Clearly there are some interesting tensions at play here. You have a hyper-urban building typology in a mountain town setting, but with materials that are intended to make it dematerialize into the landscape.
So I thought we could have a discussion about it in the comments.
Is a small mountain town the right place for the tallest building in Europe? Could it work as a one-off tower?
Image: Morphosis Architects via ArchDaily
Earlier today, Christopher Hume of the Toronto Star published a review of The Residences at RCMI building currently under construction on University Avenue. He gave the building a ‘B’ grade.
His main criticism was the faux facade that has been integrated into the base of the building:
Then there’s the question of the historic 1907 building the RCMI occupied until recently. Though listed as a heritage site in 1973, the city approved its demolition. Planners also allowed the neo-classical front façade to be replaced with a replica that will fool no one, another example of the city talking out of both sides of its mouth.
But faux facades aside, one of the things that makes this development project unique in Toronto is actually something that you can’t see from the outside: there’s no resident parking. Apparently there’s 9 spots for deliveries and other short-term uses, but for the 315 suites in the building there’s no parking.
Depending on where in the world you’re from this may not seem like a big deal. I’ve written before about minimum and maximum parking requirements, and how some cities – such as Berlin – don’t have them. But here in Toronto, we do. And the city generally takes them very seriously.
“To assume a residential development of the project’s scale might be totally car-free runs counter to expert study and experience,” municipal staffers argued. “Although there are many households in the downtown without cars, it would be highly unlikely to find 315 of them permanently concentrated in one building.”
The fact planners were dead wrong is a shocking sign of a department either out of touch or that doesn’t believe its own hype.
In so many ways – as Hume pointed out in his article – this is complete hypocrisy. We’re always talking about building walkable communities and encouraging alternate forms of mobility, but when it comes time to build anything new, we force a certain number of parking spots to be included. And so we end up encouraging the exact opposite.
This also has a significant impact on the way we build our cities. Parking minimums can actually render smaller sites “undevelopable” simply because there isn’t enough room to lay out the required parking. In fact, it might surprise you how much of what we do ends up being governed by cars, parking, and traffic.
That’s why I think this image is so impactful:
The most accurate representation of the public space we give up for cars. Courtesy of @tchebotarev 🙂 #athiscity pic.twitter.com/KBUX0Td4fj
— Brandon G. Donnelly (@donnelly_b)
//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
But I’m certain that a lot of this will change as Toronto continues to grow. Progressive cities all around the world are rethinking their positions on parking, and on cars in general.
Earlier this year Sao Paulo joined the club and got rid of parking minimums for sites along major transit corridors. And they actually imposed a parking maximum: 1 spot per residence. The expectation is that this will reduce traffic and improve housing affordability.
Parking minimums may not seem like a big deal, but the reality is that their impacts are far reaching. They change development patterns, they change project economics, and they send a message about the kind of city you hope to build.
Image: Looking south on University Avenue in Toronto (Flickr)
