Toronto OnePark West | ?m | 13s | Daniels | Core Architects

[jks]

Sigh... Why does everyone assume that people in poverty don't care at all about their city. Sure, they are lucky to live in any building, bot for crying out loud having no money doesn't mean you can't appreciate great architecture!!

 

[Torontovibe]

Another building going up on the north part of that block.

By torontovibe, shot with DSC-N1 at 2009-04-09

The new one seems to be going up fast.

By torontovibe, shot with DSC-N1 at 2009-04-09

 

[ProjectEnd]

That building to the north is called One Oak. There is a render of it in the presentation I posted last week (same pres. as the community map AOD posted).

Thanks for the photos!

 

[Silence&Motion]

Architecture and Poverty – The thoughts of a procrastinating grad student

Wow after looking at that plan, I am very impressed. I didn't realize the details of it. I can't wait until all is said and done. I hope the people who move back into their units, take pride in their new buildings, and don't treat them badly.

That beautiful architecture can inspire "civic virtue" among disadvantaged communities was the fallacy of the City Beautiful movement of the late 1800's, early 1900's. The problem is that all of the "social ills" we associate with disadvantaged communities stem not from a lack of aesthetic inspiration, but from the fact that the communities are...well, disadvantaged (economically, politically, etc). This is not to say that architecture and planning have no role to play in improving the living conditions of Regent Park residents. However, I seriously doubt these improvements will come from any kind of pride that residents feel toward the new buildings.

Which brings me to JKS's response...

Sigh... Why does everyone assume that people in poverty don't care at all about their city. Sure, they are lucky to live in any building, bot for crying out loud having no money doesn't mean you can't appreciate great architecture!!

It's not that people in poverty don't care about their city. It's just that the things they care about are not necessarily the same as the concerns of people in more privileged positions. Take architecture, for instance. Architecture is a very class-based interest. It's true that, logically, there's nothing stopping people in poverty from appreciating architecture. However, an interest in architecture is something that people develop over a long period of time, and it is tied to many other lifestyle factors: being able travel, buy a home, shop at high-end furniture stores, or read about history or aesthetic philosophy. These are all things that might lead one to become interested in architecture, and they're also all things that are pretty much unattainable to people suffering under poverty.

Anyway, the point is that we shouldn't be surprised if tinfoil goes up over every other window in these new buildings. But should the residents of Regent Park really be expected to answer to a bunch of architecture buffs who live in relative privilege? As far as I'm concerned, the tinfoil can serve as a useful reminder of how cities have often naïvely turned to architecture to solve the deeply entrenched problems of economic and political inequality.

 

[condovo]

That beautiful architecture can inspire "civic virtue" among disadvantaged communities was the fallacy of the City Beautiful movement of the late 1800's, early 1900's. The problem is that all of the "social ills" we associate with disadvantaged communities stem not from a lack of aesthetic inspiration, but from the fact that the communities are...well, disadvantaged (economically, politically, etc). This is not to say that architecture and planning have no role to play in improving the living conditions of Regent Park residents. However, I seriously doubt these improvements will come from any kind of pride that residents feel toward the new buildings.

Well, is mixing subsidized housing with market housing, i.e. exposing the down-and-out to the upwardly-mobile, just another, more recent, fallacy? As far as I know, this is the thinking underpinning Regent Park's makeover.

Which brings me to JKS's response...
It's not that people in poverty don't care about their city. It's just that the things they care about are not necessarily the same as the concerns of people in more privileged positions. Take architecture, for instance. Architecture is a very class-based interest. It's true that, logically, there's nothing stopping people in poverty from appreciating architecture. However, an interest in architecture is something that people develop over a long period of time, and it is tied to many other lifestyle factors: being able travel, buy a home, shop at high-end furniture stores, or read about history or aesthetic philosophy. These are all things that might lead one to become interested in architecture, and they're also all things that are pretty much unattainable to people suffering under poverty.

Also, appreciating architecture takes a certain amount of (formal) education, however little. It's not just about learning by osmosis in over-priced home-décor shops.

Anyway, the point is that we shouldn't be surprised if tinfoil goes up over every other window in these new buildings. But should the residents of Regent Park really be expected to answer to a bunch of architecture buffs who live in relative privilege? As far as I'm concerned, the tinfoil can serve as a useful reminder of how cities have often naïvely turned to architecture to solve the deeply entrenched problems of economic and political inequality.

Also, there may be a cultural gap between the new architecture of the new Regent Park and the veteran, immigrant population living there, resulting in tin foil and bedsheets as window treatments. Finally, poor people raise future architects too so maybe architecture isn't quite as classist as it's often made out to be.

 

[Silence&Motion]

Condovo:

I generally agree with everything you've said. I don't think the idea that socio-economic mixing is a fallacy. I was careful to mention that architecture and urban development do have the potential to improve living conditions. However, there are a variety of different explanations for why mixing might improve the lives of the poor. One of the weaker explanations is that if the poor are surrounded by the rich they'll somehow learn to behave better or be motivated to "lift themselves out of poverty". I'm not sure if this is what you were referring to when you talk about "exposing the down-and-out to the upwardly-mobile".

A stronger theory about the effects of mixing is that richer people are better able to take care of their neighbourhoods because of their political and economic power. The rich can lobby for better parks, infrastructure, etc, and the poor will benefit by extension. This seems like a realistic solution to the problems associated with isolation and ghettoization that often exacerbate the disadvantages faced by the poor.

Edit: I should clarify that my use of the term "fallacy" was not aimed at the redevelopment of Regent Park in general, but at the specific belief that pride associated with beautiful architecture will have any major impact on the living conditions of those in poverty.

 

[condovo]

Silence&Motion,

That all sounds reasonable. I guess the key to making Regent Park's renewal (and other like-minded initiatives) successful is striking the right balance between seemingly disparate interests/groups so that no one feels overwhelmed by the other. A tall order but worth a try.

 

[Urban Shocker]

From the intersection of Dundas and Parliament the various building heights and shapes of the One Cole buildings, with the aA development seen beyond them, fit together quite harmoniously. The grey of both towers matches, and the red brick will add variety. This is such a delight ... bring on the rest.

 

[Archivist]

I agree with Silence&Motion - the idea that architects can improve the life of disadvantaged people through beautiful buildings is a fallacy, not only of the City Beautiful movement, but I think one that had continued. A very interesting article in the Globe in 2006 had Jerome Markson tour Alexandra Park (now Atkinson Cooperative) and engage in a kind of "what were you thinking" conversation. Markson was saddened to see what became of the complex, and admitted being overly-optimistic about the ideas behind it.

The ideas behind the current iteration of Regent Park - bringing back the grid of streets, inviting in commercial purposes, and mixing of incomes - certainly seem sound to me, but who knows what the unintended consequences might be? I hope this is successful, and I have no reason to think it won't be, but I remain agnostic. Certainly, I don't have any answer about why earlier projects like Riverdale Courts have been so successful for so long, while Regent park floundered.

I do agree that whether or not the buildings are considered beautiful by a bunch of elites is pretty much irrelevant. After all, the elites bestowed two awards on Alexandra Park for its merits when it was built, but that didn't keep it from degenerating.

 

[Urban Shocker]

The appreciation of beauty is a great social leveller though - it's something that can be recognized by anyone with eyes to see it, though explaining that to someone who admits they don't understand the world through the filter of aesthetics or even live in that world of those who do might be like trying to explain the concept of love to an android. Architects who are capable of designing beautiful buildings will do so, and those who recognize their accomplishments will celebrating them. Beauty is the magic ingredient that, when present, elevates the quality of life. Some designers can produce it, and some can't, but why exactly that is remains a mystery.

Here is some of what Markson has said about Alexandra Park, interesting in light of what's happening at Regent Park:

" It is illuminating for us to look back over 30 years of our architectural practice and review problems, goals and outcomes. In the 1960s this immigrant neighbourhood was designated for redevelopment. Although not a slum, it had degenerated over the uncertainty of its future. Then agreements between the federal, provincial, and municipal governments opened up new possibilities for rejuvenation.

All parties were interviewed and reasonable objectives identified: a small scale; minimal conflict between cars and people; straightforward units; cohesiveness and viability of the neighbourhood; play spaces for children; tough landscaping; retention of trees; a nursery; and smaller commercial spaces.

An 18-acre pedestrian precinct was created to separate people from vehicles, parking was placed at the perimeter of the neighbourhood, and provision was made for emergency vehicles to operate through the site.

Of the 627 housing units, 200 are elderly persons’ apartments, 40 are for singles and small families, and the remaining units are in new row houses. These moderate-scale buildings line a winding “north-south main street†spine with branches which encourage cross and through circulation. All family units are at or near grade and have access to gardens. There are a small number of renovated apartments and houses. A serious attempt was made to conserve certain strings of houses, but there were no financial provisions for doing so.

On completion, our team felt that Alexandra Park had been imposed from above and that the residents had insufficient input. We believe that a more gradual and less disruptive process of physical renewal and more rehabilitation of existing buildings would have achieved better results. We wonder whether we should have continued the grid system of roads. Perhaps today we might have added more detail and playfulness to our elevations."

 

[Silence&Motion]

The appreciation of beauty is a great social leveller though - it's something that can be recognized by anyone with eyes to see it

The late sociologist Pierre Bourdieu actually argued that the appreciation of beauty is a great social divider. He theorised that people develop aesthetic tastes that reflect their class positions, with the upper classes usually developing a tastes that distinguish themselves from the lower classes. Differing aesthetic tastes then become the basis for discrimination.

So, for instance, over-stuffed furniture and contemporary country music are not considered bad taste because they fail to meet some universal criteria of beauty that can be recognized by anyone. They are considered bad taste because elites associate them with lower classes.

 

[Urban Shocker]

Bourgeois "good taste" is a ghetto, though, and the people who buy into the concept can be liberated from it. Someone of moderate income living in a contemporary building such as One Cole or the nearbye aA designed tower, for instance, need not feel inferior to someone living in the pretentious faux of One St. Thomas because they lack their gruesome "good taste". Being open to good design is indeed a social leveller that transcends class constructs.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I think what's more important to note is that the architecture we've seen in Regent park so far does not allow for identification of the residents' socioeconomic status by itself. I mean, the TCHC building could sit in Distillery District and we'd all think it's some sort of middle-class affair.

I vaguely recall that when they first started building social housing - there was a warning not to build them "better" than private housing so as to avoid the ire of the electorate.

AoD

 

[Silence&Motion]

Bourgeois "good taste" is a ghetto, though, and the people who buy into the concept can be liberated from it. Someone of moderate income living in a contemporary building such as One Cole or the nearbye aA designed tower, for instance, need not feel inferior to someone living in the pretentious faux of One St. Thomas because they lack their gruesome "good taste". Being open to good design is indeed a social leveller that transcends class constructs.

Design and aesthetic tastes are separate issues, so let's just focus on aesthetics for now.

Anyway, the idea that there is some universal notion of beauty out there that anyone can grasp just doesn't sit with the facts. Tastes in music, furniture, books, movies, and television shows are highly correlated with social class. I bet that the percentage of working class people who prefer One St. Thomas to One Cole is probably much greater than it would be among the professional class. You're deluding yourself if you think your love of sleek modernism is not a reflection of your income, education, and upbringing. Who's to say that it's the people who like decorative historicism that are in need of "liberation" from their "gruesome" tastes? The reason we think that modernism, or avant-garde jazz, or French cinema, or HBO's The Wire are the pinnacle of art and culture is because the people who like these things are also the people with the power to define them as beauty. Having defined beauty, they are then in a position to discriminate against those who like faux historicism, country music, and CNN's Nancy Grace.

**Just to be sure, I hope none of this is taken as a personal attack. I'm talking about things on a societal level. I'm not making any assumptions about who you are, Urban Shocker. And I'm definitely not accusing you of discriminating against anyone. I think our aesthetic tastes are probably very similar.

 

[urbandreamer]

^What a load of bunk.

I would argue most people's idea of good architecture depends on their age, where they grew up, even their cultural background. (Just look at French-Canadian design vs. Ontario design.) Some people love Clewes, while other people are clueless.

Am I wealthy? No. Yet I love Dutch modernism just as much as like 1 St Thomas.