Urban Shocker
Doyenne
Yes, grey, Babak's a lively advocate for design - he spoke from the floor at the TSA Design Review Forum a couple of months ago, which Darkstar, Simply Dan, interchange and I went to. Bruce Kuwabara and Ralph Giannone were on the panel, along with a couple of urban planners who didn't have much to say, and Eslahjou would have been a good addition. His point about peer recognition - in the Pugs interview quoted above - was echoed in what Kuwabara and Giannone said about their positive experiences with the collegial nature of the purely design review process, once it's free from lawyers, marketers, developers and other types.
His related comment, about the trained eye and the idea that only a small percentage of the population "gets" art, reminds me of the article that forum member Silence&Motion posted about the populist attempt to get more people to listen to classical music ( violinist Joshua Bell playing in a subway station ... ) which failed to raise the level of involvement much above that which people have with the same music when it's performed in professional concert halls.
And on the subject of design - as opposed to planning - culture, here's an article about another forum that he was recently involved in:
Current planning system a 'messy democracy'
Christopher Hume
Apr 11, 2009
Architects don't usually agree on much, but in Toronto there's one thing on which they all see eye to eye: The city's planning system doesn't work.
That came through loud and clear in a round table discussion moderated by the Toronto Star last week. We invited some of the most respected practitioners to the session and listened carefully to what they had to say.
"We need clarity," declared Rudy Wallman of Wallman Architects. "The zoning bylaw is really out of date."
According to Babak Eslahjou, of Core Architects, the planning process "pits neighbourhoods against developers." And once the subject of height is raised, he argued, backs go up and civility flies out the door. We should be talking about density, he insisted, not height.
David Pontarini of Hariri Pontarini Architects pointed out that because the planning regime is so dysfunctional, fully half his firm's projects end up at the Ontario Municipal Board, the quasi-judicial tribunal that has final say on development in the province. He would prefer a design review process, like that of Vancouver.
But as Roland Rom Colthoff of Raw Design pointed out: "The approval process is democratic." As he also noted, however, democracy isn't particularly effective; it's just better than any other system.
All four architects on hand rank among the most accomplished in Toronto. But each, in his own way, made it clear condo design could be improved by establishing a clear set of rules that would apply to everyone involved – developers, planners, architects and neighbourhoods.
As it stands, each project seems to be considered in a kind of regulatory vacuum, a one-off, as if it existed in isolation from the rest of the city.
The result, Eslahjou observed, is that "a lot of planners take their direction from councillors." Their concerns tend to be more political than civic or architectural, which is no way to build a city.
And yet, many developers take their scheme to the local councillor before they go to city planners. Keep in mind, too, that in Toronto, the planning department only advises council, which has final say. Because so many councillors would rather cave to local interests than do what's best for the city, many proposals end up at the OMB. This, in turn, has the effect of allowing councillors to avoid the hard decisions.
"The OMB is part of a much larger process," said Colthoff.
And, the round table participants agreed, the OMB process, with its judicial overtones, means that lawyers and consultants play an overly large role in development. They also complained that it forces the discussion away from architecture and design and onto strictly legal matters. Though no one suggested the law isn't important, they emphasized the need to focus on how a building functions in its context, what it brings to city and the public realm.
Though there was general agreement that design review panels – of which Toronto now has several – lead to better architecture, Wallman spoke of his experience where one of his firm's projects was reviewed by a panel. The process, Wallman said, was "extremely beneficial," but when he took it to city planners, they had no interest in the panel or its suggestions.
This kind of bureaucratic confusion and interagency turf wars undermine efforts to improve the quality of design in Toronto.
Leadership, they insisted, must come from the politicians, but they're afraid and unwilling to give up any of their power. And of all the powers held by councillors, none means more than the ability to control development; it lies at the heart of civic government, or at least, it should.
But as Eslahjou also made clear, if planning department problems weren't enough, there's also public works, the TTC, fire department, the whole panoply of bureaucratic "silos," each of which views development through its own lens.
This partly explains why the city, in Colthoff's words, "has abandoned the public realm." It's not so much that the city doesn't care about its streets, sidewalks, parks and squares, but that each department only looks at its part of the public realm. And because few are willing to take them on, they tend to prevail.
On the other hand, all four architects agreed that the condo market in Toronto has grown more sophisticated in recent years. Design matters as never before, and developers ignore architecture at their peril. What makes these architect comments so interesting was the frank – and very refreshing – admission that, like the vast majority of buildings in the city, condos are "fabric buildings." In other words, they constitute the stuff of which the city is made; their job is not to stand out and call attention to themselves but to help define the streetscape and bring continuity, coherence and connection to the city.
This is no small task, and no one should assume that fabric buildings are any less critical because they belong with the choristers, not in the soloists' spotlight. Let's not forget, there's nothing more harmonious than a choir singing in tune.
Our quartet was also adamant that despite calls for more family-sized units, demand remains small. They simply don't sell, Eslahjou pointed out. That's why, in Wallman's words, if it were up to developers, there would be no family units in any condo.
On the other hand, there was unanimous consent that sustainability has become an issue no builder can ignore. LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) accreditation is well on its way to becoming the norm in the condo industry, even though it adds to the bottom line and, therefore, the final price. The argument, of course, is that those extra costs are more than worth it because they lead to increased savings over the long term. The foursome described projects that include geothermal heating, solar panels and the like.
For all the problems and obstacles they encounter as condo designers, it was wonderfully reassuring to hear four of Toronto's most accomplished architects talking about beauty, and their quest to design beautiful buildings. That isn't a word we often associate with architecture in the 21st Century, and certainly not in same breath as condos, but the desire for beauty runs deep. It will not be ignored, and it will not go away.
And who knows, perhaps one day it will be seen in the condos we build.
And, back with the Pugs interview, here's a bit more Babak:
What is your favorite building in Toronto – be it residential, commercial, public or institutional?
The TD Centre – It is still the most beautiful building in this city, by far. The plaza below the building feels fantastic; the poetry is in its simplicity and sophistication at the same time. It is a timeless building and a great example of the successes of 20th century … It was a good building to happen, at the time that it did, for the city of Toronto.
( He actually raised the question of whether or not a "towers in the park" development such as the TD Centre would be approved today, if it came up before a design review panel such as the one Kuwabara sits on, at the recent TSA Design Review Forum. "Of course it would!" said Bruce, to some laughter ).
His related comment, about the trained eye and the idea that only a small percentage of the population "gets" art, reminds me of the article that forum member Silence&Motion posted about the populist attempt to get more people to listen to classical music ( violinist Joshua Bell playing in a subway station ... ) which failed to raise the level of involvement much above that which people have with the same music when it's performed in professional concert halls.
And on the subject of design - as opposed to planning - culture, here's an article about another forum that he was recently involved in:
Current planning system a 'messy democracy'
Christopher Hume
Apr 11, 2009
Architects don't usually agree on much, but in Toronto there's one thing on which they all see eye to eye: The city's planning system doesn't work.
That came through loud and clear in a round table discussion moderated by the Toronto Star last week. We invited some of the most respected practitioners to the session and listened carefully to what they had to say.
"We need clarity," declared Rudy Wallman of Wallman Architects. "The zoning bylaw is really out of date."
According to Babak Eslahjou, of Core Architects, the planning process "pits neighbourhoods against developers." And once the subject of height is raised, he argued, backs go up and civility flies out the door. We should be talking about density, he insisted, not height.
David Pontarini of Hariri Pontarini Architects pointed out that because the planning regime is so dysfunctional, fully half his firm's projects end up at the Ontario Municipal Board, the quasi-judicial tribunal that has final say on development in the province. He would prefer a design review process, like that of Vancouver.
But as Roland Rom Colthoff of Raw Design pointed out: "The approval process is democratic." As he also noted, however, democracy isn't particularly effective; it's just better than any other system.
All four architects on hand rank among the most accomplished in Toronto. But each, in his own way, made it clear condo design could be improved by establishing a clear set of rules that would apply to everyone involved – developers, planners, architects and neighbourhoods.
As it stands, each project seems to be considered in a kind of regulatory vacuum, a one-off, as if it existed in isolation from the rest of the city.
The result, Eslahjou observed, is that "a lot of planners take their direction from councillors." Their concerns tend to be more political than civic or architectural, which is no way to build a city.
And yet, many developers take their scheme to the local councillor before they go to city planners. Keep in mind, too, that in Toronto, the planning department only advises council, which has final say. Because so many councillors would rather cave to local interests than do what's best for the city, many proposals end up at the OMB. This, in turn, has the effect of allowing councillors to avoid the hard decisions.
"The OMB is part of a much larger process," said Colthoff.
And, the round table participants agreed, the OMB process, with its judicial overtones, means that lawyers and consultants play an overly large role in development. They also complained that it forces the discussion away from architecture and design and onto strictly legal matters. Though no one suggested the law isn't important, they emphasized the need to focus on how a building functions in its context, what it brings to city and the public realm.
Though there was general agreement that design review panels – of which Toronto now has several – lead to better architecture, Wallman spoke of his experience where one of his firm's projects was reviewed by a panel. The process, Wallman said, was "extremely beneficial," but when he took it to city planners, they had no interest in the panel or its suggestions.
This kind of bureaucratic confusion and interagency turf wars undermine efforts to improve the quality of design in Toronto.
Leadership, they insisted, must come from the politicians, but they're afraid and unwilling to give up any of their power. And of all the powers held by councillors, none means more than the ability to control development; it lies at the heart of civic government, or at least, it should.
But as Eslahjou also made clear, if planning department problems weren't enough, there's also public works, the TTC, fire department, the whole panoply of bureaucratic "silos," each of which views development through its own lens.
This partly explains why the city, in Colthoff's words, "has abandoned the public realm." It's not so much that the city doesn't care about its streets, sidewalks, parks and squares, but that each department only looks at its part of the public realm. And because few are willing to take them on, they tend to prevail.
On the other hand, all four architects agreed that the condo market in Toronto has grown more sophisticated in recent years. Design matters as never before, and developers ignore architecture at their peril. What makes these architect comments so interesting was the frank – and very refreshing – admission that, like the vast majority of buildings in the city, condos are "fabric buildings." In other words, they constitute the stuff of which the city is made; their job is not to stand out and call attention to themselves but to help define the streetscape and bring continuity, coherence and connection to the city.
This is no small task, and no one should assume that fabric buildings are any less critical because they belong with the choristers, not in the soloists' spotlight. Let's not forget, there's nothing more harmonious than a choir singing in tune.
Our quartet was also adamant that despite calls for more family-sized units, demand remains small. They simply don't sell, Eslahjou pointed out. That's why, in Wallman's words, if it were up to developers, there would be no family units in any condo.
On the other hand, there was unanimous consent that sustainability has become an issue no builder can ignore. LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) accreditation is well on its way to becoming the norm in the condo industry, even though it adds to the bottom line and, therefore, the final price. The argument, of course, is that those extra costs are more than worth it because they lead to increased savings over the long term. The foursome described projects that include geothermal heating, solar panels and the like.
For all the problems and obstacles they encounter as condo designers, it was wonderfully reassuring to hear four of Toronto's most accomplished architects talking about beauty, and their quest to design beautiful buildings. That isn't a word we often associate with architecture in the 21st Century, and certainly not in same breath as condos, but the desire for beauty runs deep. It will not be ignored, and it will not go away.
And who knows, perhaps one day it will be seen in the condos we build.
And, back with the Pugs interview, here's a bit more Babak:
What is your favorite building in Toronto – be it residential, commercial, public or institutional?
The TD Centre – It is still the most beautiful building in this city, by far. The plaza below the building feels fantastic; the poetry is in its simplicity and sophistication at the same time. It is a timeless building and a great example of the successes of 20th century … It was a good building to happen, at the time that it did, for the city of Toronto.
( He actually raised the question of whether or not a "towers in the park" development such as the TD Centre would be approved today, if it came up before a design review panel such as the one Kuwabara sits on, at the recent TSA Design Review Forum. "Of course it would!" said Bruce, to some laughter ).
