Last month I wrote a post talking about YOO Architecture . And in the body of that post I mentioned my interest in branding and marketing and how I wondered why it was something we never really talked about in architecture school.
After publishing that post, a close friend of mine from architecture school quickly pointed out to me that there are firms today that are integrating brand design into their practices. Specifically, he mentioned two firms: Gensler and Snøhetta .
Here’s some of Snøhetta’s work ( click here for more it):
I wasn’t aware that this was the case with these firms, but I’m delighted to see it happening. At the same time, I’m not surprised to see it happening. Architecture and branding have the potential to go hand-in-hand.
A good brand and identity isn’t just about logos and tag lines. It should speak to and reinforce an organization’s belief system.
And one of the most powerful ways to do that is through its architecture and environments. I mean, just look at how important the design of Apple’s stores are to the Apple brand.
Last night Westbank went public with their first design for the southwest corner of Bloor and Bathurst in Toronto (the Honest Ed’s site ).
There’s no name for the project yet and they haven’t even submitted a development application to the city, but I can tell you that there was a lot of excitement in the room last night. Over 500 people showed up at the Park Hyatt. And I think it only partially had to do with the fact that they were offering up free grilled cheese sandwiches .
If you’d like to get a feel for last night’s open house, check out #BloorAndBathurst on Twitter. And if you’d like to learn more about the project, check out Alex Bozikovic’s piece in the Globe and Mail . It’s pretty exciting stuff. I’m not going to repeat all of the project details here because Alex has already eloquently done that. All of the developer’s information boards can also be found online, here .
What I instead want to talk about is Westbank’s community engagement process. In Toronto, it’s quite rare to see this level of public consultation pre -application. And that’s because the city only requires it once a development application has been formally made.
But I’m of the opinion that the status quo isn’t actually the optimal strategy for city building. In fact, I’ve argued before that public consultation is broken .
And the reason I think that is because the typical process doesn’t allow for a critical mass of community feedback, both early on and throughout the process (think lean startup methodologies ). In-person public meetings are too much friction for a lot people and getting feedback only once an application has been submitted means that a lot of work has already been done, which is the opposite of lean.
Now, part of the reason that many developers don’t adopt this model is because of fear. There’s a belief that many communities just don’t like change, period. But is that really the public opinion? Or do we simply not have enough data and enough feedback loops built into the city building process?
Time will tell how this approach works out for Westbank, but I have a pretty good feeling that they’ll do just fine.
Image (Sketchup model + watercolor): Westbank via Globe and Mail
Those of you from Toronto might be aware that the city is currently assessing the possibility of a “relief subway line” that would connect the downtown core back up to the Bloor-Danforth subway line in the form of a stretched out “U”.
The reason this line is being called a “relief line” is that – in addition to providing local service all across downtown and its “shoulders” – it would also relieve much of the pressure that the Yonge-Bloor interchange is facing today. Instead of always having to connect at that location, passengers coming from the east and west would be able to do so sooner as a result of this new subway line (bypassing Yonge-Bloor).
For those of you who are regular readers of ATC, you might know that I’m a big supporter of this relief line. I believe it should be our number one transit priority. It’s going to cut through areas of the city that have some of the highest population and employment densities, and so it’s an area where I think subway makes sense. The ridership would be there.
Given that an assessment is currently underway, the city is looking for feedback from the public. One of the ways you can do that is by clicking here . The site will allow you to comment on the potential station locations (shown below using purple circles). I did it this morning and I would encourage you to do the same if you’re from Toronto.
For clarity, this current study is only for the eastern portion of the relief line (study area is outlined in red below).
Once you’ve given this some thought, I’d love to have a discussion in the comments about where you think the relief subway line should go (or if you even think it’s a good idea in the first place).
My initial thought is that it should connect into King station, run along King Street East, merge with Queen Street East near the Don Valley, go through Riverside and Leslieville, and then start making its way north to Danforth Avenue.
My reasons are as follows:
King Street East is the most vibrant pedestrian street on the east side of downtown. There isn’t enough commercial activity further south.
King Street would allow it to eventually cut right through the Financial District when it heads westward.
The connection to Union station (for GO Transit, VIA Rail, and the Union-Pearson Express Train) would be manageable from King Street. Plus, SmartTrack may feed directly into Union.
King Street is roughly the midpoint between Queen Street and Lakeshore Boulevard. And if you place it too far south, it would take away from the proposed Queen’s Quay LRT line.
Having it merge into Queen Street near the Don Valley would allow it to service both Regent Park to the north, as well as the West Don Lands neighborhood to the south. It would also allow for a connection to a Cherry Street LRT line servicing the future Portlands neighborhood.
Queen & Broadview is emerging as a major node with a significant amount of density in the pipeline. And further north, Dundas & Carlaw is similarly seeing a lot of intensification.
But I may have missed a few things. These are just my thoughts. What are yours?
Subscribe to Brandon Donnelly
Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly.
