Eric Tran MArch Thesis 2014 by Eric Tran

user-driven anarchitecture in the spontaneous city

Eric Tran Master of Architecture Thesis 2014

User Driven Anarchitecture in the Spontaneous City By Eric Tran Bachelor of Architectural Science Ryerson University Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 2009

A design thesis|project presented to Ryerson University in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Architecture

Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 2014 ÂŠ Eric Tran, 2014

authorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s declaration for electronic submission of a thesis I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis. This is a true copy of the thesis, including any required final revisions, as accepted by my examiners. I authorize Ryerson University to lend this thesis project to other institutions or individuals for the purpose of scholarly research. I further authorize Ryerson University to reproduce this thesis project by photocopying or by other means, in total or in part, at the request of other institutions or individuals for the purpose of scholarly research. I further authorize Ryerson University to reproduce this thesis by photocopying or by other means, in total or in part, at the request of other institutions or individuals for the purpose of scholarly research. I understand that my thesis may be made electronically available to the public.

Eric Tran

III

User Driven Anarchitecture in the Spontaneous City Eric Tran, B.Arch.Sc., Ryerson University, 2009 Master of Architecture in the Program of Architecture, Ryerson University

abstract Toronto, experiencing multiple urban redevelopment projects, is increasingly becoming a city dominated by an architecture of corporate capitalism, forcing a compulsive repetition reminiscent of suburban homogeneity. Carelessly proceeding down this path could lead to the destruction of the historical city, and with it, many of Torontoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s defining neighbourhoods. Exacerbating the problem is the rise of property values, inhibiting entrepreneurial start-ups and displacing local businesses due to competition of a corporate power. This thesis proposes a progressive shift in the traditional development process, with an emphasis of a user generated platform and user generated environments. The architectural manifestation is one that is leveraged by a bourgeoning creative class and the most diverse population in the world whom values originality and cultural vibrancy. By doing so, Toronto has the opportunity to redefine its neighbourhoods, and ultimately the city that is representative of its people.

acknowledgements This thesis has been the biggest endeavour I’ve taken and also the most rewarding. But it would not have been possible without the guidance, encouragement, and insight of an incredible thesis committee: Arthur Wrigglesworth, Yew-Thong Leong, and my supervisor Miljana Horvat. I would also like to acknowledge all my friends and family, a true source of inspiration, allowing me to discover my passion for this thesis topic. In line with the theme of this thesis, it was often the most spontaneous of discussions that has lead to a project of such depth. It’s amazing what can be accomplished when you have the right kind of support around you, the lengths you will go to achieve your goals, and especially what transpires through rigors of sleepless nights. Thank you all. This one’s for you.

VII

VIII

dedication I would like to dedicate this thesis to the great city of Toronto

contents

XII XII

Author’s Declaration Abstract Acknowledgements Dedication Table of Contents List of Tables List of Figures

1 2 3 12 14 14 20 24 32 34 40 44 46 50 54 54 57 66 68 74 76 84 86 94

Preface 1.0 Introduction 1.1 The Concern – The Problem of Representation 1.2 Research Question 2.0 Precedent Research 2.1 Anarchy 2.2 Participation 2.3 Spontaneity 3.0 Manifesto 4.0 Identifying the Users: The Creative Economy and the Clustering Force 5.0 City of Neighbourhoods 6.0 Site Investigation 6.1 The Neighbourhood 6.2 Review of Regent Park Design Guidelines 7.0 Design Strategies – The Creative Co-op 7.1 User Driven Development Platform 7.2 Formal Qualities 8.0 Design Response 8.1 Exterior 8.2 Phasing 8.3 Interior 9.0 Reflection and Conclusion 10.0 Supplemental Drawings References

III V VII IX XI

list of tables 46

Table 1 - Selected indicators for Toronto and Regent Park Statistics Canada 2007 and Horak, 2010

list of illustrations 3

Figure 1 - Toronto’s booming construction industry

Figure 2 - Corporate landscapes of the contemporary city

Figure 3 - Concord CityPlace vs. streets of summerhill

http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/showthread.php/5761-Tableau-(117-Peter-St-Richmond-St-W-Urban-Capital-Malibu-Alit-36s-Wallman)/page24 Image by author Image by author

Figure 4 - “Your revitalization is our displacement”

Figure 5 - The Stop nightmarket

Figure 6 - Kowloon Walled City

Figure 7 - Yonge and Dundas Square

Figure 8 - Fun Palace building section

Figure 9 - Fun Palace on site

Figure 10 - Volkskrant Building, Amsterdam

Figure 11 - Medieval Modern

http://www.an-architecture.com/ Ghorashi, D. 2013

http://www.deconcrete.org/2010/03/30/un-real-estate-kowloon/ Taikandi, G. 2009

http://www.cca.qc.ca/en/collection/283-cedric-price-fun-palace http://www.cca.qc.ca/en/collection/283-cedric-price-fun-palace http://www.lifeinamsterdam.com/bars/2011/1/17/best-sky-bars-in-amsterdam.html; http://www.iamexpat.nl/app/webroot/upload/files/Blog/Soiree%20June%20075.jpg; http://losdblog.blogspot.ca/ http://www.audax.ca/

Figure 12 - Zoom in: spontaneous city manifesto

Figure 13 - Supervise open developments: spontaneous city manifesto

Figure 14 - Be user-oriented: spontaneous city manifesto

Figure 15 - Create collective values: spontaneous city manifesto

Figure 16 – Solid 11. Amsterdam (Cook, 2012)

Figure 17 - Vietnamese ‘Tube Houses’. Ho Chi Min City

The spontaneous city. Urhahn, 2010. Amsterdam: BIS Publishers. p.14 The spontaneous city. Urhahn, 2010. Amsterdam: BIS Publishers. p.15 The spontaneous city. Urhahn, 2010. Amsterdam: BIS Publishers. p.16 The spontaneous city. Urhahn, 2010. Amsterdam: BIS Publishers. p.16 http://www.archdaily.com/207521/solid-11-tony-fretton-architects/ Image by author

XII

list of illustrations 31

Figure 18 - Diagrammatic interpretation of the Vietnamese “tube house” Image by author

Figure 19 - The clustering force Image by author

Figure 20 - Pedestrian Sundays at Kensington Market Image by author

Figure 21 – Cold Tea Bar entrance from Kensington Market /www.torontolife.com/daily-dish/openings/2011/10/24/introducing-cold-tea/

Figure 22 – Cold Tea Bar courtyard

/www.torontolife.com/daily-dish/openings/2011/10/24/introducing-cold-tea/

Figure 23 - Boundary between Regent Park phase 1 and 3 Image by author

Figure 24 - Average Household Income generated by SimplyMaps, 2013

Figure 25 - Number of Labour Force in Creative and Leisure Industries generated by SimplyMaps, 2013

Figure 26 - Map of selected amenities along Parliament Street Image by author

Figure 27 - Facing sides of Parliament Street at Dundas intersection Image by author

Figure 28 - Spontaneity Road-map Image by author

Figure 29 - Proposed phase 3 of Regent Park Image by author

Figure 30 - The architectural response to anarchy, participation, and spontaneity Image by author

Figure 31 - User driven development platform Image by author

Figure 32 - The pseudo architectural intent Image by author

Figure 33 - Informal Spaces Image by author

Figure 34 - Informal Spaces

Image by author and Urhahn, G. (2010). In Broekmans T., Feenstra S. (Eds.), The spontaneous city. Amsterdam: BIS Publishers.

Figure 35 - Spontaneous Clustering: 3 dimensional integration Image by author

Figure 36 - Single cluster Image by author

XIII

list of illustrations 62

Figure 37 - Double cluster

Figure 38 - Double cluster and interaction zones

Figure 39 - Modular system with associated informal spaces

Figure 40 - Vignette of sketches exploring the design response

Figure 41 - Creative co-op Parliament Street elevation

Figure 42 - Program components of the creative co-op

Figure 43 - Axonometric of floor plans and site

Figure 44 - Intersection of Gerrard Street and Parliament Street

Figure 45 - Single cluster

Figure 46 - View from the Northeast corner of Gerrard and Parliament Street

Figure 46 - HUB+ on Gerrard Street East

Figure 47 - Parliament Street elevation looking north

Figure 48 - Example of a business fit up on the third level with a void space

Figure 49 - Building section of the north wing

Figure 50 - Initial stages of the informal market and co-op

Figure 51 - Transitional stage

Figure 52 - Fully realized scenario

Figure 53 - Production and fabrication facility

Figure 54 - Virtual business incubation centre and build kiosk

Image by author Image by author Image by author Image by author Image by author Image by author Image by author Image by author Image by author Image by author Image by author Image by author Image by author Image by author Image by author Image by author Image by author Image by author Image by author

XIV

list of illustrations 77

Figure 55 - Virtual knowledge suite and collaboration spaces

Figure 56 - Innovations portal

Figure 57 - Expandable balustrades

Figure 58 - Atrium in balustrade condition

Figure 59 - Atrium in expanded platform condition

Figure 60 - Horizontal cluster shown as a tech work space scenario

Figure 61 - Creative co-op view elevation from Gerrard Street East

Figure 62 - Ground floor and site plan

Figure 63 - Second floor plan

Figure 64 - Third floor plan

Figure 65 - Fourth floor plan

Figure 66 - Fifth floor plan

Figure 67 - North-south section

Figure 68 - Systems integration

preface This thesis stems from a curiosity of why downtown Toronto is a great place to live and what forces attract people to move into this urban setting. The top 5 reasons, as determined in the Living in Downtown and the Centres Survey 2011, were being close to work, access to transit, access to shops and amenities, ability to walk anywhere, and convenience and accessibility. This makes a lot of sense considering the time and cost of transportation today. However, all these reasons are centered on proximity and convenience to amenities and services based on statistical and quantitative data. Nothing was mentioned about their qualities. The quality of amenities should matter a great deal when choosing where we live. They can provide us with a sense of belonging, but more importantly it is a reflection of our personalities and interests. Canada has a long history of openness and tolerance, of investing in people, of inclusiveness and social justice which allows it to build great cities that are both livable and entertaining. We can see this to the full effect in many of our urban neighbourhoods offering countless forms of entertainment for its residents as well as visitors. This thesis project hopes to bring to light a new level of understanding and appreciation for the city and its constituents. It has become apparent that Torontoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s reputation is transitioning from a city of industry and commerce to a city where one wants to live as well. The evolution of industry and commerce to include arts, culture and entertainment has established the city as a destination. Common definitions of a destination describe it as a journeyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s end, terminus or stopping place. However, a destination can also be interpreted not as the end point of a route, but a gateway to another event or destinations. A destination is a place youâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;d want to be. It may be a shopping centre, a newly discovered restaurant, or quite simply a place called home. What defines a destination in the contemporary city is a question that should be asked as you read through this thesis.

1.0 introduction Toronto, Canada: misrepresented? Toronto’s steel and concrete box exterior conceals, in fact, a uniquely wonderful and unsuspecting interior. Ask a local Torontonian and they will tell you that the true identity of the city resides in the back-lane urban grit, rather than the wind-swept financial centre. There is no question that Toronto is a hub for global commerce; a modern version of the land of opportunity. What is less apparent is the flipside of all the hustle and bustle: a city energized with various forms of entertainment from sophisticated supper clubs to grungy basement rock venues. Toronto’s charms are more hidden, tucked into the many neighbourhoods that defines the city. Fueling and shaping these neighbourhoods are a new generation of creative, techno-hip, and information empowered urban class. Beneath the rigorously planned and policy driven expansion of the city is actually a spontaneous, organic, catalyzing renewal of the existing urban fabric that is actively being shaped by a local development industry. This thesis is a rediscovery of what shapes the contemporary urban realm, giving Toronto its much desired hidden appeal. It is simultaneously an architectural intervention that must consider a new kind of clientele: the creative economy that values originality and cultural fusion. We’ve already seen neighbourhoods such as the Kensington Market and more recently the Ossington strip turn desolate homes and store-fronts into hubs of social activity and distinctive identity. It can be described as the unplanned progression of neighbourhoods, with the help of emerging entrepreneurial ventures that sparks new life into Toronto. Disrupting this type of progression however, is the increasing privatization of space in the form of corporate capitalism, both political and commercial. Stemmed from the compartmentalization of modernist planning, our cities have become excessively ordered and unable to evolve to meet the needs of the creative economy. The people too, conform to the attitude of such a rigid city, stifling innovation and growth. In The Uses of Disorder, Richard Sennett criticizes the ways in which the affluent city has failed as a place where the individual can grow (1970). Sennett’s observations were a result of modernism’s program in that the city was predetermined by a bureaucratic institution, suppressing the individual and stifling the communal experience. Today rather, the form and function of the city is predetermined in a highly static strategy controlled by elitist developers. Jane Jacobs further expands on this idea by stating, “cities have the capability of providing something for everybody, only because and only when they are created by everybody” (2011). Sennett and Jacob’s critiques can still be applied to the contemporary North American city where new and existing communities are no longer in the control of its respective end users, and neither are these cities reflective of their mosaic of cultures and personalities. This practice of corporate city building also transcends to the realm of the 2

architectural practice. Architecture has become the handmaiden of corporate capitalism further diminishing cultural and social freedom. Yet, hope remains. The City of Toronto prospers on diversity and sometimes even anarchy. Keeping with the theme of unplanned progression, city building can be evolved to leverage the maelstrom of flowing capital, information, and people. An architectural platform can be envisioned that adaptively facilitates the creative needs of the new urban class while maintaining a strong backbone in promoting economic growth, social equity, and environmental consciousness. With less imposed restrictions on the purely functional program, one can imagine the return a kind of laissez-faire condition, a truly mixed-use place worth celebrating, and a symbol of undying culture in this great city. It is not a community centre, shopping mall, or a park pavilion but rather a semi-exclusive yet publicly accessible multi-use entity. It will be a place that turns the traditional live-work-play concept into dwell-connect-mingle. The result is city-class destination and public amenity. But most importantly, when injected into the urban fabric and interacts with the people, it serves as a reflection of the people, shaping and invigorating the city around it.

1.1 the concern - the problem of representation Figure 1 - Torontoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s booming construction industry represented by the number of construction cranes in the city. Retrieved from Urban Toronto Tableau project database. The Futurist, 2013. http://urbantoronto.ca/ forum/showthread.php/5761-Tableau(117-Peter-St-Richmond-St-W-UrbanCapital-Malibu-Alit-36s-Wallman)/ page24. Accessed November 2013.

The City of Toronto is part of an economic bi-national mega-region that is the fifth largest in North America, generating 530 billion dollars annually and home to 22 million people (Florida, 2009). These factors have allowed the city to stretch its legs and experience unprecedented economic growth. A good indicator can be visualized by the number of construction cranes planted across the city (figure 1): the highest number in

~ Contemporary architecture and developments fail to activate the streetscape the way historic buildings do New developments give way to corporate capitalism, a force that shapes the urban environment A predominant corporate city along with gentrification, displaces and inhibits the creative economy and entrepreneurial start-ups. ~ 4

North American at 147 high-rises and skyscrapers under construction, compared to 72 in New York City (Perkins, 2012). Toronto also has multiple master plan communities under construction with the most land and capital intensive projects concentrating on the waterfront and downtown east. These projects include the entire waterfront stretching from Central Waterfront to the Port Lands. While Vancouver may be ranked the world’s most livable city with its sheer scale of landscape amenities and Montreal ranking in the top 25 with its renowned old-world architecture, both Vancouver and Montreal have the reputation to support the statistics (Mastercard World Wide Centers of Commerce Index, 2008). Toronto, however, is generally excluded from the fame even though it ranks 4th most livable city in 2013 (The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2013). Additionally, Toronto ranks 4th in the world in terms of ease of doing business, after Singapore, Hong Kong, and London (MasterCard World Wide Centers of Commerce Index, 2008) and placed in the world’s top seven intelligent communities (Intelligent Communities Forum, 2013). Despite these figures, Toronto is not seen as a destination. The point here is that the city has no problems building itself. The problem lies in representation. How can the city of Toronto, a city that is experiencing such growth through new and gentrifying neighbourhoods, transition from what urban planner Jereon Laven calls “making a city to being a city” (2013)? To understand this state of “being”, one must first determine what the city is made of. Contemporary urbanism can be thought as an amalgamation of matter and energy. Matter, in the form of the built environment, traditionally belongs to the realm of planners, architects, and builders. But energy such as economic and socio-cultural perseverance is derived from the people. However, both are required in the design of a successful and desirable city. In the contemporary and globalized city, it has become apparent that exchanges between the city’s matter and energy are out-pacing its ability to grow and adapt. In other words, great ideas are often unrealized due to the inherent limitations of the city, that of sprawl and conventional planning. However, urbanity has allowed these exchanges to occur as a result of proximity to infrastructure and concentration intellectual capital. Urbanity also allows for greater exchanges to occur on the cultural level, as a result of an ethnically rich population and a burgeoned creative class in close proximity. These socio-economic forces have created amenities for enjoyment in the form of theatres, restaurants, gathering spaces and various other forms of social engagement. One of the advantages of urban living is the convenience of access to amenities. Urban amenities are the providers of entertainment which makes its unique when compared to suburban living and leisure. All these factors form what geographers call a “spatial fix”. It can be described as what values and ideas look like when you turn them into brick and mortar (Florida, 2009). Toronto’s spatial fix is a manifestation of a culturally rich and diverse population, increasingly innovative and creative. Of course, these ideas are no good if they aren’t actualized. This sets the stage for what can potentially be a one of a kind destination city. Unfortunately, the development trend that is sweeping the city does not take 5

advantage of Toronto’s spatial fix. Walk down a street of a newly developed Torontonian neighbourhood and it will become strikingly evident of a landscape of repetitive storefront, residential podiums, and soaring skyscrapers. Whether it is a gentrified neighbourhood or a master planned community, corporate capitalism has a tendency to saturate these newly developed areas and paint the picture of a corporate landscape (figure 2). This is the product of the mixed-use planning of a corporate city and it is effectively turning potentially unique and attractive urban neighbourhoods into suburban homogeneity. Consequently, as the world moves faster towards a state global capitalism, owned by vast multinational corporations, the ability for local companies to compete diminishes. Interestingly, Toronto was not always dominated by corporate development. Ken Greenberg of Greenberg Consultants Inc., moved to Toronto during the late 1960’s during a time when the city was considered fertile ground for more progressive developments. Coming from Amsterdam and New York, Greenberg saw a city that had three things going for it: an awareness for the larger social and political forces shaping the city; an appreciation for street level activities and how they work; and open-ended design strategies (like the kind he was exposed to while in Amsterdam). Architects and urbanists, including Jane Jacobs, moved to Toronto during this period precisely because of the kind of progressive city Toronto was becoming. It was also a time when opposing political parties converged to defend the existing city. New Left advocacy for communities while the conservative government resisted the demolition and redevelopment of existing neighbourhoods (Greenberg, 2011, p.62). Despite the government’s effort to save the city, private developers were buying up large plots of land and tearing down parts of the old city fabric. Land was affordable, which opened up many investment opportunities for these developers. Although Greenberg and his contemporaries managed to introduce an entirely new discourse into architectural education and even political city planning, they did not see the oncoming of a vastly corporate society. Fourty years later, we continue to see mass trading of real estate across the city, as nearly every parking lot in the inner downtown area is being developed into high-rise commercial or residential towers. From the City’s perspective, this was ideal as its hands were full with the amalgamation of Toronto. Previously inaccessible areas like the Central Waterfront and several industrial districts were gladly being handed over to developers to be redeveloped. The revitalization of the downtown core saw a renewed interest by people desiring to live closer to work which fueled the two condo booms from 2005 to 2009. Waves of construction projects swept across the city but unfortunately with little concern over the effect on the old city fabric. In addition to the residential developments, corporations that typically prospered in the suburbs also began to focus their energy in these newly developed areas. The Walmarts and Canadian Tires took note of the people migrations and started to adapt to an urban context and clientele. Corporations with the purchasing power to reach into the downtown market began 6

Figure 2 - Corporate landscapes of the contemporary city. From top left to bottom right: Scotia Bank; Tim Hortons; Joe Fresh, Bank of Montreal; Subway Restaurant, veterinary clinic, dentistâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s office; Sobeyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Inc.; Starbucks Coffee; Toronto Dominion Bank, and Bank of Montreal.

monopolizing the ground floor retail of nearly every high-rise or mixed use development, effectively suburbanizing the urban realm and leaving little room for smaller players (Hume, 2014). Perhaps the issue is not that corporate homogeneity is undesirable. After all, what is wrong with having Starbucks in every corner of the city? If Starbucks can promote social interaction, provide jobs, and generate an economy simply by being present, then these trendy establishments have their merit and place within the urban realm. The primary concern however, is the absence and even displacement of local establishments, the kind that distinguishes neighbourhoods. It is difficult to say that Starbucks and other corporate mega-giants gives a certain neighbourhood the appeal of being a unique or identifiable destination. Although these companies have its place in any development, the space they occupy or the plinth is arguably the most crucial part of defining a neighbourhood. These plinths and their respective neighbourhood characteristics must be critically developed in order ensure the fair and long-term retention and satisfaction of its residents, workers, and visitors. When developers and planners claim that the West Don Lands, a 32 hectare industrial turn mixed-use community, will be “Toronto’s Next Great Neighbourhood”, one might question whether this development is resembling of a suburban development with the difference being increased density. Praised for sustainability and pedestrian friendliness, and a wide-offering of public amenities, the West Don Lands have a lot to live up for when it is completed in 2015. But simply creating a master plan and then building it does not guarantee its greatness. Recall “spatial fix”. The critique on many of Toronto’s new waterfront communities exemplifies a vertically sprawling neighbourhood that has little resemblance of an urban character, and thus the problem with such claims of urban vibrancy. The social element of urban living, traditionally characterized by vibrant streetscapes, has been replaced by a void – a sort of urban twilight zone. This void can be categorized into a handful of company types - a ghetto of banks, Subway restaurants, nail salons, dentists, veterinary clinics, and drycleaners occupied only by their respective employees. Yet, the marketing material of these projects claim “city living at its best”, emphasizing proximity to all the action that urban living has to offer. One of downtown Toronto’s largest and newest developments is CityPlace by Vancouver-based Concord Adex Developments Corp. Being the largest masterplan project undertaken by the city, it has been derided as a vertical subdivision and a recipe for urban calamity (Mays, 2005). Aside from the criticism given to material and structural integrity, ownership structure, and long term sustainability, it can be further argued that it is the streetscape and its inability to capture any resemblance of downtown living that led to its failure as an urban community. Even now, 15 years since the first condominium have been erected, the streets that line the 44 acre site remain desolate. Pedestrian friendly as they may be, the streetscapes and storefronts lack any kind of human interaction. Bremner Street and Fort York Boulevard bisects the community, acting as 8

Figure 3 – Fort York Boulevard showing high density residential towers and big box stores (left) versus the vibrant streetscape at Shops at Summerhill (right). This comparison goes to show that what is planned does not always go as planned.

VS.

no more than thoroughfare for vehicles. Although these two streets are lined with live/ work units on street level, potentially creating a highly attractive space for innovative start-ups and creative business, nothing more than several bank branches, a Sobey’s supermarket, a dry cleaner, and realtor’s office exists. Is this a missed opportunity? According to architectural critic Lisa Rochon, Concord Adex is the poor cousin of Concord Pacific, its Vancouver counterpart (2004). Concord Pacific’s 140 acre development along False Creek in Vancouver is praised for its urban spirit, fully featured with a community centre, school, and daycare. The Roundhouse Community Centre is always buzzing with fitness classes. It also incorporates a café and exhibition hall both of which are highly used by the community. For Concord Pacific, the public realm was evidently put at the front end of the project. Built on this success, future plans for Concord Pacific includes a massive new development called False Creek Central, a new neighbourhood of eight towers that integrate with downtown Vancouver’s new sports and entertainment district (Griffin & Robinson, 2013). In comparison, Toronto’s Concord Adex is a hugely missed opportunity. Most of the amenity spaces are private and tucked into their respective towers or raised far above the ground floors and completely out of sight. Plans for the elementary school are stalled until there are enough students to attend it, rather building it first to attract families (Rochon, 2004). The development strategy of Concord Adex is the complete opposite of that of Concord Pacific, resulting in a public realm that is virtually non-existent. The goal of the development should be to build amenities first to attract businesses and residents, instead of waiting for critical mass to be achieved.

Figure 4 – “Your Revitalization is our Displacement”. Retrieved from Gentrification Alarm. Christoph, 2013. http://www.an-architecture.com/. Accessed November 2013.

Understanding from past mistakes and learning from feedback, Concord Adex set out a series of new design principles for CityPlace West, the plot of land between Spadina Avenue and Bathurst Street. Alan Vihant, vice president for development at Concord Adex, said these strategies would include splitting large building blocks into more intimately connected areas connected to the streets, more walkable and landscaped streets, retail services that are more concentrated and in a central location, provision of a streetcar route, and overall quality of tall buildings to come (Mays, 2005). However, nothing was addressed in terms of the type of activities happening on street level – the essence of urban energy. Planning, from the architectural perspective may allow for ground floor retail and several floors of commercial space in the podiums above, but what kind of tenants end up in those spaces is beyond the control of designers. As with the case of many new buildings in Toronto, it is the corporations with the financial capital and proven market penetration strategies that will have the highest chance in occupying these prime spaces.

This trend of corporate dominance is also prevalent among revitalization and gentrification projects as well. Revitalization projects aim to completely restore existing, often inner-city areas that are affected by socio-economical decay. In such projects, we can also see the palpable deterioration of the traditional city due to the insensitive implementation of an active streetscape. In the case of Regent Park Revitalization Project, a neighborhood just east of the downtown core, modern architecture continues to struggle in activating the streetscape the way historical buildings did. Gentrifying neighbourhoods are no exception. However, some consider gentrification as having a greater negative effect on the neighbourhoods in terms of displacing low-income residents as well (Kohn, 2013, p. 298). In this example, the built form of these neighbourhoods may not differ in characteristics, but there is a radical shift in terms of demographics and social space. Displacement has the highest effect on people who are renting or leasing space. This is a classic example of commercial displacement and it can happen in two ways. Landlords increase rents in order to profit from the increased demand. Businesses that can no longer afford the higher rents are thus forced to close up shop. Commercial displacement also causes businesses to lose their traditional customer base and are no longer profitable. Because there is no law stabilizing rents and regulating tenancy, landlords would rather sign new tenants than negotiate with existing tenants (Kohn, 2013, p. 299). Following commercial displacement is of course replacement, typically in the form of high return businesses such as those found in new developments. Exacerbating the problem is the lack of confidence of Toronto City Council to manage the amalgamation of the city. It’s long been known that Toronto is in desperate need of a new development model and new legislation to remodel the mandate of the Ontario Municipal Board. The Ontario Municipal Board, or OMB, is responsible on a large part in determining what kinds of development is in the best interest of the city. But decades of overruling City Council and siding with developers have made people question the OMB’s intentions – that of private interest versus public interest (Fernandes, 2009, p.105 and Cohn, 2013). Greenberg also laments the loss of community voices in Toronto politics since amalgamation (2005). Toronto City Council has been unable to keep up with the city and its countless defining neighbourhoods and giving way to the OMB and developers while little consideration is given to displaced inhabitants. Proactive urban planning is required at the political level as well as the community level. The various concerns mentioned thus far contribute to a wider urban phenomenon that we have yet to see the full impact of. While it’s clear that Toronto is expanding at an unprecedented rate, without the appropriate reinvestment in the inner city, it might suffer the same fate that is the repressive institutions of suburban life – “a routine of placeless space and monofunctional instrumentality” (Claufield, 1989) dominated by a corporate presence.

1.2 research question Toronto is a city of neighbourhoods and architects should address it as such. Some neighbourhoods are purely residential while others are entertainment destinations. But their ability to decay, sustain, or grow over time is often dependent on its end users and less so on corporate developers. How can we change the current development regime to incorporate a more balanced playing field? Can elements of self-organization including co-design, co-production, and co-habitation be the new model of urban development? Can the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s architecture be a catalyst for a new development structure that allows for a greater diversity beyond that of corporate dominance? The developer driven model is currently the predominant form of urban development and revitalization projects in which buildings, residential zones and neighbourhoods become a product of corporate capitalism. This evidently leaves no room for chance or surprise - and these are the elements that separate the urban realm from suburban homogeneity. Whether it be new master planned communities or existing neighbourhoods facing gentrification, how can our cities recapture the essence of urbanism? Not only new methods but new participant forces must be introduced in the development scheme.

Figure 5 - The Stop nightmarket: an annual parking-lot gathering of pop-up food stands at Bloor and Bathurst Street. Retrieved from Ghorashi (photographer), 2013.

2.0 precedent research This chapter will examine several approaches to re-imagining the way we design our cities. Terms like self-organization, co-production, and surprise, aren’t words typically used in architecture, at least in the conventional city-building sense. In reality, the profession normally relies on regulation, order, safety, and commission. In order to address these research questions, there must be an overhaul from convention. New methods and participant forces were investigated in various geographic and academic sources. In particular, I looked towards advocates of anarchy, participation, and spontaneity. Examples will be taken from both extremists and sensible architectural precedents, through the investigation of their origins and manifestations.

2.1 anarchy The world is transitioning towards a state of global capitalism, meaning that multinational corporations and institutions are playing an ever-increasing role in our lives. The city allows us to best see this transition as a dense fabric of rigid planning and advertising that lacks depth, breath, and originality. City planning has become a process that Nan Ellin calls a “default response” (2006), lacking innovative approaches to improving the city’s livability. Furthermore, these multinational entities are taking the role of city builders, plastering their image visually and physically all over the city. A city dominated by this landscape fragments society’s interests and disrupts social cohesion. The corporate invasion combined with rising land values instill a highly competitive environment and forces emerging companies into uncompetitive niche markets, often where land value is lowest. In her book Integral Urbanism, Ellin speaks of this segregated approach to Western style city planning that was manifested from Modernism, that of sprawl, the growing perception of fear, a declining sense of community, and environmental degradation (2006). Instead of a more holistic or integrated approach to city planning, a market driven “growth economy” became the primary driver of development. Economy as the sole determining factor of development can be referred to as what William McDonough, architect and co-author of the book Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things, calls a triple bottom line development (Braungart & McDonough, 2002). This current development structure is one of fragmented interests and processes, which does not integrate holistically with social and ecological concerns. Toronto’s Yonge and Dundas Square and its surrounding context demonstrates the full power of corporate-capitalism. It is the apogee of mainstream media and advertising, a city council initiated business venture governed by a Board of Management rather than a completely open public space. Traffic flow is designed to be maximally subjected to billboards, high fashion brands, and mega franchises. The design of the

Figure 6 - Kowloon Walled City. Despite its unsightful living conditions and lawlessness, Kowloon Walled City was a tight-knit community that managed to be self-sustaining and self-governed. Retrieved from Un-real Estate Kowloon. Hitomi, 1997. http://www.deconcrete.org/2010/03/30/ un-real-estate-kowloon/. Accessed November 2013.

square and the resulting behavioral attitudes are the products of corporate-capitalism. This type of growth in its current overwhelming state is unsustainable because it does not represent the image of the city. What is does represent is that of the corporate elite: the upper one percentile. The subjectivities of Yonge and Dundas Square and increasingly on the face of economically driven developments instill attitudes of dominance, insecurity, competition, and conformity upon the public. Figure 7 – Yonge and Dundas Square. This figure illustrates the sheer volume of multinational branding and advertisements in the Toronto’s most prominent public square. Retrieved from Taikandi (photographer), 2009.

In contrast, advocates of anarchism believe that human beings are capable of managing themselves through freedom, creativity, and cooperation (Bennett, 2013). Urban neighbourhoods and communities are an example of where this kind of belief can be most successfully implemented by re-imagining the traditional forms of development. By utilizing a bottom-up user approach, businesses can reinvent themselves and operate without the fear of corporate competition and market dominance. Residents can go about their daily routine without being subjected to machine-like efficiencies. Architecture and urban planning are revolutionizing the once default response, to heal the wounds inflicted upon the landscapes of manipulation and perfection. From an architectural context, the idea of anarchy was first conceived in informal conversation by the architecturally trained artist Gordon Matta-Clark (1943-1978). Matta-Clark along with several other artists, musicians, and dancers, formed The Anarchitecture Group in New York in the 1970’s as collaborative platform that encapsulates the critiques on modernism including the International Style (Attlee, 2007). For the group, the era of modernism and its architecture was conceived as culturally static, resistant to change, and incapable of adapting for new ideas. It was also a time ripe with riots in Europe and in the Americas (Philips, 2006, p.2) as people decided to rise against the oppressive unpleasantries of late capitalism. Post war development, in the form of housing projects, highways and sprawl contributed to a deep seated ambivalence amongst society. It can be argued that these spaces are what Koolhaas defines as “junkspace”. According to 16

Koolhaas, these spaces have a footprint that can only get bigger, and when no longer needed, they simply become abandoned (Philips, 2006, p.2). For Matta-Clark, this was a world that needed to change. Gordon Matta-Clark was primarily concerned with voids, gaps, spaces, abandoned and underdeveloped spaces. He was trained as an architect at Cornell but did not practice conventional architecture; instead, he was recognized for his provocative artwork in unsuspecting urban environments. His most well-known work was Splitting where he described the project as offering “a complexity that comes from taking an otherwise completely normal, conventional, albeit anonymous situation and redefining it, translating it into overlapping and multiple readings of past and present” (as cited in Bennett, 2013). It was an outright act of architectural negation, attracting all kinds of attention from the artistic and architectural community alike (Philips, 2006, p.3). Taking from this kind of experimental artwork is the freedom to invent entirely new ways to transform the built environment. Although none of these projects by Matta-Clark were habitable or practical, they prove the extent at which one can manipulate the institutional edifice of late modernism. Spatial explorations in anarchy takes a different path with Lebbeus Woods, an architect known for this experimental and visionary works. Similar to Matta-Clark’s work, Woods was unbound by the conventional principles of architecture defying architectural form, function, and space (2004). Woods’ work however, was mostly politically driven and represented through drawings as a medium. He chose drawings as a medium because he believed it was a type of architectural construction that leads for other paths of exploration, as opposed to physical constructs that become static objects. Through his explorations, or as he calls “experimentations” (Myers, 2004, p.5), Woods attempts to create a “freespace” within the controlled city network, an area with no prescriptive function and no imposed behaviors. It was his belief that these spaces are the necessary departure from existing models of urban organization that are incapable of contemporary society’s autonomy (Myers, 2004, p.8). Woods recognizes human behavior as dynamic but highly influenced by the inactive state of architecture which contributes to our perception of values. In the Berlin Free Zone Project, he describes it as a hidden city within a city. Where the Berlin Wall once stood, Woods introduced a machine-like building that is intentionally difficult to visualize and understand. There is no spatial order or system as intended. The use of his buildings are for those willing to invent ways of spatial habitation. Through self-invention can autonomy be fully realized, and cities begin to reflect the needs of their inhabitants (Myer, 2004, p.8). Another prominent anarchist figure is Richard Sennett, who studied greatly the effects of urban living on the modern individual. In one of this more well-known works The Uses of Disorder, Sennett critiques the way in which the affluent city has failed as place where the individual can grow. Even though the critique originates from the 1970’s as a result of “master guides” in which planners used in metropolitan areas, and that 17

such areas have become “predetermined, specified lines” (Sennett, 1979, p.99) master planning is still a prescriptive and precedent driven tool used by planners today. When parts of the city grows in unknown way, it was considered to be a failure in the “guides”. He also typifies that the modern personality is one seeking comfortable, unambiguous and unchallenging perceptions of self and society, “leaving no provision for the unintended, for the contradictory, [and] for the unknown” (Sennett, 1979, p.99). Sennett uses the example of Washington D.C. where planners imposed their ideal image upon the city, only to find out that growth happens in the least expected areas, catalyzing an organic renewal of the central city. But instead of trying to understand these unexpected changes, the response was a cry for greater policing powers to enforce their original plans. Sennett later concludes that only through a “dense, disorderly and overwhelming city” can an individual recognize the true complexity of life and human relations: “The jungle of the city, its vastness and loneliness, has a positive human value” (Sennett 1970, p. 134). This profound statement has major implications even on the contemporary city. In the context of the corporate city, individuals are voluntarily extracted from social encounter. With each new neighbourhood developed, revitalized, or gentrified, spatial boundaries are evidently reinforced and zoned. Instead, Sennett posits that “a city isn’t just a place to live, to shop, to go out and have kids play. It’s a place that implicates how one derives one’s ethics, how one develops a sense of justice, how one learns to talk with and learn from people who are unlike oneself, which is how a human being becomes human” (Sennett 1970, p. 65). Sennett, Woods, Bennett, and Matta-Clark each expressed their hostility towards the social and political outcomes of early modernism and corporate capitalism. Their varied studies in philosophy, architecture and art can be understood as explorations in the rediscovery of social culture and individual freedom. They propose various forms of intervention which in different scales develop a state of anarchy. Anarchy, as a new approach to architecture and city planning can break certain barriers for a more spontaneous and livable city. Anarchism maintains that human needs for cultural and social freedom be prioritized in the face of an increasingly corporate city. The architecture of anarchy suggests the negation of power, hegemony, and division, which just so happens to be the current structure in which the traditional practice of architecture prospers in. In doing so, the architecture of anarchy, or anarchitecture, becomes an alternative set of city building priorities that evolve pass the emphasis on post-wartime urban coherence and safety. It pushes limits so that our cities can grow in a more organic and independently driven manner. But perhaps the most important lesson here is a shifting or balancing of power. Pure anarchism would likely wreak havoc across the city, while pure corporate capitalism maintains the disruptive status quo. The architecture of anarchy, an oxymoron in the conventional sense, would actually spearhead the movement that allows all parties to co-exist in a sustainable manner.

Case Study: Fun Palace

Figure 8 - Fun Palace building section. Retrieved from Canadian Centre for Architecture, 2014 http://www.cca.qc.ca/en/collection/283cedric-price-fun-palace. Accessed May 2014.

Perhaps the closest architectural project to resemble a departure from top-down developments is Cedric Prices’ Fun Palace, a project conceived and commissioned in 1961 (Canadian Centre for Architecture, 2014). As the name suggests, Fun Palace was a response to create a theatre-like scenario where users would be invited to change the environment. Inspired by eighteenth century English pleasure grounds, Price envisioned a place that would engage people’s social and entertainment needs. Utilizing cybernetics, the building would also anticipate uses based on input information, feedback, identity, and purpose. The only static component of the building was the lattice structure, which supported an ever-morphing series of interior and exterior modules. It’s machine like characteristics meant that space was able to change on demand While never fully realized, due to opposition from church, citizen groups and confounded city officials, the Fun Palace was one of the most influential projects of its time, provoking new innovations for the urban environment.

Figure 9 - Fun Palace on site. Retrieved from Canadian Centre for Architecture, 2014 http://www.cca.qc.ca/en/collection/283-cedric-pricefun-palace. Accessed May 2014

2.2 participation As more people migrate into urban areas, there is an evident tension between the individual and the collective interest. On one end of the spectrum, dense urban populations can create a not-in-my-backyard mentality. Some people may find content to work all day and return to their concrete box in the sky, with little or no community engagement in between. For these people, anything beyond their routine is not felt as a direct impact to their livelihood, even though the routine itself is a collective manifestation. Meanwhile, the individual perception is one that no harm will come to their neglect, and that someone else will look after the interests of the collective. Issues concerning collective action is an age old human problem. Greek historian Thucydides (460 BC â&#x20AC;&#x201C; around 395 BC) noted that about his fellow citizens, and they devote time only to the pursuit of their own objectives (as cited in Beuderman, 2010). Profiting without repaying oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s fair share is also reminiscent of Western society. On the other hand however, are those who take full advantage of urban living â&#x20AC;&#x201C; utilizing the proximity of people, access to amenities and resources, exchange of ideas and products. This idea presupposes that citizens to be active, contributing to the aspirations of the collective. Not only is being socially active one way to contribute, but to be creative, driven and willing to invest can our cities progress in a socially sustainable fashion. This concept of participation is the most powerful aspect in realizing how we design and build our homes and workspaces but also the public domain and collective facilities. If utilized, a participatory urban collective has the potential to shape the very fabric of our cities. Inclusive design incorporates the end user, architect, and developer in a participatory process of design and procurement. The issue with participation, or rather the lack of, is its implementation in the designing of urban communities. In the current state of development in general, participation hovers somewhere in the realm of politicians with stakeholders. When designing for a master planned community, architects are contracted by the aforementioned and have little engagement with the end users, essentially creating a divide in interests between developers and end users. With the exception of town hall meetings, the outcomes of such high stakes developments are heavily biased to meet an economic objective. As a result, the social sustainability aspect, cultural retention, and general liveliness of these developments are often plagued with much uncertainty and even failure. Self-organization and spontaneous clustering of interests are inhibited by the rules that are maintained by this higher power. Can architecture however link the two sides of regulators and end users, in a process of co-design and co-creation that constantly adapts to changing needs and conditions of a particular neighbourhood? Additionally, can this framework realize an economical objective while fulfilling the aspirations of the community?

~ â&#x20AC;&#x153;Cities have the capability of providing something for everybody, only because and only when they are created by everybodyâ&#x20AC;? ~ Jane Jacobs

One particular project that comes to mind, that addresses the issues of participation, is the Volkskrant Building in Amsterdam. Director of Urban Resort Foundation Jaap Draaisma approached the design of the Volkskrant Building with the idea of end user participation as the vital component for a successful project. The unconventional part is that vendors must apply to be in the development project by process of a design competition. The idea behind this was that everyone would get to know each other better, resulting in mutual trust and collective responsibility. Using this method, a design competition would also ensure the best utilization of the property, benefitting the developer, vendors, and end users. Three principles were used in the selection criteria. The organization must be multicultural, with at least 30-40% nonCaucasian. Secondly, there must be a good mixture of culture and economy (internal economy and external). Finally, candidates were to create their own environment on each floor of the building, either individually or collectively (Draaisma, 2010). Draaisma believes that “the government, with all its rules and regulations [ties up] developments in red tape. And that larger commercial ventures, who are particularly focused on seeing a return on their investments, keeps prices high. It’s all about the people”. By using this participatory process in vendor selection, The New York Times (2009) cited the Volkskrant Building, together with the surrounding Wibautstraat (Amsterdam East), to be one of the most attractive new entertainment spots in Europe. It has since been a breeding ground of approximately 90 studios, music studios and offices for artists and a variety of tenants in the cultural and creative sector. Taking on the success of the Volkskrant building, other projects have emerged that have taken a participatory approach. The UK have also tried to adopt this type of participatory action through Open Source Planning, a collective visioning process, in attempt to provide a foundation for mutual collaboration and trust. It is to the Conservative Party’s belief that this form of city building is the most sustainable in the face of uncertain economic conditions (Beunderman, 2010). Open Source Planning is a web interface designed to collect and share user-generated content. It proposes a process that enables local communities to devise local plans – a new type of visioning process that replaces the existing land-use planning rules, a process in which the Conservatives dismiss as top-down. However, the inherent nature of being web-based means that it would only be accessible to a targeted population group. There are also fears that open source planning will only enforce the deep-seated not-in-my-back-yard mentality and thus preventing new developments from happening. Contrary to the bottom-up approach, the City of Seattle’s Neighbourhood Department uses a very progressive form of project funding called Neighbourhood Matching Fund. If local people initiate local improvement projects in public or collective places, this municipal fund matches the monetary input as well as the time and labour resources that people raise themselves. This system is effective because experience has shown that people wanting to take action for change needs to be fueled by visible results instead of an abstraction of opinionated ideas or a poorly defined set of strategies. 22

Figure 10 - Various tenants and events in the Volkskrant Building, Amsterdam. Roof-top (top) Retrieved from Best sky bars in Amsterdam. http:// www.lifeinamsterdam.com/bars/2011/1/17/best-sky-bars-in-amsterdam.html. Accessed September 2013. Club Canvas (bottom left). Retrieved from IamExpat SoirĂŠe. IamExpat Team, 2011. http://www.iamexpat.nl/app/webroot/upload/files/Blog/Soiree%20June%20075.jpg. Accessed May 2014. LĂ&#x2DC;SD music studio (bottom right) Retrieved from Rebuilding of the studio. 2013. http://losdblog.blogspot.ca/. Accessed May 2014.

In other words, actions make a greater impact than words. Since 1988, the municipal council has co-invested $45 million dollars in community-led projects and received $67 million dollars in money and time invested from its citizens (Beunderman, 2010). Precedents such as the Volkskrant Building in Amsterdam and government initiatives like the ones in Seattle show the kind of participatory possibilities within the contemporary city. As our cities grow to be ever more complex, the voices of every constituent should have a role in defining it. No longer does the city remain solely in the domain of the elite. If greater participation is encouraged though active involvement of all parties, not just voicing concerns, the city of the future has a chance to be more socially cohesive, economically robust, and environmentally sustainable.

2.3 spontaneity Economists like Alfred Marshall saw the contemporary city as clusters, or “agglomerations” of firms, factories, and industries contributing to the overall economic growth of the city (Florida, 2008). But this type of growth or expansion simply involves increasing the volume of economic output. Jane Jacobs added substantially to our understanding of cities, and argued that the true power of cities lies in the clustering of the collective creativity of people. The city’s collective creativity and economic wealth grows accordingly where the sum is greater than the parts. Human capital, as Jacobs describes, is the building block of economic and creative growth (2011). But it is the spontaneity of these two factors, in the form of innovation and ideas, which is the mechanism that gives our cities character and personality in addition to growth. Without character and personality, our cities would revert to its industrial past – a city of production and machinelike efficiency. To define urban spontaneity in the context of this thesis, it is the element in which the unplanned progression of the city leads to a more livable and enjoyable one. Spontaneity here is explained in two forms. The first is in regards to how spontaneity is spatially produced, and the second is how spontaneity affects the urban realm. AUDAXarchitecture of Toronto, formerly Den Bosch + Finchley, is a leading firm that recognizes this type of urban phenomenon. Through their design philosophy HUMANarchitecture, they seek to embrace the spontaneity of the historical city and marry it with modernism’s aesthetic appeal. Similar to the anarchist’s critique that modernism lead to the compartmentalization of the individual, HUMANarchitecture’s design philosophy also addresses these issues in the contemporary city in that it has lost touch with the human scale. Although spontaneity is not specifically mentioned in their design strategies, the spaces they design were meant to promote spontaneous interactions between people and people with their built environment.

Figure 11 – Medieval Modern: an exercise which involved the superimposition of medieval forms on the contemporary city to promote greater social encounters. Retrieved from AUDAXarchitecture, 2013. http:// www.audax.ca/. Accessed November 2013.

Such is the case with their Nuit Blanche 2012 exhibit Medieval Modern (figure 11), showcasing the superimposition of the modern aesthetic on the historical city of Sienna, Italy. The exercise introduced various interconnected pathways, courtyards, hidden allies between the buildings. The built up areas were similarly designed to promote encounters and experiential exploration. It should also be noted that the scale of these environments are small and highly clustered creating a language of spontaneous interactions. The medieval town of Sienna, and many historical European cities alike, incorporates a language that Christopher Alexander too can appreciate, in that wonderful places were not made by architects, but by the people. In his book, A Pattern Language, he outlines countless examples of human scale interventions such as hidden streets, shaded arcades, and informal spaces, and how these spaces begin to define places where people want to be. These spaces encourages the element of surprise, making daily routines more of a journey or adventure. In chapter 8 of A Pattern Language – Mosaic of Subcultures, Alexander compares three alternatives in which people are distributed throughout the city. The first is the heterogeneous city where people are mixed together irrespective of their values. While initially ideal, a heterogeneous city actually dilutes differentiation and variety and instead encourages conformity. Mixing a population in this manner reduces all lifestyles to a “common denominator” and ultimately leads to a homogenously dull city. The second is a City of Ghettos where people have the support of the most banal form of differentiation – race or economic status. But ghettos are isolated forms of homogeneity and therefore not conducive to variation and growth. What Alexander actually advocates instead is a Mosaic of Subcultures. In this condition, Alexander urges us to do everything possible to enrich the cultures and subcultures of the city, by breaking the city into a vast mosaic of subcultures, each with their own territories and their own values. Through this overhaul of conventional thinking can the individual self-actualizes distinctiveness, and his or her contribution to the rest of society. In a more contemporary example, Gert Urhahn, a Dutch Urban planner and founder of Urhahn Urban Design published a book called The Spontaneous City where he outlines a series of guiding principles called The Manifesto for The Spontaneous City. These principles of spontaneity can be broken down into four strategies: zoom in, supervise open developments, be user oriented, and create collective values. 25

~ “We begin with the part of the language which defines a town or community. These patterns can never be ‘designed’ or ‘built’ in one fell swoop – but patient piecemeal growth, designed in such a way that every individual act is always helping to create or generate these larger global patterns, will, slowly and surely, over the years, make a community that has these global patterns in it” ~ Christopher Alexander, 1977

Zoom in means embracing the development process by reducing the scale to consider local needs and relevant players. Perhaps this is why master planning is so difficult and why so many have failed. Zooming in addresses micro level issues so they don’t become macro issues. By addressing micro level issues, such as essential services and amenities of a local group, we can allow the natural progression of that community to grow in a more organic and spontaneous way. Figure 12 – Zoom in. Retrieved from The spontaneous city. Urhahn, 2010. Amsterdam: BIS Publishers. p.14

The second strategy is to supervise open developments. Notice the term is “supervise” as opposed to impose designs onto an urban development. Urban functions, architecture, lifestyles and culture are constantly evolving factors in the contemporary city. Open developments implies a non-linear design strategy that goes alongside the development process and aiding wherever aid is needed. This puts more control in the hands of end users but it also allows for the realization of their best interests. Figure 13 – Supervise open developments. Retrieved from The spontaneous city. Urhahn, 2010. Amsterdam: BIS Publishers. p.15

The third strategy is to be user oriented. This is the break from conventional developments. Residents, associations, companies, and co-operatives should be given an active role in renewal initiatives for their combined interests is always more reflective of collective interests than that of a single proprietor. In other words, by embracing the collaborative forces of multiple parties, the energy, creativity, investment capacity will always outweigh the economic goals of a conventional developer. Therefore, the architectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s design should be custom-made and tailored to the resources of the user, and not always the corporation/investor. Figure 14 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Be user-oriented. Retrieved from The spontaneous city. Urhahn, 2010. Amsterdam: BIS Publishers. p.17

And finally, the fourth strategy is the creation of collective values. Once the energy, creativity, and investments turn into applicable ideas, they need to be identified as a collective value â&#x20AC;&#x201C; a shared ambition. Shared ambitions become a shared responsibility, a much needed component in urban living environments in what is predominantly a not-in-your-backyard mentality.

Figure 15 – Create collective values. Retrieved from The spontaneous city. Urhahn, 2010. Amsterdam: BIS Publishers. p.16

Gert Urhanhn’s manifesto speaks very clearly of an ambitious version of the contemporary city. The actualization is not out of reach and in fact, many of these strategies already take place in the urban realm. The challenge however is to enable spontaneity on a scale greater than a singular entity such as an urban gathering, market, or festival. Toronto’s small yet characteristic neighbourhoods can follow a similar kind of ambition, using spontaneity as a tool to cater to the needs of local residents and businesses. In addition to addressing these needs, the clustering of Toronto’s mosaic population can also give existing and emerging neighbourhoods their appeal as well as their resilience.

Case Study: Solid 11 Commissioned by the Dutch Housing Corporation Stadgenoot, Solids are a new programmatic typology that are being introduced to Amsterdam. The objective was to create a building that would last 200 years with the tenants deciding how to use the building. The amount of space required and the associated costs are up to the end user to decide. Designed by Tony Fretton Architects (2012), Solid 11 is the third building completed in the Netherlands that takes the principles of clustering and spontaneity to actualization in an ultra-durable and maximally flexible building. Solid 11 is essentially a shell structure with substantial floor areas, high ceilings, and building systems that would cater to various end uses – (large) families, entrepreneurs, students, restaurants, etc. Stadgenoot would remain as the owner of the shell structure while tenants would have the option of either renting or owning the interior spaces. The challenge however is the allocation of spaces to specific bidders. Because ‘“solids” do not signify the ultimate in anarchy, a certain occupancy structure must be maintained or balanced, in order to prevent exploitation. In the case of Solid 11, 15% is allocated to social housing (as determined by Dutch law), 25% to market housing, and 30% to commercial purposes, all at minimums (Goosens, Spieksma, Onderstal, & Pijnacker, 2013). These minimums as well as other safety measures ensure that each solid would not result in a might-makes right situation where a power structure develops and dominates. Social structures, governed by the collective, also establish rules concerning land utilization, financial arrangement, tenant policies, etc. The most interesting aspect of this building typology is its extension and replication on a city-wide scale and vice versa.

Figure 16 - Solid 11. Amsterdam. Retrieved from Solid 11 / Tony Fretton Architects. Cook, 2012. http://www.archdaily.com/207521/solid11-tony-fretton-architects/

Case Study: Ho Chi Min City Housing Typology

Figure 17 - Vietnamese ‘Tube Houses’. Ho Chi Min City

The Vietnamese government taxes each property based on its street frontage resulting in lots in Ho Chi Min City (and other Vietnamese cities) being typically long and narrow. Making the best of these regulations, the people of Vietnam reacted creatively by building upwards on what would be very unproductive lots. Flexible zoning regulations have allowed for each property to be built according to personal choice (aesthetics as well as function) and financial capacity. Similar goods and services would also spontaneously cluster together while forming a sense of community within the clustering. These tall slender buildings, or ‘tube houses’ have had a tremendous social and economic impact on the urban environment, resulting in a vibrant and diverse streetscapes. An interesting correlation can be found between the Vietnamese planning perspective and Toronto’s. Long and narrow lots in the older parts of Torontonian neighbourhoods have also yielded diverse and vibrant streetscapes, a phenomenon that new developments have a difficult time achieving.

Figure 18 - Diagrammatic interpretation of the Vietnamese “tube house” showing similarities with Toronto’s narrow lot properties.

3.0 manifesto If architects can facilitate the spatial needs of a new urban class that values originality and cultural fusion, they can positively contribute back to the city as a whole. The creative economy is the contemporary cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s savior and a defining factor of Torontoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s existing and future neighbourhoods. This section will tie ideas and concepts discovered in the precedent research into the context of Toronto and architectural discourse. a) Anarchitecture as a form of urban reinvention In order to unleash innovation, certain regulations must be appropriately dismissed. The imposed limitation of high property costs, land use and zoning, and an age-old developer driven model inhibits innovative entrepreneurs from moving into a neighbourhood and starting up businesses. The traditional concept of city building must be re-imagined. Isolated forms of anarchitecture is the new development model. Anarchy here should be clarified as to not suggest a political uprising as the traditional sense of the word implies. It does however imply a complete overhaul in the way we build our cities. This includes new means of project funding, sources of inspiration, and objectives. While this overhaul does not have to affect the entire construction industry as a whole, and in fact it shouldnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t, it does provide a means to address the needs of neighbourhoods closer to real-time efficacy. Bold moves attract attention. But it takes bold moves to unleash the creative talent that Toronto is still hiding from the rest of the world . Anarchy does require a retooling of certain conventions, which makes it difficult for legislation to absorb. As a result, architecture cannot simply take a heroic stance in reshaping the city. On a social level, anarchy prospers in situations of common interests. If architecture can promote the clustering of common interests, and thus common goals, perhaps new and more innovative solutions can be found in addressing the issues of contemporary development. b) Participation as a civic right for co-design and co-production The effectiveness of participation is a difficult subject to address because a consensus of planning decisions is generally difficult to attain when too many contributors are involved. Participation can neither be forced. How can large scale developments, such as a neighbourhood, be planned or even managed if participation is purely voluntary? Exacerbating the matter is the apparent fear and mistrust we have with other people. This is evident when people adhere to the not-in-my-back-yard principle when a collective matters arises. Individual freedom may allow for idealistic conditions and possibilities, once collective goals are in need of pursuing, collective action diminishes.

~ Advocate anarchitecture to spearhead the movement and break from conventional development Promote participation to allow residents and community members to have a greater involvement in neighbourhood planning Embrace spontaneity so that our built environment is exciting again. ~ 33

Community initiated cleanup is an example of this NIMBY principle in that only few will participate, even though it is a collective issue. Fortunately, an architectural intervention can make accessible the collective decision making and action. Architects can leverage creative class as well as multiculturalism, both defining factors of Toronto’s urban neighbourhoods, and use the diversity in creating spaces that facilitate the exchange of ideas and knowledge. These can be informal spaces where direct involvement in physical space can stimulate a positive and proactive approach to collective goals instead of a NIMBY preference. Architects can then utilize this data and materialize these ambitions in a co-design and co-production open source framework. c) Spontaneity and the creative class There are three aspects of spontaneity: growth, durability, and surprise . When applied to the scale of a neighborhood, growth is the ability to attract new entrepreneurs and residents, the proponents of innovation and creativity. Neighbourhoods that do develop into attractive spaces must also be durable. This is durable in the sense that any developments do not fall apart due to the open-ended nature of its inherent planning. Combined, these two aspects of spontaneity would theoretically compliment and support each other. Because of the open-ended nature of spontaneous growth, a third element can be introduced: surprise. The element of surprise keeps our cities interesting. This is also an element that can fall into the realm of architecture. Architect and urban planner, Ken Greenberg comments on this type of planning by saying, “it’s great to have a neighbourhood where one thing leads to another and you don’t know where exactly which way it will go as long as you leave space for the unexpected”. But how can architecture, a discourse of the planned and disciplined, be spontaneous? In principle, spontaneity cannot be imposed. As Jeroen Beekmans recognizes, “it is not about the spontaneity of the intervention, but about the spontaneous social interaction it brings out” Instead of focusing entirely on the built environment, the architecture of spontaneity needs to stimulate the creative interactions of the collective because only they are capable of being spontaneous. Architecture then becomes the organization of disorganization or rather an architecture of artificial spontaneity.

4.0 identifying the users: the creative economy and the clustering force Cities dominate the flow of ideas, and Toronto is no exception. Toronto is sandwiched between the world’s second and third largest mega economic regions – the New York-Boston-Washington corridor and the Chicago-Pittsburgh region (Florida, 2008). This positions Toronto in a very advantageous location in terms of attracting global talent in both quality and quantity. Combined with a history of social cohesion and tolerance, Toronto has become a thriving city and earned its spot as one of the most livable cities in the world. According to Richard Florida, diversity, innovation, and economic growth are all intimately connected. But what are the physical manifestations of these connections in the urban environment and why are they so key to the longevity of a livable city? For Florida, the answer is the creative economy. In the Big Cities Big Ideas lecture at the University of Toronto, Florida recognizes two intertwined economic revolutions. The first is a shift from industrial to information technology to creative economy. The second is the rise of the city itself eclipsing the nation state and the multinational corporations. Florida urges, that the latter of these shifts is what Toronto is lagging in terms of being a true global city and that our government structure is responsible for this missed opportunity (2014). It is critical as the city grows, that its interests are aligned with that of the creative class. Multinational corporations may be responsible for building the bulk of the city, attracting foreign investors, and keeping our economy healthy, but the creative class is the fundamental grassroots that utilizes the creative assets of every citizen. How these creative assets transform into art, culture, design, and innovation is the distinguishing component that affects where people want to live. In, his book The Rise of the Creative Class and more recently Who’s Your City, Florida presents a portrait of demographic and economic trends that influence where people live. Particularly, Florida explains why the creative economy is making where to live the most important decision of people’s lives. The creative economy is comprised of industrious makers, digital natives, free spirited thinkers, curious researchers, mould breaking broadcasters, disruptive start-ups, creative practitioners and entrepreneurial businesses to name a few. But the premise of this type of economy and its constituents is the ability to innovate through new ideas. And through these new ideas are innovations in revitalizing manufacturing, services, retailing, and entertainment industries. The creative economy is therefore the driving factor in determining where people find the most satisfaction for where to live as well as play. The connection between diversity, innovation, and economic growth may seem generic to any growing city, but there is one factor that is missing that makes a great city: proximity. Cities and mega-regions are the organizing economic unit because they share the concentrations of human capital. Nobel Prize-winning economist Robert Lucas identified the underlying economic power of the clustering force- the clustering of

people and productivity, creative skills, and talents (Florida, 2008). Clustering promotes productivity and creativity for the same reason that certain cities have very specific reputations for things they excel at (Silicon Valley for electronics, Detroit for automotive manufacturing, Waterloo for cellular technology, Montreal and Seattle for aerospace, and Nashville for music). Expanding this idea of specialized and highly productive cities and the same can be applied to the macro level, such as city districts and communities. Macro level clustering has created very identifiable communities within Toronto, popularizing areas such as the fashion district, entertainment district, Little Italy, etc. These communities and districts not only generate their own themed economy but have also become destinations for many residents and tourists. Proximity creates identity, and identity creates a market or brand. Industries are able to benefit from proximity because it creates traffic and also healthy competition. On the contrary, over-specialization can have alternative effects. What starts as innovative and fresh can eventually evolve to become elitist and corporate. Christopher Hume recognizes this trend within downtown Toronto where a decline of unique retail and ever increasing series of mega franchises is slowly dulling the city. “There are some 130 Shoppers Drug Marts in Toronto, as well as countless Tim Hortons, Starbucks, McDonalds, Loblaws, LCBOs… it’s no wonder the city grows ever more familiar and sterile” (Hume, 2014). Starbucks, for example, opened its first shop in Seattle’s Pike Place Market in 1971. The company popularized the idea of the Italian espresso and through innovative marketing and strategic acquisitions, Starbucks is now one of the most ubiquitous brands in the world. The issue is not in its success as a growing business. The real issue is corporate dominance. If the city is saturated with corporate giants, little room will be left for the smaller players. At this point, it may appear that a paradox has presented itself in that the creative economy’s ultimate fate is in fact corporate elitism. And maybe there is absolutely nothing wrong with endeavoring to be corporate and massively successul.

Figure 19 - The clustering force, represented as a series of overlapping and similar interests, forming specialized and highly productive cities, regions, or communities.

After all, the entrepreneurial goal is one of success. “Success” however can be defined in different ways. Some business can flourish from simply occupying impractically small spaces, creating an artificial demand, and do extremely well in terms of business. Others might believe that the move towards franchising will dilute the brand, leading to its demise. In another case, a business might decide to run in a hidden alley without any signage or street presence. These are some examples of urban spontaneity. The ability for these businesses to run alongside corporate franchises is sometimes a matter of tactic. Small business may anchor beside corporate ones for stability – this is especially true in stigmatized neighbourhoods. On the other hand, corporate businesses might rely on smaller ones to attract new clientele. Through proximity and by playing off each other, a mutual relationship is likely the best compromise for an increasingly corporate city. This is a natural ability of urban environments, where clustering occurs through density and close proximity. This is also second revolution that Florida recognizes that has the potential to propel Toronto to be a true global city. Identifying the creative economy as the city’s savior from corporate dominance takes reference from the ideals set out by advocates of anarchy, participation and, spontaneity. Leveraging the creative diversity of our cities is the first step towards a more balanced playing field in the development scheme. Not only would we achieve more balance, the once corporate city can finally advance beyond the “default response” towards a city that is more representative of its people.

~ The Creative Economy: is comprised of industrious makers, digital natives, free spirited thinkers, curious researchers, mould breaking broadcasters, disruptive startups, creative practitioners and entrepreneurial businesses What they need: affordable spaces What they produce: innovative ideas and products ~ 39

5.0 city of neighbourhoods - anarchy vs. gentrification In determining an appropriate site for architectural investigation, this site provides some context to issues facing neighbourhoods in Toronto. Toronto’s diverse neighbourhoods have given the city a unique appeal, not just for existing urban dwellers but also a new wave of migrating individuals. But one quality stands out: the urban grit. Many of the city’s most desirable neighbourhoods are not in the form of the pristine and newly constructed, but rather the ones that have stood the test of time. These are the neighbourhoods that have gone through various demographic transitions, forces of gentrification and assimilation, or simply remained resilient in the face of change. However, their cohesion as a neighbourhood as an urban phenomenon is worth investigating so that future planned developments can learn from such precedents. Every summer Sunday in Kensington Market, the streets are closed to vehicles, offering a variety of spontaneous programmes to pedestrians. The Pedestrian Sundays cater to many live events including music, dancing, street theatre and games – a spectacle uncommon in Toronto. Kensington Market was also the birthplace of many anarchist movements and perhaps why Kensington Market exists in its current unusual state. The first movement was born out of the punk scene in 1980’s as a result of wanting to create a space in memory of Emma Goldman, an anarchist and American exile who wrote about freedom of speech, atheism, capitalism, free love, and homosexuality. This space, called Who’s Emma? came about largely from the need for a regular place to hold punk gigs, but also as a space for alternatives to the male-centred and overly straight character of much of the political left could flourish (Shantz, 2009, p. 2). Later in 1999, another anarchist space opened up on the same block as Who’s Emma? called The Anarchist Freespace. The AFS was a venue intended to hold classes and workshops that deal with difficulties and strategies for creating new, anti-authoritarian relations (Shantz, 2009, p. 7). Although these spaces only lasted a few years, the character of the neighbourhood today still resonates the notion of anarchism. Kensington Market is a neighbourhood that to this day, has resisted gentrification and corporate assimilation. Figure 20 – Pedestrian Sundays at Kensington Market. This figure illustrates how the organization of community events can take precedent over city regulations.

There were several attempts made by Starbucks and Nike to open up retail outlets, only to be met with fierce objection and ultimately expulsion. As a counterargument to the resistance of gentrification and corporate assimilation, Parkdale experienced an entirely different fate. This once poor inner city neighbourhood has since experienced sporadic gentrification and is now a hot-spot for boutiques, café’s, and other high-draw shops. Even though much of the existing building stock has not changed significantly, in fact most of the buildings retained their grittiness, gentrification in Parkdale drew in a new generation of bourgeois bohemians. Land value grew significantly to the point where Parkdale no longer retains the reputation for an undesirable neighbourhood. The city of Toronto is also regularizing and licensing existing low-income housing and retail spaces, resulting in a major concerns in tenant displacement (Slater, 2004). In this example, there are two trains of thought in terms of how gentrification is viewed. Many of the issues surrounding gentrification are the obvious displacement of lower income residents with a more prominent and wealthier class. Rising rents could eventually force these lower income residents out of the area. Others see gentrification as a means of urban rival, turning once desolate and unsafe neighbourhoods into vibrant communities. The contrast between Kensington Market and South Parkdale resembles the issues (resistance and assimilation) that face a great number of urban neighbourhoods within the city. Kensington Market is an exemplar neighbourhood of autonomy, community, and resistance to corporate capitalism. It thrives as a destination for many Torontonians and tourists not simply because of its diversity or uniqueness, but by its resilience as well. This can also be said for many of Toronto’s neighbourhoods, including The Annex, Little Korea, and Leslieville. On the contrary, neighbourhoods like South Parkdale and Liberty Village, and to some extent the Distillery District have gone through transformations as a result of developer interests. One commonality however is their continued retention of identity, whether progressive or resistive. These neighbourhoods and their respective local Business Improvement Area (BIA) have strived to retain defining characteristics which in essence helps market the businesses within these areas. BIA’s are partnerships with the City of Toronto and local businesses owners and tenants to “create thriving, competitive, and safe business areas that attract shoppers, diners, tourists, and new businesses. By working collectively as a BIA, local businesses have the organizational and funding capacity to be catalysts for civic improvement, enhancing the quality of life in their local neighbourhood and the City as a whole” (City of Toronto, 2014). Such organizations not only improve the public realm but also provides these neighbourhoods with a sense of belonging and reinforcing their identity. While it is beyond the scope of this thesis to resolve issues facing gentrification and anarchy, sensitivity towards these issues must be considered. Any architectural intervention in the contemporary city must address these relatively new issues, especially in the context of improving the public realm. 41

Case Study: Cold Tea Bar Down a dimly lit narrow corridor of closed Kensington Mall merchants, turn left into another corridor only to be unexpectedly greeted be a friendly old woman in apron serving Dim Sum at 1am. The casual visitor will not know this is actually the entry sequence to an after-hours bar with a spacious courtyard patio amidst century old buildings. The name ‘Cold Tea’ is derived from a trend of post-last-call beer served in late night Chinatown eateries. First time business owners Oliver Dimapilis, Stacey Welton, and Matthew LaRochelle were intentionally looking for back-lane properties in Chinatown. While inauspicious, having zero street frontage or presence actually works to their advantage. It allows for visitors to feel as if admittance was an almost cult-like exclusivity. From an urbanism perspective, it’s evident that the city’s fabric is a complex one and such businesses help knit it together. Back of lane venues such as Cold Tea help restore elements of surprise back into the city, the antithesis of modern planning techniques. As high property values increasingly displace start-up ventures, more and more entrepreneurs begin to look for alternate and unconventional strategies to attract visitors, proving that it’s not necessary to occupy prime retail spaces.

Figure 21 – Cold Tea Bar entrance from Kensington Market. Retrieved from Introducing: Cold Tea, a new Kensington Market bar that nods to a venerable Chinatown tradition. Caroline Aksich, 2011. http://www.torontolife.com/daily-dish/ openings/2011/10/24/introducing-cold-tea/. Accessed April 2014.

Figure 22 – Cold Tea Bar courtyard. Retrieved from Introducing: Cold Tea, a new Kensington Market bar that nods to a venerable Chinatown tradition. Aksich, 2011. http://www.torontolife.com/daily-dish/openings/2011/10/24/introducing-cold-tea/. Accessed April 2014.

6.0 site investigation This chapter will introduce the site. In order to test the design strategies, which will be presented in the next chapter, the ideal site would be one facing issues of gentrification or redevelopment. The site will already have established essential services such as schools, supermarkets, grocery stores, banks, etc. But to really test the questions set out by this thesis, the site must show signs of emerging corporate development. And lastly, the site would be the subject of a budding creative economy which will contribute towards the idea of “being”, as opposed to “making”. Regent Park has been selected because it presents a case for intervention that is conducive to many of the research topics presented in this thesis project thus far. Starting with a brief history of the site, the investigation will also include an analysis on demographics and geographical attributes, and a section on the current revitalization of Regent Park.

Figure 23 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Boundary between Regent Park Redevelopment phase 1 (right side) and to-be phase 3 (left side).

6.1 the neighbourhood Regent Park is located in the east end of downtown Toronto bordered by River (east), Queen Street East (south), Gerrard (north), and Parliament (west). Originally part of the present-day Cabbagetown neighbourhood, Regent Park is one of Canada’s largest and oldest public housing projects. The original project was built between 1948 and 1959 but has since deteriorated beyond repair, both physically and socially. Crime, poverty, and lack of safety resulted in the stigmatization of Regent Park. Yet it was home to some 12,000 ethno-racially diverse residents (Horak, 2010). Despite the stigmatization and lower than average household income, residents of Regent Park have grown to establish a strong sense of community, backed by a vast framework of community organizations and user-led initiatives.

Toronto Population 2,465,500 % unemployment 7.63 % of households below low-income cut-off 24.50 Median individual income ($) 24,544 % visible minority 49.98 % foreign-born 46.95 % lone-parent families 20.32 % of population 15 years+ with incomplete high school 20.36 % of population 19 years or younger 22.20 % of dwellings owner-occupied 54.38

Regent Park 11,160 15.36 67.96 13,206 78.87 78.87 36.07 31.15 36.98 10.87

In the context of its surroundings neighbourhoods, Regent Park has a unique identity that is often misunderstood by those not living within. Clear demographic divides are evident between Regent Park and its surrounding neighbourhoods. Directly north is Cabbagetown, home to affluent professionals and a collection of fine Victorian homes priced well above the average house in Toronto. Across the Don Valley Parkway to the east is Leslieville, a vibrant and sought after neighbourhood for young adults and families. To the south is the Distillery District and the rapidly transforming West Don Lands (the site for the 2015 Pan Am Games Village). This is a classic example of what Robson and Butler (as cited in Kohn, 2013, p. 299) calls tectonic polarization. Regent Park is flanked on nearly all sides to completely different demographics. But instead of social groups of different demographics clashing, residents and businesses are surprisingly capable of coexisting.

Table 1 – Selected indicators for Toronto and Regent Park, prior to phase 3 revitalization. The results show a contrast between residents of Regent Park and Toronto’s average given its high population density and proximity to the downtown core. Calculated from Statistics Canada 2007 and Horak, 2010.

Household Income | Average Household Income (Current Year $), 2012 $0.00 - $60495.00 $60495.01 - $74931.00 $74931.01 - $89046.00 $89046.01 - $109554.00 $109554.01 - $985676.00

Outline of Regent Park 0m

500 m

1000 m

Figure 24 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Average Household Income. A clear demographic division separates Regent Park and Cabbage Town on Carlton and Gerrard Street East. Generated from SimplyMaps, 2013.

# Labour Force by Occupation | Occupations in Art,Culture,Recreation,Sport, 2012 0 - 33 34 - 58 59 - 85 86 - 130 131 - 88312

Outline of Regent Park 0m

500 m

1000 m

Figure 25 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Number of Labour Force in Creative and Leisure Industries. A striking separation between Regent Park with the Rest of the City. Generated from SimplyMaps, 2013.

Given the advantageous proximity to the downtown core, one would wonder why Regent Park stands out as a stark contrast of lowest creative occupations. Figure 24 and 25 clearly illustrates Regent Park’s demographic and economic separation from the surrounding neighbourhoods and the rest of the city. Tying these areas together is Parliament Street. Here is an oddity, an arterial street that rivals the vibrancy and aesthetic of Queen Street West, but curiously remains an exclusive amenity to residents within downtown’s east end. Interestingly, the streetscape reflects its adjacent neighbourhood. As figure 26 shows, the Parliament Street running through Cabbagetown is strikingly different than the Parliament Street running through Regent Park. Retail and entertainment is clearly catered to a specific demographic. Gentrified Cabbagetown contains more of the trendy shops and restaurants while prerevitalized Regent Park is populated by a potpourri of non-English signage, ethnically diverse retail. There is no question that various gentrifying forces will inevitably influence the characteristics of Regent Park and its associated section of Parliament Street.

Figure 26 – Map of selected amenities along Parliament Street. This diagram illustrates a correlation of geared-to-demographic along Parliament Street yet residents and businesses are able to co-exist within the overall neighbourhood.

In 2003, the Toronto Community Housing Corporation initiated the Regent Park Revitalization Project. Currently, a 15-20 year, $1 billion multi-phase redevelopment is in progress, razing virtually all of Regent Park’s existing buildings to create a higher density, new urbanist, mixed income, and environmentally sustainable community. This ambitious project will include high quality amenities such as Daniels Spectrum 49

Community Centre, the Regent Park Aquatic Centre, the new Regent Park, and athletic grounds (Toronto Community Housing Corporation, 2014 and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 2009). In addition, corporate retail in the form of a Royal Bank branch, Tim Hortons, Freshco by Sobeys, and a Rogers Cellular outlet, have also secured its presence within the completed phase 1 redevelopment, a sign of faith in the once distraught neighbourhood. This begs the question of how the remainder of the multi-phased development will shape out to be. Mixed-used buildings with new retail opportunities will line Gerrard, Parliament, and Queen Street. Will it retain the unique character of the neighbourhood, or will it give way to corporate dominance?

6.2 review of regent park design guidelines Examining the 2007 Regent Park Secondary Plan for revitalization reveals several shortcomings. Seven principles were outlined in the Plan including: 1. The physical reconnection of Regent Park with the surrounding community 2. Neighbourhoods through pedestrian-friendly, publicly owned streets, parks, and open spaces 3. The introduction of housing diversity in the form of mixed income buildings and varied forms of tenure 4. A mix of uses that encourages healthy neighbourhoods through community services, parks, retail and a range of employment opportunities 5. A high level of security and accessibility 6. Environmental sustainability through building construction and design 7. An economically healthy neighbourhood that incorporates flexibility and adaptation over time to demographic, lifestyle and technological changes. 8. A neighbourhood that promotes walking, cycling and transit (City of Toronto, 2007) Several of these points (1,3, and 6)have a direct impact on the urban realm as a result of the architectural design and implementation. If the guidelines are not executed appropriately, the resulting revitalization project will resemble that of Concord Adexâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s CityPlace development â&#x20AC;&#x201C; a dulled streetscape reminiscent of suburban homogeneity. The City of Toronto released a supplementary guideline for the remaining phases of Regent Park Redevelopment called the 2013 Development Context Plan. An in depth look at the 2013 Development Context Plan for Regent Park reveals a prescriptive set of strategies for how to treat ground floor street frontage of every building. The following is an excerpt from the Context Plan: The design of the ground floor level fronting onto Dundas Street East, Parliament Street and Gerrard Street East should allow for sufficient depth to maintain flexibility of use. 50

VS.

Figure 27 – Facing sides of Parliament Street at Dundas intersection. Phase 1 redevelopment (left) showing corporate saturation and poorly activated streetscape. Existing buildings (right).

Building designs fronting onto these Existing Arterial Streets in Regent Park should encourage frequent distribution of front door entrances to create lively, animated and well-lit streets. A high proportion of windows to solid wall at street level should help to make the frontages highly transparent with views into the stores and other ground floor spaces, as well as promote visual connection from the interior to a safer street outside. The ground floor level should be designed with a height of at least 4.5 metres to allow for a range of use, and flexibility. Weather protection including awnings, canopies and recessed entrances should be encouraged in the design [of these] buildings to help create an attractive and comfortable pedestrian experience. (City of Toronto, 2013, p.77) My critique towards the revitalization project is not its social initiatives, but the poor implementation of its architecture as well as the developmental framework. Reminiscent of Modernism’s prescriptive International Style, the architecture of the revitalization project struggles to activate the streets the way historic buildings do (Figure 27). In the case of the phase one redevelopment (One Cole Place), the ground floor retail is completely dominated by corporate mega franchises. The building frontage is hardly animated along the arterial streets of Parliament and Dundas East, and even includes a series of fire exit doors where prime retail space would normally be. And although there is significant set-back from the street, the sidewalk areas do not enable the “flexibility of use” as described in the Context Plan. Ironically, the opposite side of the street, the existing and undeveloped side, is far more successful in terms of streetscape activity. Understandably, big box stores and mega franchises entering a risky market shows potential for further neighbourhood growth. In fact, this is a necessary move given Regent Park’s past stigma of being poverty and crime ridden. As such, corporate franchises deserve a place in any development, and should be considered part of a neighbourhood’s progression.

Neighbourhood progression is often a slow and uncertain process. Nevertheless, it is an essential part of urbanism and urban spontaneity. Elements of urban spontaneity has a few prerequisites. For the case of Regent Park, prior to revitalization efforts, the neighbourhood was fortunate to be part of a greater network of community amenities such as big chain grocery stores, pharmacies, schools etc. As in the example of Concord Pacific’s CityPlace, these basic amenities are required at the front end just to support the needs of residents. Even though corporate franchises such as those found in the phase 1 development of Regent Park are not the most desirable or innovative, these corporate entities are part of the progression towards a more spontaneous city. Figure 28 shows a diagrammatic road-map towards a series of spontaneous program spaces. Despite great ambitions for a more spontaneous and exciting city, corporate elements are still a prerequisite and necessary component within a neighbourhood’s growth as well as resilience. When such neighbourhood reaches a certain critical mass, elements of spontaneity can take over and carry it over the lifetime of that particular neighbourhood. At this point, neighborhoods are likely to see more establishments from the creative economy, assuming a healthy competitive environment. A healthy competitive environment involves a balanced development platform, an invested community (ex. BIA’s and resident participation), and appropriate architectural design (ex. massing and clustering). I posit that these factors are missing from the 2013 Context Plan as well as the planning guidelines for many of Toronto’s developments. The proposed 3rd phase of Regent Park’s revitalization project involves an inappropriate massing that will not only disrupt the urban context, but also be a target for corporate domination (figure 29). Situated on the corner of two very prominent streets, the development will likely see high rents that are not competitive with the surrounding establishments, thereby making the ground floor retail affordable only to high return tenants – that of a high income, high return corporate businesses. In other words, escalating real estate prices can inhibit and displace emerging new businesses the same way that is being witnessed in developments across Toronto. On the contrary, many forms of innovative and creative activity – whether they are new high tech business, art galleries, or musical group – require the same thing: affordable space (Florida, 2009, p.145). To resist any development at all would not be the appropriate response however. Instead, a strategy must be devised to allow complimentary growth of the neighbourhood without the displacement of local businesses. This particular site, in the midst of highly volatile developments, is of great opportunistic interest for an architectural intervention related to this thesis.

RESIDENTIAL STUDIOS + WORKSHOPS

>>>

EXISTING

[

acknowledgement of the need for redevelopment

]

>>>

REVITALIZE

[

old building stock is restored or redeveloped

]

>>>

CORPORATE

[

initial corporate penetration

CO-OPs

SPONTANEITY

ENTERTAINMENT + AMENITIES

]

START-UPs

WORKHOPS EVENT SPACE

Figure 28 – Spontaneity road-map. This diagram illustrates the progression of city an neighbourhood development with the end result being more spontaneous, after the establishment of a corporate presence.

Figure 29 – The proposed phase 3 of Regent Park is located at the corner of Gerrard Street and Parliament Street, represented as a large building mass with a 120m residential tower and full building footprint podium.

7.0 design strategies - the creative co-op To invoke the qualities of an architecture of anarchy, participation, and spontaneity, two components need to be defined and explored. The first is the introduction of a new development platform that unleashes the city’s creative assets. The second component takes a more traditional approach to making space, based on precedents and formal analysis. These formal qualities and the developmental platform will define the resulting architecture of the creative co-op.

FORMAL QUALITIES OF THE THREE STRATEGIES ANARCHY PARTICIPATION SPONTANEITY

<<<

[

>>>

architectural response

]

USER DRIVEN DEVELOPMENT PLATFORM

7.1 user driven development platform No longer can we solely rely on past development structures that continue to degrade and displace. Centralized market and bureaucratic control tends to limit diversity and stymie creativity. A new platform, a user driven platform, is the key for a triple top line city that incorporates ecological, social, and economic sustainability. The encapsulation of these developmental strategies may not be a new concept, but its actualization on the urban neighbourhood scale is a move that will restore the much needed personality back to the city. Toronto is then re-presented as a city, by the city. The creative co-op is a marketplace, where supply and demand sculpts the urban form. Similar to the Spontaneous City Manifesto, the creative co-op provides a framework for flexible urban planning that is shaped by its occupants. And just like the Spontaneous City, Toronto can harness the individual’s, as well as the collective’s creative energy that is crucial to developing new solutions in the urban environment. In order to achieve a creative co-op that encompasses the ethos of anarchitecture, participation, and spontaneity, it is critical to devise a relationship diagram that illustrates the logic between end users (consumers) and the providers (content creators). Consumers in this framework are those seeking to start-up businesses within the creative co-op whereas providers are the consultants who help consumers achieve their desired business aspirations. 54

Figure 30 – The architectural response to anarchy, participation, and spontaneity shown as a combination of formal qualities as well as a user driven developmental framework.

[

‘INNOVATION’ MEDIATED KNOWLEDGE FEILD [innovation kiosk] [virtual knowledge suite] [self service]

‘TECH’ MEDIATED KNOWLEDGE FEILD [tech kiosk] [virtual knowledge suite] [self service]

‘BUILD ‘MEDIATED KNOWLEDGE FEILD build kiosk] [virtual knowledge suite] [self service]

USER DRIVEN PLATFORMS SELF [ SERVICED ]

INNOVATION KIOSK

MEDIATED [ KNOWLEDGE FIELD ]

SELF [ SERVICED ]

TECH KIOSK SELF [ SERVICED ]

MEDIATED [ KNOWLEDGE FIELD ]

BUILD KIOSK MEDIATED [ KNOWLEDGE FIELD ]

SELF [ SERVICED ]

USER DRIVEN PLATFORMS

INNOVATION KIOSK [business clustering] [business incubation] [feasibility studies] USER DRIVEN PLATFORMS

TECH KIOSK [social networking] [crowd funding] [marketing + media]

BUILD KIOSK [space requirements and variations] [scheduling + allocations] [construction + dissembly]

VIRTUAL KNOWLEDGE SUITE [architects and design professionals] [fabricators] VIRTUAL KNOWLEDGE SUITE [marketing specialists] [design professionals] VIRTUAL KNOWLEDGE SUITE [community members] [business analysts]

Figure 31 – User driven development platform. This diagram shows the various logical requirements of the platform and its relationship between content creators and providers.

The proposed logical framework (figure 31) describes the flexibility of the user driven platform yet maintains a certain level of logistical structure. Because the intent here is to not imply complete chaos and anarchy, these structures need to exist in order to build meaningful spaces and comply with health and safety regulations. The relationships also allow enough flexibility to enable successful implementation of master plan guidelines, specifically Regent Park’s. Being a user driven platform, user input is continuously and imperatively required in the conception, building, and maintenance of the creative co-op. Idea conception begins with a plot of land or space. The prerequisite is that mix-use zoning will evolve to become “integrated land use”, or less commonly known as “performance zoning” (Ellin, 2006). This concept regulates land use through public objectives and community visions. While this type of zoning is not a complete departure from the more conventional types of zoning, it offers more flexibility and intensity while ensuring a density that does not burden the city’s infrastructure. 1982 was the first time performance zoning was used in the planning of Seaside, Florida. The new town on the Florida panhandle was designed by Duany Plater-Zyberk (DPZ), which proved the success of this zoning type. To encourage connectivity and hybridity of space, the city used a form-based coding approach which presumes that what happens within a building is less important than the form of the building and its relationship to other buildings and to the street (Katz, 2004). The key difference is that form-based coding allows uses to change according to the owners’ wishes and market demands.

Figure 32 – The pseudo architectural intent based on the user driven development platform.

With this gained freedom of land use, the user would begin the procurement process at the Market Hub. It acts as the interface between idea conception and the supply and demand of space at the creative co-op. Here, entrepreneurs can examine the current types of business, its associated arrangement or clustering, neighbouring business and demographic types, as well as the costs of starting up a business. With the aid of virtual platforms, which serves as the network of knowledge between the user and the creative co-op, users can make educated decisions on their procurement. Additionally, users will be able to interact with the community through online forums in order to better understand the needs of the particular community. The second step is the Tech Kiosk. This station and its services leverages the full power of the information age in that a tech specialist will aid in the promotion of a particular start-up business. Whether it is crowd-funding or promotion through social media, the Tech Kiosk will have the knowledge and resources to enable these activities. The third and final step is the Construction or Build Kiosk. Like a highly customizable gadget, the construction kiosk is the primary interface where conception becomes reality. Choosing from various modular configurations as well as custom layouts that suit particular usages, the user also has the ability to select installation locations on demand. Having the ability to change locations allows the neighbourhood to adapt to changing needs without lengthy transitions times like traditional methods of procurement. Such a high level of adaptability will allow different establishments to mutually benefit from each other. Low-retail may decide to locate close to high-retail, or similar industries may be more productive if clustered together. The objective of all the customization and rapid adaptability is to foster spontaneity that will best address the needs but also the wants of the neighbourhood.

7.2 formal qualities Various informal spaces were investigated for their formal qualities. The emphasis of these case studies was on their universality even though the photos were taken from various geographical locations. These spaces are often maintained by the people who live around it, and often free from any imposing zoning. While these spaces were all connected to a main street, their functions remain independent of vehicular programs. Interestingly, while the functions of these spaces may have changed through time, the activities occurring within and around remain the domain of user generated activities. Trends begin to emerge when these spaces were examined. Formally, these urban environments had complex spatial organizations, often integrating shelter, hidden or protected areas, winding paths, and niches (figures 33 and 34). These environments activate spontaneously when combined with the right mix of people. The informal

Figure 33 – Informal Spaces (Top to Bottom) Urban Gardens – Hong Kong, China. Niche Spaces – Victoria, British Columbia. Back Streets – Pompeii, Italy.

Figure 34 – Informal Spaces (top to bottom) Closed Streets – Amsterdam, Netherlands. Playards – Hamburg, Germany Retrieved from The spontaneous city. Urhahn, 2010. Amsterdam: BIS Publishers. p.98. Courtyards – Bhaktapur, Nepal.

market is a good example of how underutilized spaces and a group of merchants and customers can turn inauspicious environments to ones that are active. The connection between social activities and the built environment involves a certain kind of energy that cannot be easily replicated in suburban environments, which is why proximity is such a crucial component to active spaces. Urban settings like downtown Toronto offer an inherent advantage simply because of the physical proximity to similar business, interest and ideas. Compounded by digital clustering, a phenomenon that reached new heights in today’s smart phone powered society, urban environments have evolved to become real-time on demand places of work and leisure. Picture a group of friends gathered at coffee shop. These people likely came together using all kinds of electronic means of communication and they are able to converge in a short amount of time. Social and cultural events like the after-hours cold tea bars, the underground rock clubs, and parking-lot food festivals are the result of spontaneous connectivity and clustering. The same scenario can be seen in business settings, particularly in creative industries. Pop-ups is a term used to describe spontaneous and sometimes temporary business ventures. They are usually successful because of social media and being in proximity to people who share common interests. They are also highly mobile, and will “pop-up” anywhere and anytime. Founders of RockPaperScissors, Valerie Luu and Katie Kwon set out to recreate the experience of Vietnam’s street food in San Francisco. The duo have been known to pop-up in a metal workshop, garages, sidewalks, and porches and attracting hoards of attention wherever they go. Similarly in Toronto, there is a mobile phone application that tracks the positions of food trucks in the city via GPS. These examples might resonate similarities with the term global village but being connected through digital space has to manifest in a real world experience to be truly valuable. In other words, instant messaging may connect people better than ever before but the actual gathering of people sharing food, ideas, or knowledge is the essence of urban environments. This combination of physical and digital clustering can be visualized in the form of a three dimensional matrix (figure 35). Recall chapter 4’s topic of the power in clustering, a property that makes these areas highly productive and innovative. These spaces can also be more meaningful since they have the potential to catalyze the built environment to become social environments. They can also form community and industry clusters further promoting social interactivity across different urban scales. Creating these dynamically evolving spaces allows users to determine the configuration at anytime, promoting social spontaneity and a sense of spatial anarchy. The functional programming will always be representative of the user’s needs. Space can also be collectively determined, whether it be a joint venture or social gathering. By using this formal typology in an architectural setting, we can quickly connect the built environment with the social environment. Until now, most developments in the 60

FREE

RAD

ICAL

S FREE

FREE

RADI

FREE RA

CALS

RADI

ICA

CLU DIC

R1 CLU C U CL USSTTEER R1

FREE RA

R1 CLU

CLUS TER 1 RAD ICA LS

DIC

FREE

FREE RA

F EE FR

R1 CLU

RADI

FREE RAD ICA LS

CALS

CLUS TE

STE

DIC A FREELS RADI CA

STE

CLU USSTTE TER R2

CLLU C USTE U R2 RADI CA

FREEE RA AD DIIC CALS L

FREEE RADI CA

DIC

DICA

CL CLU USSTTEEER R3

ALS

CLU

FR REE RA DI D CA CALLSS

CLUS TE

FREE

RAD

FREE ICA LS

RAD IC

CLU

FREE RADI CALS L

STE

FR REE RA DICA LS

CLUS TEER ER 3

STE

z-ax

STE

ALS

CLLU US USTTEER R1

FREE RA AD ICA

CLU

x-ax is

STE

ALS

STE

FREE RA

RAD

CALS

CLU FREE

y-axis

Figure 35 – Spontaneous Clustering: 3 dimensional integration representing both digital and physical proximities of multiple industries, forming overlaps of highly productive and innovative zones.

FREE

ALS

FREE

CLU

FREE RAD ICA

FREE RAD ICA LS

RAD

ICA

RADI CALS

STE

FREEE RADI CA

FREE

RAD

ICAL

FREE RA

DIC

FREE

RAD IC

ALS

contemporary city do not reflect this type of planning, whether it is on the city wide scale, or that of a single building. Developments have been designed to maximize an economic agenda, while leaving the social, cultural, and environmental aspects secondary. By leveraging the power of collective decision making, such an organizational typology also stimulates a collective responsibility, theoretically creating a society that is more equitable and sustainable. Applying these same organizational principles on the macro level of architecture involves a greater spatial understanding, since buildings are designed with human scale in mind. Taking spatial inspiration from Cedric Price’s Fun Palace, the evolvability of Solids in Amsterdam, the quirkiness of back-lane dive bars, and the various formal variations of informal spaces, we can begin to apply these qualities on the test-bed site of Gerrard and Parliament Street of Regent Park. Trying to understand the complex spatial qualities of clusters would not be productive. Instead, it would be more logical to start with a modular unit, and how that unit eventually evolves to become a cluster environment. This module would require three initial components, formal space in the form of enclosures, informal space or the space in between, and circulation. Figures 36, 37, and 38 shows a series of modular units configured in a way that encompasses these three components, and when doubled, interaction zones are multiplied exponentially. As land value further increases in the City of Toronto, it is essential to maximize the amount of space we use in order to conduct business. Condominiums are exemplary of the trend as people are starting to adapt and prefer smaller living spaces in order minimize capital costs and the cost of high maintenance fees. From the commercial sector’s point of view, businesses are also finding new ways to be more efficient in how

Figure 36 – Single cluster. Example of a cluster in volumetric form. Interaction zones occur within the cluster but also on all sides. Void spaces become informal spaces (green).

Figure 37 – Doubling cluster. By doubling the cluster, interior and exterior streetscapes quadruple.

Figure 38 – Double cluster with interaction zones. By doubling the cluster to two units, the number of interaction zones (circles) multiply exponentially and new networks are created.

their business are run, especially in times of economic distress. In order to enable the on-demand clustering of businesses, a modular unit of space was envisioned to occupy the host spaces. Figure 39 shows the various module sizes and examples of configurations. The smallest start-up module is 250sqft. This size is ideal for people who need to test the grounds of their business without having to sacrifice essential utilities. Within 250sqft, one could still have enough space for a kitchenette as well as a bathroom.

Case Study: Surmesur In an interview with François Thériault, one of the owners of the custom menswear shop Surmesur, he recalls opening up his first store in Quebec City in a space no larger than 200sqft (personal communication, March 4, 2014). Clients had to buzz in and walk up a narrow, likely not to code, staircase into an inauspicious space that most people can’t even live in, let alone operate a business. However, quality of service and word of mouth have allowed him and his business partner and brother Vincent to open full sized shops now in Montreal and Toronto. Learning how to utilize small spaces keeps costs down, opening up business opportunities to a greater pool of entrepreneurs.

Figure 39 – Modular system with associated informal spaces. The modules are configurable to produce formal spaces (pink), as well as informal or secondary spaces (green).

As the need for more space grows, users have the ability to add additional modules (250sqft or 500sqft modules) to the existing one. Modules can be stacked, protruded, or recessed, which results in a highly dynamic volume of solid and void spaces. Void spaces then becomes informal spaces, the kind that owners Oliver Dimapilis, Stacey Welton, and Matthew LaRochelle of Cold Tea Bar in Kensington Market were so eager to find for their first business venture. These spaces can be occupied under, on top, behind, and even in front of existing modules provided whatever activity is authorized by the co-op. In this scenario, even the most unprivileged have a chance to operate a business, legitimate or not. Void spaces also serve as secondary expansion space for existing businesses in the form of patios, rooftop gardens, and gallerias etc. The defining difference between the cluster matrix and conventional mixed-use

developments is the speed at which buildings are constructed. Modular assemblies permit fast construction as well as relocation times, allowing ideas to materialize close to real-time. With an on-site fabrication facility, this process is further expedited. Conversely, conventional developments and construction takes years to materialize with a lot of uncertainty in the process. “Trying to establish or anticipate an end result in advance no longer works. After five years, a master plan is often outdated by political and economic reality” explains Jeroen Laven of STIPO Advisors of urban planning (Urhahn, 2010, p. 43). This inherent limitation of architecture in the contemporary city cannot be more true. From conception to occupancy, ideals can change significantly and perhaps this was the unforeseen circumstance at CityPlace. By implementing a more spontaneous approach to area development, we can bypass the uncertainties as well as the costs, and focus more on making businesses grow and creating meaningful spaces. The creative co-op will therefore act as an agent for the formal strategies and developmental framework. Anarchy is represented in the free will of entrepreneurial startups, moving about, shrinking, and growing. Participation is captured in the anarchistic arrangements of clusters, creating an ever dynamic engagement with one self as well as with others - an ecology of economy. And finally, spontaneity, the component that can only be generated by the end users, is the by-product of an architecture’s ability to synergize anarchy and participation. The three components are therefore not single design entities, but rather one unified strategy to create meaningful places – places that are embodiments of the community’s values and interests.

Figure 40 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Vignette of sketches exploring the design response.

8.0 design response The Creative Co-op will be the new architecture of community making, inspiring exchange, idea dissemination, and connecting and supporting entrepreneurial startups. It will capture the spirit of downtown Toronto’s up and coming east end and showcase the people’s creative assets in the form of unparalleled amenity spaces. There is no single term that can used to describe its function, due to its constantly changing state. At any given instance, the creative co-op can host a variety of functions in an on-demand basis. It can be the contemporary version of the bazaar just as much as it can be a hub of high tech industries. Similar to the “solids” typology introduced in Amsterdam, the architecture serves as a support superstructure and caters to the evolving needs of the neighbourhood. The empowerment of individuals to craft their own space and to use it as they please is the goal of this architectural typology.

Figure 41 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Creative Co-op Parliament Street elevation

8.1 exterior

ARD S

TREE T EA

PA RL

GERR

IA M EN T

ST RE ET

Responding to the Regent Park site is a sensitive issue. Without overwhelming the existing buildings, the creative co-op attempts to merge with its contextual neighbourhood meanwhile offering a progressive shift in terms of how we build new mixed-use communities. The co-op maximally utilizes street frontage, splitting the building massing into two wings, and thus creating an additional row of prime streetlevel retail. Splitting the massing also creates open market spaces or plazas that accompany the north and south wings. The north (main) wing is angled to match the bend of Gerrard Street, so that street traffic from downtown is greeted with the co-op’s public realm – a combination of retail, plaza, and green space. Activities that populate this high exposure public realm allows traffic, both vehicular and pedestrian, to direct their attention towards the building. By creating considerable setback from the road, the plaza can act as an informal marketplace, intensifying the streetscape. The plaza then becomes opportunity spaces as well as public amenity space. The south wing however is merged with the existing ground floor and podium of the proposed residential building. Merging with the proposed condominium is one way to add value to the building, as the co-op then becomes part of its amenity space.

Gerrard Street Plaza

Informal Market “Free Space”

Figure 42 – Program components of the creative co-op

Innovations Portal

Cluster Matrix

Virtual Business Incubation Centre

Build Kiosk

Horizontal Clusters (‘solids’)

Production, Fabrication, and Loading Area

HUB+

Market Support Spaces/Storage

Figure 43 – Axonometric of floor plans and site.

tra ge nsit in rrar and f d m orm str info a e gr rke al m et prma o t fa un suparke lazation br d hu po tp ica l b tio r rt s ace n ret pa fa ai ce cil l m s ity o du le s

gr ou nd

3300mm

in n clu ova se ste tion c r fa on ma s po br d tri rt ica al x tio n fa cil ity les

se co nd

3300mm

in n clu ova st tio er n m sp fa at o b vir rica or rix rtal & tu tio mo ga al lle bun fa dul ry sin cili es es ty si nc ub at or

ird

3300mm

fo ur t

ho gr rizo e n re en tal sid ro cl en of ust tia am er l a en s “s m it ol id en y s” ity sp ac e

3900mm

ho riz on ta lc lu st er s“ so lid s”

Approaching the site from the west (figure 44 and 45), visitors are greeted with a unique structure unlike anything in Toronto. It is here where visitors meet the face of the new Regent Park Redevelopment. At the intersection of Parliament and Gerrard Street East, various programmatic functions are visible including the Gerrard Street Plaza, five levels of creative businesses, and the innovations portal which acts as a window into the creative co-op’s functions. Visitors arriving on foot or by transit will be greeted by one of the two information hubs, called HUB+, that integrates a digital interactive wall which displays real-time information on the co-op’s business directory, trending businesses, events, and services (figure 46). The HUB+ also shows relevant information for entrepreneurs wanting to start their own business through a graphical user interface (GUI) of supply and demand. The informed individual can then proceed to the virtual business incubation centre for more specialized advice. The HUB+ is also an online platform that enables people to post local stories and discuss initiatives and ideas for improving projects. This is the first component of the co-op that tries to foster greater participation and connect with the community. Snapshots of co-op’s activities will be displayed on the interactive wall within this pavilion so even those who are not utilizing smart phones can have ondemand access to information. The two information hubs double as streetcar shelters so even as visitors are leaving the site, they still have the opportunity to engage with the building. Parliament Street is a vibrant arterial road that connects the fabric of several neighbourhoods together. Locating the co-op between the existing shops north of Gerrard Street and phase 1 of Regent Park’s redevelopment to the south was seen as an opportunity to bind the corporate presence with the neighbourhood’s vibrant existing fabric. The co-op’s elevation along Parliament Street serves as a gateway into the new Regent Park neighbourhood (figure 47). Staggering the elevation with setbacks opens up the sidewalks for patios and informal market spaces while maximizing the exposure to the co-op’s interior spaces. In order to draw visitors into the revitalized Regent Park, a mews condition is created by splitting up the massing and creating a back street condition, similar to the many found in European cities. This area is called the informal market or as Lebbeus Woods calls “free space”. The function of this space is intentionally left undefined and is designed to allow various of activity types to occur. However, as an informal marketplace, its function will vary over time as well, growing and shrinking depending on season and how much of the co-op’s cluster matrix is occupied. Thus, phasing is an important component of the creative co-op’s overall objective in activating the greater community. The co-op is comprised of two types of spaces: host and support spaces. The host spaces are made of makers – individuals and companies who push technology, 70

Figure 44 – Intersection of Gerrard Street and Parliament Street

Figure 45 – View from the North East Corner of Gerrard and Parliament St. showing what could be the new face of Toronto’s urban realm : an intense variety of creative businesses as well as a public plaza. The application of the modules create a unique and ever-changing streetscape dynamic.

Figure 46 – HUB+ on Gerrard Street East. Visitors that arrive on site via TTC will be greeted with an information and interactive hub that displays real time information on the co-op’s activities.

Figure 47 – Parliament Street elevation looking north. Various setbacks and staggering of the building massing creates a more dynamic streetscape.

share expertise, and create products of tomorrow. To facilitate this process, space must be made to be highly adaptable to user needs but also capable to relocating to appropriate clusters. Think of it as a self-organizing ecology of creative industries. An example of this self-organization could be a restaurant owner who needs a supplier of artisan breads. The ideal business arrangement would be to pair up as neighbours. Both businesses benefit from the mutual exchange and goods and services, while optimizing the speed of output due to physical proximity. In a cross sector example, a digital fabricator requires complex coding expertise and thus pairs with an emerging software development firm, who then pairs with a contracting company. The mutual interests are reinforced by physical proximity, resulting in a highly productive ecology. Their combined efforts also have the ability to generate economic prosperity through new found business relationships otherwise unachievable in a conventional mixed use building. The host spaces can be further divided into two types of clusters. The first is the cluster matrix, a three axis grid of modular spaces that requires the greatest exposure to the urban realm. Having a direct connection to the street and pedestrian means this space is geared more towards restaurants and cafes, art galleries, and retail businesses. Theses business can stack, protrude, and recess within the matrix according to their spatial needs. In cases where a high exposure street presence is not a priority for businesses, such as digital content creators, their only relocation is required to happen on a horizontal plane, likely on an open floor plate. Therefore a horizontal cluster component is included in the architectural program, above the cluster matrix. These two upper floors are fitted with sufficient pipes and shafts, high speed data wiring, along with substantial floor to ceiling heights, making the spaces suitable for all manner of uses.

Figure 48 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Example of a business fit up on the third level. Business owners are still very much engaged with their neighbours, beside as well as across the marketplace.

8.2 phasing Phasing of the creative co-op is much like any other mixed-use development in the city. Module procurement and business set up however is much more expedited. Because the architectural massing serves only as support structure, there will be various points in time when there arenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t enough tenants to meet critical mass. Phasing considerations must take into account how the space will effect and be effected when module capacity has not reached this critical mass. Conversely, how a fully realized cluster matrix will effect informal businesses and pop-ups is another consideration as to not displace them. Figure 50 shows the early stages of the creative co-op primarily as a support structure. During this phase, the architectural massing is designed to facilitate and aid emerging businesses and spontaneous market activity. Public washrooms, site furniture storage, wide sidewalks, and a sunken green space were all incorporated so these early activities can function in an informal environment. As modules begin filling up the matrix, their configurations yield various types of in-between spaces (figure 51 and 52). Such a formal configuration is reminiscent of the back-lane urban grit in parts of Torontoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s older districts. They would take the form of roof top terraces, hidden niches, covered arcades, or they can be filled with informal establishments approved by the co-op. These informal and formal spaces exist throughout the evolution of co-op, constantly engaging the occupants and visitors and intensifying the public realm around the co-op. Tenant procurement is still a normal processes. The only difference is in the selection process. As a cooperative, there is more decision making power as to who is qualified to participate in the community. And because the intent here is to promote the creative assets of the community, entrepreneurial individual and start-up companies will have priority. Figure 49 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Building section of the north wing. This diagram illustrates the relationship between interior/interior and interior/exterior spaces with an emphasis on interaction and exchange zones. The mobile clusters are shown in pink and the informal spaces are shown in green.

Figure 50 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Initial stages of the informal market and co-op. Robotic cranes are guided by an operator at the build kiosk, installing modules within the matrix.

Figure 51 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Transitional stage.

Figure 52 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Fully realized scenario. Modules have saturated the matrix but informal spaces still allow for spontaneous pop-ups.

8.3 interior From the initial stages to the fully realized scenario, the co-op must serve a function to the public domain regardless of reaching critical mass. Therefore, three core program spaces were implemented in the final design. To foster the growth of the creative economy, the virtual business incubation centre is the first operational program within the building. The other two core programs are the innovations portal and the production and fabrication facility. The incubation centre takes the user driven development platform and combines it with the services of industry professionals, marketing specialists, design and production experts, and other support staff, to aid leading edge creative industries. These support services also ensure start-up companies remain competitive in the face of a corporate city. A build kiosk translates business aspirations into reality via robotic cranes. This area also contains flexible collaboration spaces that are connected to virtual knowledge suites, allowing entrepreneurs to seek the advice of many in just one place. Adjacent to the primary spaces are the administrative offices of the co-op, staff room, and conference room. The design strategy for the incubator was to elevate it above ground floor, serving as a overseeing platform of the co-op. Glazed on both sides, looking east is the buzzing informal market flanked on both sides with unique retail, and looking west is a view of the newly developed 3rd phase of Regent Park. Urban living can often be thought of as a sacrifice of living space for the convenience of being closer to work and entertainment. However, the one factor that cannot be easily replicated from single detached homes is the workshop. Garage space in downtown Toronto is not only unaffordable but is restricted from anything but vehicular use. Therefore, one of the more unique implementations within the co-op, especially in the context of urban environments, is the incorporation of an on-site production and fabrication facility, a public amenity that further enhances the effectiveness of urban Figure 53 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Production and fabrication facility: the second core program that further enhances the effectiveness of the creative industries.

Figure 54 – Virtual business incubation centre and build kiosk. It is called “virtual” because in today’s digitally connected world, we have the ability to consult with industry professionals, designers, marketing specialists, and fabricators without them being physically present.

Figure 55 – Virtual knowledge suits and collaboration spaces. Here, people with a business idea can come to incubate and actualize their business ideas in a participatory and collaborative environment.

living as well as aiding creative industries. Directly adjacent to the south cluster matrix, allowing efficient connections between production and distribution, is 4500sqft (420m²) of shop space. It is also here that the cluster modules are designed and assembled. With so many potential businesses occupying a spot in the co-op, it may eventually be difficult to distinguish a particular new start-up or a featured business. To rectify this problem, the creative co-op includes an innovations portal – the third core program space. The innovations portal is directed along the axis of the bend along Gerrard Street as to steer the line of sight. This portal is the equivalent to ad space found at Yonge and Dundas Square, but instead of the Time’s Square effect of corporate brainwashing, the portal is simply an extension of a single start-up company. A chosen business can use this high exposure space to broadcast their ideas to the city. For example, a trending dance artist can use the portal as a performance venue, or an emerging chef may decide to use the space to host cooking shows. This double height space caters to various functions. The mezzanine level can be used as exhibit space while a separate function occurs on the lower level. A walk-out balcony allows the users to be engaged with the activities within the informal market. To reiterate the intent of the creative co-op, space is left undefined so that anyone can decide how it can be used. It is called a “portal” because here, ideas are disseminated as the community is invited to participate in the co-op’s functions. The remainder of the interior was designed to be a three storey atrium with catwalks on both sides side, connecting to each module. Three storeys were deemed to be the maximum height before isolation of upper floors becomes an issue in terms of exposure. It was also predetermined to match and not overwhelm the neighbourhood’s context. One of the biggest difficulties in designing the interiors was how to keep it unique from typical mall-like setups. How can the interiors take example from the dynamism of its exterior? The challenge then became a question of how to design an atrium space that encourages the active exchange and flow of ideas, goods, and services. The solution was simply put in the hands of the end-users. For them to dictate space usage would be to allow for the greatest extent of anarchy, participation, and spontaneity. As a result, the atrium was designed to incorporate expandable balustrades (figure 57) that would extend out to become additional retail spaces. These informal spaces are thus extensions of each retail module, in a high exposure collaborative and social environment. Natural lighting in the atrium is unobstructed even in the platform condition due to the use of quadruple pane laminated and frosted glass. A noticeable feature in the atrium is the absence of bridges (figure 58). This was done intentionally to promote the usage of the expandable platforms, as a means of crossing from one side of the atrium to the other, thus encouraging individuals to 78

Figure 56 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Innovations portal showing several scenarios that could take place in this space.

mingle in the presence of businesses occupying these informal spaces (figure 59). Understanding that there may be a need for more private social spaces, suspended meeting rooms are hung throughout the atrium space. They too, utilize frosted glass to maintain light transmittance while providing added privacy.

Figure 57 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Expandable balustrades. In the opened position, they double as a crossing platform as well as additional retail space for adjacent businesses.

Figure 58 – Atrium in balustrade condition.

Figure 59 – Atrium in expanded platform condition. 225sqft of floor space is added per expanded balustrade, and can be used as a crossing platform or as additional retail space

There are a total of 120 module slots available in the north and south wing but the allowable number of tenants far exceeds the initial 120. Each slot can accommodate up to two 250sqft (23m2) modules in depth providing a maximum number of 240 modules. However, depending on tenant configurations, that number will likely not be reached since void spaces are part of the clustering effect as well. Levels 4 and 5 contain the horizontal clusters, an open concept space that’s found in Amsterdam’s Solids. These two floors are geared towards mobile office space, rented out to people who simply need a workstation to conduct their business (figure 60). However, with 20,000sqft (1858m2) of floor area, it remains that the users are able to determine what takes place here. The amount of space and the space usage will likely change over time. It may begin as a series of tech start-ups, transition into a childcare centre, or if the community requires, it can evolve to become a seniors’ home. 81

Does this signify the ultimate in anarchy? To a certain point: the horizontal and matrix clusters facilitate the changing needs of the neighbourhood. Understandably, it will take time for people to adapt to the developmental structure of the creative co-op. But when it becomes clear that spaces are more affordable, highly adaptable, and all the while serving the greater collective needs of an emerging neighbourhood, the coop will naturally begin to flourish not only as a place to conduct business, but also a destination. Figure 60 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Horizontal cluster shown as a tech work space scenario.

~ â&#x20AC;&#x153;Not all rules are being thrown overboard, but only those that impede freedom. Freedom for users do not come about automatically - it requires structure, a framework which will cater for the interests of the collective and in which the interests of the individual will also be embeddedâ&#x20AC;? ~

Rogier Noyon

9.0 reflection and conclusion Three themes emerged from the architectural investigations of this thesis. The first is the unconventional quality that the building is never finished, just like the city is never finished. Looking at the paradigm of “making the city”, we can easily draw the conclusion that the city is finished with each construction project. The program may be flexible but it is generally static and incapable of making drastic changes. Change this perspective into one that is “being a city”. The state of being is a constantly changing and evolving one. It grows according to economic, cultural and social needs. This ability to grow and evolve is critical in the contemporary city as there is a continuing strive for sustainable urban systems, quality of the public realm, the character and soul of urban areas, and the quality of economic and social networks. How our cities evolve also no longer depends on a single governing body, but rather a highly participatory process of end users as well. The second realization is the end of master planning. The end goal mentality is the wrong goal, and not meeting those goals should not be an indication to seek out more powerful ways to enforce them. The contemporary city is an untameable force that architects and urban planners need to understand rather than fix. In addition, the complexities may be so great that these forces are impossible to understand. Rather than looking at a development from a prescriptive and dictator-like standpoint, allow the building to shape itself. Regulation should not take place at a level when it can be managed at a lower level. Although the results may be chaotic and anarchistic, the individual and the community often has ways of settling the dust with surprisingly beautiful outcomes. And finally, sometimes it’s simply best to do nothing than to do everything. Rigid planning has only allowed our cities to take a might-makes-right path, resulting in often lifeless and dull developments dominated by one corporate function. In a spontaneous city however, the control is in the hands of the creative individual. Architecture’s role here is to simply facilitate and enhance the process, connect with the personal interests of the local community, and determine what they need to unleash their creative assets. In the creative co-op, spontaneous clustering in a matrix-like organization produces an intimately connected network between businesses. Their proximity to each other enables cross collaboration and strengthens the bonds within the co-op. Such a business organization promotes an internal economy of creative individuals, for a more socially responsible model of mixed use buildings. The key here is participation of endusers in order to achieve mutual trust and collective responsibility. When businesses trust and respect one another, they will also be able to work better together. When this happens, the entire collective transforms from a strip mall into a centre of innovation. Therefore, the internal economy dictates the success of the co-op, and how well it

can invigorate the city around it. Anything that happens in the city, could theoretically happen within the creative co-op, which is why similar building typologies are referred to as a city within a city. This concept of a city within a city implies that all things that are dynamic and exciting in the city, can exist within the co-op. Constant change and evolution is ironically its stability. If the creative co-op can capture the best of the city, then the same could be said for the reverse â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the internal economy stimulating the external economy. Expand on this thought however, and it becomes evident that the economy is not the only factor being stimulated but socially, culturally, and even environmentally. Imagine if this prototypical architectural project can have a positive effect on the greater metropolis area, especially if the goal is to bring spontaneity and excitement back into the urban realm, its rightful home.

Figure 61 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Creative co-op elevation from Gerrard Street East

10.0 supplemental drawings

gerr

ree rd st

t eas

t 4 11

13 4 2 13

parli ame nt st reet

12 6

5 1 0

20m

7 8

Figure 62 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Ground floor and site plan. 1.entrance 2.atrium 3.business centre entrance 4.info hub + ttc stop 5.fabrication and production facility 6.storage and disposal 7.loading area 8.attached residential building 9.mobile crane terminal 10.maintenance area 11.public plaza 12.â&#x20AC;&#x153;freespaceâ&#x20AC;? 13.matrix clusters

gerr

ree rd st

t eas

t 4

9 3

4 2 9

parli ame nt st reet

6 9

5 1 0

20m

Figure 63 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Second floor plan. 1.innovations portal 2.atrium 3.business centre stair lobby 4.info hub + ttc stop below 5.fabrication and production facility 6.storage and disposal below 7.lobby 8.attached residential building 9.matrix clusters

gerr

ree rd st

t eas

2 3

parli ame nt st

reet

5 9

20m

Figure 64 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Third floor plan. 1.innovations portal - upper gallery 2.atrium 3.business centre 4.build kiosk 5.staff area 6.conference room 7.fabrication and production facility 8.attached residential building 9.matrix clusters

gerr

ree rd st

t eas

1 2 6

parli ame nt st reet 3

20m

Figure 65 – Fourth floor plan. 1.horizontal clusters “solids” 2.atrium below 3.mechanical roof-top unit 4.residential building outdoor amenity 5.attached residential building 6.green roof

gerr

ree rd st

t eas

parli ame nt st reet 2

20m

Figure 66 – Fifth floor plan. 1.horizontal clusters “solids” 2.attached residential building

2 5

residential building

gerrard street east

4 4

20m

Figure 67 – North-south section. 1.gerrard street plaza 2.cluster matrix 3.atrium 4.horizontal clusters “solids” 5.informal market “free space” 6.production and fabrication facility

92 cluster matrix structure

cluster matrix structure

horizontal matrix structure

sc he m at ic

business incubation centre - structure

st ru ct ur al

zone 3 hvac

zone 1 hvac

zone 2 hvac

zone 4 hvac

ai rh an dl in g

sy st em sc he m at ic

references Alexander, C. (1977). In Ishikawa S., Silverstein M. (Eds.), A pattern language: Towns, buildings, construction. New York: Oxford University Press. Attlee, J. (2007). Towards anarchitecture: Gordon matta-clark and le corbusier. Tate Papers, (7) Bennett, L. (2013) Architecture and anarchy. Retrieved September/13, 2013, from http://www.archi-ninja.com/architectureand-anarchy/ Beunderman, J. (2010). A changing collective domain. In G. Urhahn, S. Feenstra & T. Broekmans (Eds.), The spontaneous city (pp. 112-116). Amsterdam: BIS Publishers. Braungart, M. &. M.,W. (2002). Cradle to cradle: Remaking the way we make things. New York: North Point Press. Caulfield, J. (1989). ‘Gentrification’ and desire. The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 26, 617+. City of Toronto. About business improvement areas. Retrieved 03/04, 2014, from http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/ contentonly?vgnextoid=673032d0b6d1e310VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD&vgnextfmt=default City of Toronto. (2007). Regent park secondary plan . City of Toronto. (2011). Living in downtown and the centres survey City of Toronto. (2013). Regent park - phase 3 development context plan report & update to urban design guidelines. Cohn, M. R. (2009, August 27, 2013). How the OMB stifles democracy in ontario. The Toronto Star, Cook, P. (2003). The city, seen as a garden of ideas. New York: Monacelli Press Inc. Draaisma, J. (2010). Ventures in spontaneity. In T. Broekmans, S. Feenstra & G. Urhahn (Eds.), The spontaneous city (pp. 48). Amsterdam: BIS Publishers. Ellin, N. (2006). Integral urbanism. New York: Routledge. Fernandes, K. E. (2009). Democracy, power and decision-making: A study of ontario municipal board decisions for downtown toronto, 2000--2008. (M.A., York University (Canada)). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Florida, R. (2008). Who’s your city?: How the creative economy is making where you live the most important decision of your life. Toronto: Random House Canada. Florida, R. (2013). BIg cities, big ideas lecture series. University of Toronto. Goosens, D., Spieksma, F., Onderstal, S., & Pijnacker, J. (2013). Designing a combinatorial auction for solids. Belgian Operational Research Society, , November 23, 2013. Greenberg, K. (2011). Walking home: The life and lessons of a city builder. Toronto: Random House Canada. Griffin, K. & Robinson, M. (2013, December 16). Concord pacific unveils massive new vancouver development near BC place. The Vancouver Sun,

Horak, M. (2010). Understanding neighbourhood revitalization. Canadian Political Science Association, Hume, C. (2014, February 7). Development is going back to the future. Toronto Star, pp. GT3. Intelligence Community Forum. The Top7 intelligent communities of the year. Retrieved November/13, 2013, from https:// www.intelligentcommunity.org/index.php?src=gendocs&ref=Top7_by_Year&category=Events Katz, P. (2004). Form first: The new urbanist alternative to conventional zoning. Planning, 70(10), 16-21. Ken greenberg greenberg consultants inc.(2005, May 7, 2005). Toronto Star, pp. B.05-B05. Kohn, M. (2013). What is wrong with gentrification? Urban Research and Practice, 6(3), 297-298. Laven, J. New development paradigm. Retrieved Sept/25, 2013, from http://www.inta-aivn.org/fr/communautes-decompetences/metropolisation/discussions/402-cc/metropolisation/discussions/1427-from-making-a-city-to-being-acity Leach, N. (1999). Architecture and revolution? In N. Leach (Ed.), Architecture and revolution: Contemporary perspectives on central and eastern europe (pp. 112-123). New York: Routledge. Mastercard World Wide Centers of Commerce Index. (2008). The worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s top 25 most livable cities No. 2,5)Monocle. Mays, J. B. (2005, Feb. 18 2005). CityPlace neighbourhood redrawn. The Globe and Mail, Myers, T. (2004). In Woods L., Harries K. and Heinz Architectural Center. (Eds.), Lebbeus woods: Experimental architecture. Pittsburgh, Pa.: Carnegie Museum of Art, the Heinz Architectural Center. Perkins, T. (2012, Oct. 22 2012). Toronto leads north american high-rise construction. The Globe and Mail, Philips, D. (2006). Gordon matta clark: Anarchitecture and detournement., May 20, 2006. Rochon, L. (2004, Jul 28, 2004). Failing to make the grade: Torontoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s CityPlace development is a poor cousin to its vancouver counterpart, concord pacific. The Globe and Mail, pp. R3. Sennett, R. (1970). Uses of disorder: Personal identity & city life. New York, N.Y.: Knopf. Shantz, J. (2009). Living anarchy; theory and practice in anarchist movements. Reference and Research Book News, 24(3) Slater, T. (2004). Municipally managed gentrification in south parkdale, toronto. University of Bristol). Canadian Geographer, 48 (3), 303. The Economist Intelligence Unit. (August 2013). A summary of the liveability ranking and overview Toronto Community Housing Corporation. Regent park revitilization. Retrieved 03/08, 2014, from http://www. torontohousing.ca/investing_buildings/regent_park Urhahn, G. (2010). In Broekmans T., Feenstra S. (Eds.), The spontaneous city. Amsterdam: BIS Publishers.