News

Conventional wisdom in Toronto says that when city dwellers grow up, they graduate from apartments and condos to "real" homes. But this town is becoming a city of condominiums. There is a shift in priority for many home buyers in the city core - a detached home with a yard is no longer the goal for many downtown buyers. However, is there a future for larger, family-sized suites that celebrate good architecture?

The quick cancellation of an exciting project called N-Blox is not a good sign. This Little Italy building was designed for dyed-in-the-wool downtowners. The units were large, the prices comparable to houses — not the small concrete boxes typical of the condominiums offerings. The ill-fated plan was replaced with a conventional condo development that sold out in two hours.

To maintain a cohesive plan for each city neighbourhood, it is important to keep builders and designers in check, but it is also important to encourage change and growth. Between buyers who aren't ready to pay for innovative architecture and city planners and residents who block many plans to increase density in the core, it's difficult to change the streetscape in Toronto.

While community groups oppose increases in the density of the downtown core, the city expands into the far reaches of the suburbs to meet the needs of an increasing population. A city needs people living, working and shopping downtown to remain vital. While some historic buildings are worth preserving, a city is not a museum.

Architecture expert John Bentley Mays was online earlier to answer your questions about the state of architecture and design in Toronto. Are you a fan of the condo boom in the city, or would you prefer that the older neighbourhoods stay just as they are?

John Bentley Mays is an award-winning Toronto writer on architecture, visual art and design, and general topics in contemporary culture. He is architecture columnist for the real estate section of The Globe and Mail, columnist for The Catholic Register, and a frequent contributor to Azure, Canadian Architect, Canadian Art and other periodicals. He is currently at work on a book that profiles key shapers of modern Toronto's culture and public life.

Editor's Note: globeandmail.com editors will read and allow or reject each question. Questions may be edited for length, clarity or relevance. HTML is not allowed. We will not publish questions that include personal attacks on participants in these discussions, that make false or unsubstantiated allegations, that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or fact cannot be easily verified, or questions that include vulgar language or libellous statements. Preference will be given to readers who submit questions/comments using their full name and home town, rather than a pseudonym.

Danielle Boudreau, globeandmail.com writes: Thank you for taking the time to speak to us today. Why do you think there is so much opposition to some real estate projects -- the towers at Yonge and Eglinton for example -- and yet there is less opposition to Concord's much larger development near the waterfront? Is it that the residents are better organized in some neighbourhoods, or that some plans are better suited to their location?

John Bentley Mays writes: That's a good question, Danielle. Whether or not a project runs into opposition has everything to do with location. Concord Cityplace, for example, is going up on unpopulated former railway lands, and therefore has no impact on nearby neighbourhoods. The towers at Yonge and Eglinton, on the other hand, have been dropped into an established residential area, mostly low-rise and affluent. The problem in the Yonge-Eglinton example is that Yonge Street, a main arterial thoroughfare, has been designated by the city a zone of intensification—even though it runs thought a residential neighbourhood. Conflict was inevitable. The same problem will certainly arise, should developers try to put up more high-rise buildings on Bloor Street West in the Annex.

Joe Kelly from Canada writes: 'While community groups oppose increases in the density of the downtown core...' As a community leader I find this cliche tiresome. What community groups want is a cohesive urban plan that IS ABIDED BY and a voice at the table that is actually heard. Instead, most 'Working Groups' sponsored by the City to hear community input are nothing more than orchestrated theatre.

Another fact is that this City's Planning Department has been emasculated by a Council and Councillors who cannot resist the allure and headiness of putting their imprint on any significant development. And what do we get for it? Reactive, application-specific planning. Repetitive 'point tower' architecture that is rarely such a thing and each building with its own cute 'hat'.

The only real new architecture is in the public realm --- e.g. Foster's Dan Building --- although Stern's 1 St. Thomas deserves kudos for quality of design and build. On those rare occasions where the community has had real input remarkable things can happen. I have witnessed Working Groups sweat hours of effort to achieve something worthwhile and better than initially proposed --- and even have that positive impact acknowledged by those few developers willing to listen. Indeed, we forget that we are a 'community' or architects, designers, thinkers and urbanists. ... not children to be patronized.

Unfortunately, most developers, politicians and yes, media (not you John) love pointing to that minority who reject all development as being representative of the organic whole. It is an elitist insult. It's also incredibly convenient for those who do not want a genuine debate on design and planning in this city. We lament that a fabulous project like the 'N-blox' won't sell? Well look in the mirror first. Where is our independent Design Review as per Vancouver? Where is our independent Planning Department (we have some excellent people there)? Where is our Urban Plan? The OMB is stopping us? Nonsense.

John Bentley Mays writes: I have resisted the idea of a design review panel in Toronto, Joe, because I have believed any such panel appointed by our local politicians would necessarily be mediocre. And I am not impressed with the design review process, as I've seen it operating on a trial basis in various parts of Toronto. It didn't stop approval of a very blah building slated for College Park. I think better design will only come when the developers decide to be more demanding, and architects insist on doing more adventurous projects. None of that will happen, however, until Toronto condo-buyers are willing to pay for good architecture (such as N-Blox)—which, unfortunately, they do not seem willing to do at this point.

Also: I am all in favour of a comprehensive urban plan that works. I think the one currently going through the system is a good start.

Jack McLellan from Toronto, Canada writes: I'm looking to buy my first home in Toronto. I want to stay in the downtown core, so with my budget, a condo is my only choice. I'd like to buy one that is well designed architecturally, and will keep its value, what can I look for? It would have to be under $350,000. Thanks for any advice.

John Bentley Mays writes: Jack, there is only one way to find what you are looking for: the hard way. Get a real-estate broker and start looking for properties in your price range. When you start doing so, you will find that most buildings you look at are vanilla, architecturally speaking—not downright awful (though there are some of those), but not outstanding either. Every now and then, I find something better than that, and write it up in my column. So keep watching my column, and the other new-condo features and advertisements in Globe Real Estate. And allow lots of time to find your perfect house (or condo). I think that, if you look hard, you can find something that's both affordable and architecturally interesting.

S. Beckham from Toronto, Canada writes: Why do you think Toronto's modern architecture, especially in the condo industry, is so dull? Is because the public doesn't respond well to the more interesting residential designs, or because the city authorities' rules and regulations discourage creativity?

John Bentley Mays writes: Dear S. Beckham, I think the problem of beauty in Toronto's modern architecture is a complex one, more to do with the market than with city regulators. Developers, especially of buildings in the popular middle price range, are always cautious, and always trying to pitch their products to the widest possible market and the lowest common denominator. There are exceptions, especially among developers downtown, but they are few. Home-buyers are also cautious and, therefore, so are the architects. It all adds up to timid design in the middle price range. I think Toronto still has a long way to go before it becomes a city with strong architectural consciousness and conscience.

David Michaels from Toronto Canada writes: What's your favourite street to visit in Toronto, in terms of architecture?

John Bentley Mays writes: If I had to pick one street, David, it would be Queen Street East and West. Starting at the far east end, you have the R. C. Harris Filtration Plant, a masterpiece of Depression-era Art Deco design. In its downtown stretch, Queen features the gruff old City Hall and Viljo Revell's serenely Modernist New City Hall. Old and New City Halls, and the 19th century law-courts buildings at the corner of Queen and University Avenue.

At the extreme western end is Parkdale, with its largely intact Victorian streetfront. In between these "peak" points, there are long stretches of old commercial and residential properties that illustrate well Toronto's traditional low-density, low-rise urbanism—real neighbourhoods that have persisted for more than a century, and that are among the best things about our urban fabric.

Brokeback mountain from Toronto Canada writes: I think the city needs to demonstrate to the people how much property tax they will be able to save if we can make the downtown core more dense... it is insane to see a world class city like Toronto, to have such poor use of our downtown real estate.. just look at Yonge street from Bloor to Front street.. it is a joke compared to other city like Hong Kong or NYC.

John Bentley Mays writes: You've got a good point, Brokeback Mountain. But Toronto has always had this "problem"—though developers look at it has a boon: Unlike Hong Kong, we have many square miles beyond the urban core over which to sprawl. HK has had to build more densely, because the city simply had nowhere to go. I don't see a quick turnaround to our lower-than-desirable density in the downtown core. Long-term trends suggest that white-collar employment will continue to move to suburbia, leaving our downtown a zone of businesses that are traditionally central and close together, especially the banks and brokerages. Downtown, it seems, is destined to be a residential area, with not very happy consequences for the tax base.

u Skyscraper from New York United States writes: I'm not so sure that the problem of the 'cookie cutter condo' is unique to Toronto. (Do a Google search if you don't believe me.) The design press in most cities complains endlessly about their own condos, and there is much 'grass is greener' syndrome.

If the vast majority of condo buildings everywhere are 'bad' architecture, does it not simply reflect that such a product is inherently difficult to design in a way that serves a need other than sales price? How can any one city change the entire industry to benefit those that are not involved in the purchase transaction, and is it even right to try and do so without redefining the whole process of condo development?

John Bentley Mays writes: Dear u Skyscraper: I know what you mean about the "grass is greener" syndrome, when it comes to tall condo buildings. But I am well aware that Toronto is really no worse off than any other North American city—It just hurts more when you live here and have to look at the stuff The market conditions, especially, are no different in Toronto than anywhere else.

Is there a solution? Not a cheap one. One can imagine, however, an "architecture break" being given to new buildings that genuinely contribute something of aesthetic worth to the cityscape—a tax break, a break on development fees, permission for the building to go higher than is usually allowed. This break could be given by a blue-ribbon panel of topic architects and architectural thinkers recruited in the city and elsewhere. But then there's a problem I have written about in another response to these letters: the appointments to such a panel would be handed out, ultimately, but the politicians, and I don't trust them to insist on excellence.

Keep thinking about this problem, u Skyscraper. I'll certainly be doing so.

M Zylak from Etobicoke Canada writes: What is your opinion regarding the development of the Six Points intersection in Etobicoke? I strongly support the reconstruction of the area, but the majority of area residents oppose it. I can't understand why most residents would want to leave the area as is. It is a confusing mess and is treacherous for pedestrians.

John Bentley Mays writes: M. Zylak: Since I don't know what local residents are complaining about, I really can't comment knowledgeably on your question. But it's hard for me to see why anyone would disagree with straightening out the traffic intersection at 6 Points. It's a schmozzle, put up (as you suggest) with no concern for pedestrian traffic in the area. When you get right down to it, however, 6 Points is a place in the city that's both problematic and promising in all kinds of ways. With its large commuter train and subway stations, it could become a major residential hub in the city. The vast hydro facility out there need not be a problem: It might even inspire daring new architecture that is as striking, in its way, as the hydro installation is, in its way. (I love that sprawling, ultra-modern web of wires.) But until the transportation pattern in the district is straightened out, no good new development will be possible. I'm glad to hear you're cheering on the refiguring of 6 Points.

Nicole McCaw-Kretchman from Canada writes: Good afternoon Do you see the present boom in Condo living to remain strong well into the future. That is, will current owners of Condos in the GTA expect to see the value of their homes continue to rise? Is there a time in Toronto where we would reach a saturation point and Condo values would no longer keep pace with the Real Estate market? Please give me your thoughts on this issue. Thanks, Nicole

John Bentley Mays writes: I don't see any end to Toronto's condo boom, Nicole. With hundreds of thousands of immigrants arriving over the next 20 years, we will almost certainly have a thriving market, and a steady increase in property values. Toronto does face a rather stark choice, however: Either we build up, or we build out, on farmland beyond the city. The Ontario government is committed to encouraging greater density in population areas—Another reason why demand for condos will continue to be strong and steady for the foreseeable future.

Danielle Boudreau, globeandmail.com writes: Thanks again for taking the time to talk to us today, and for providing your expertise and insight to this discussion about architecture in Toronto. Readers, follow Mr. Mays' column every week for his thoughts on the good, the bad and the ugly when it comes to Toronto's design.