Message from the TSA Chair Meg Graham
Last week I had the opportunity to see Toronto through the eyes of friends who are familiar with the city (one of them grew up here), but have lived in the US for many years. They saw and enjoyed things that I often take for granted or forget that Toronto has to offer; it was like being on vacation myself. Similarly, the events and activites of the TSA are an opportunity to know the City in greater depth and different ways, and to understand what it is that the many and diverse people who are passionate about Toronto’s growth and vitality are thinking and doing. This year at the TSA has been no exception, and I am delighted to be Chair of the Society, and engaged in the TSA in a more thorough way. Some of the many activities and forums that we have hosted or supported this year are the focus of this issue of the newsletter. Matt Galvin has written on Unbuilt Toronto, the fascinating exhibition, and panel discussion spearheaded by Phil Goodfellow in collaboration with Matt Galvin and Lyn Northey. Alex Bozikovic has contributed an article on the recent Twenty + Change exhibition at the Gladstone, an ambitious and seminal exhibition of the work of emerging designers from across the country, co-ordinated by Heather Dubbeldam and Lola Sheppard. And highlighting one of this year’s Urban Forums, Monica Kuhn and invited forum panelist Carolyn Moss write on the City’s new Green Roof By-Law and Construction Standard and their implications for building designers and owners.
Ht0 Park, Janet Rosenberg + Associates
I’d like to take this opportunity to remind you of one of this year’s greatest initiatives – the creation of the position of TSA Executive Director – and more specifically, of its meaning and impact. We are delighted to have Margo Welch in this new role, and we have been at work with her to do what’s necessary to achieve the new heights at which we’re aiming. In essence, Margo’s role is to enable us to create new events and initiatives, and to reach more people with both what we currently do – including the Urban Forums, the film series, the newsletter and our regular meetings – and our new initiatives. Some of the things we’re discussing include architectural city tours, a second film series, and a generally greater presence in the City. We’d love to have you involved in these initiatives; please speak with one of the executive at our September meeting about your interests and how you’d like to get involved, or email Secretary Bindya Lad at tsa@torontosocietyofarchitects.ca. September will see us start up our regular meetings again – I look forward to seeing you there. In the meantime, and as you enjoy the summer, I encourage you to think of initiatives and events you’d like to see the TSA take on or expand, and how you’d like to be involved.
Unbuilt Toronto Matt Galvin
In the late summer of 2008 the TSA launched a joint project with author Mark Osbaldeston to coincide with the release of his forthcoming book, Unbuilt Toronto: A History of the City That Might Have Been (Dundurn Press, November, 2008). The Unbuilt Toronto project quickly evolved into a panel discussion and exhibit at IIDEX, a juried call for submissions, a subsequent exhibition at the ROM - which ran from November 08 through to January 09 - and a lecture on Toronto’s ‘unbuilt history’ by Mr. Osbaldeston. Plans are currently underway for the next evolution of the Unbuilt project. The project was greeted with enthusiasm not only from Toronto’s architectural and design communities, but from the general public as well. From discussions on CBC Radio’s “Metro Morning” and “Here and Now”, to an excellent article by John Bentley Mays in The Globe and Mail, the press for the show was abundant and positive. The opening reception at the ROM was an overwhelming success, and Mr. Osbaldeston’s lecture so intrigued its audience that he was forced to limit the question and answer period. Our goals for the Unbuilt project were open ended, but ambitious – to engage the public in a dialogue about the built form of Toronto, to question the critical weight and merit of an unrealized project, and to ponder the meaning of potentiality and parallel paths. To this end, the exhibition at the ROM presented and juxtaposed two distinct components; historical images selected from Mark Osbaldeston’s book were displayed alongside images of contemporary unrealized projects for Toronto, as selected by the TSA’s independent committee from the call for submissions. The resultant arrangement created an exhibition where every image leads a viewer to imagine an alternate conception of our city. The contemporary
Metro Centre Plan unveiling, Toronto, 1968. Clara Thomas Archives & Special Collections, York University
Cliffside slips/Streetscape Proposal, Toronto, Lateral Office with Chris Hardwicke, Fung Lee & Hon Lu
projects highlighted the fact that unrealized visions are not only related to history but have real implications on our conception of our built environment today. Contemplating projects that are unbuilt results in an ambiguity that causes one to look at realized projects with a new level of critically. An unbuilt project is simultaneously both good and bad - to borrow and paraphrase the state of Schrödinger’s cat. We can consider each these unrealized projects as either a missed opportunity or a dodged bullet. This begs us to question the state of our city as it is in contrast to the infinite parallel Torontos that could have been. If this series of exhibits excited the citizens of Toronto to consider other possible futures when considering the city that is – to the point of encouraging increased engagement in building the city that will be – then the project’s aims will have been hugely exceeded. Often the status quo is accepted simply through a lack of awareness of other options. Perhaps revealing the huge number of ideas that end unrealized will cast uncertainty to the notion that an idea that succeeds in becoming reality is not by default the best.
Matt Galvin is a member of the TSA and an architect working at Montgomery Sisam Architects in Toronto. Through his volunteer work on the Coordination Committee for Unbuilt Toronto, he was a key player in the realization of this exhibition.
“Gathering”- Landmark for the Entrance to Toronto, &Co
Music City,Toronto, KPMB Architects
Twenty + Change Alex Bozikovic
Elvis Costello once said that “writing about music is like dancing about architecture.” Well, writing about architecture isn’t that easy either, I can say from experience as a journalist and critic, and it’s hardest when you’re discussing work that’s unfinished, speculative or abstract. Yet those qualities sum up the work of many young practices, so how can their ideas get communicated to the public? It’s a serious challenge, for young architects individually and also for anyone who wants to deepen the architectural culture of this city and this country. Enter Twenty + Change. This public exhibition started two years ago as a vehicle for the work of some sharp young Toronto firms, one of which – Superkul – basically produced it with volunteer work. Presented as a show of renderings, photos and plans at the Gladstone Hotel, it drew attention from the general public and the media, and it filled a conceptual void. Many Torontonians were eager to check out the ambitious architecture of Toronto’s emerging generation of designers, but where to begin? Twenty + Change offered a starting point, assembling good work, suggesting common themes and providing an occasion to discuss the big picture. Sounds simple, but this is actually quite rare; there are few venues and few organizations in Toronto equipped for this type of discussion. And crossCanada architectural debate is even more challenging, with the problems of distance, language, venue (where do we meet?) and the sheer differences between prairie and rainforest, Parkdale and North Vancouver. Which is why I’m pleased that this year, a group of local designers led by Heather Dubbeldam and Lola Sheppard have brought Twenty + Change back and extended it across the country, inviting young firms across the country to submit their best work for an exhibition and an accompanying catalogue.
hapito, Saint John, NB, The Acre Collective
It’s ambitious work. There are (as I wrote in an introductory essay to this year’s catalogue) some conceptual problems with the idea of “Canadian architecture.” Is there really such a thing? This year’s exhibition reveals strong work from eight provinces, from B.C. to New Brunswick, but as you move from city to city, it’s hard to see many conceptual or aesthetic similarities. But such variety makes for a fascinating exercise. These firms are “emerging”, a term that the curators of the show spend some time struggling to define. In practice it includes a huge assortment of work: small and enormous, solid and abstruse. In Saint John, for instance, the young Acre Collective makes some sculptural urbanism out of the patio for a small wine bar. In Winnipeg,
youCUBE, Winnipeg, MB, 5468796 Architecture Inc.
the firm 5468796 Architecture is working with developers and on spec to create intelligent and surprisingly edgy infill work. And from here in Toronto, Lateral Office shows some compelling urbanism in a competition entry for a redevelopment project in Reykjavik. The show and book also include a sustainable housing prototype from RVTR, whose Latitude Housing System is a competition-winning scheme for sustainable northern housing (and recently won them the Prix de Rome). That is an exception, since it’s not tied to a particular site but a proposal for a broad region. Most of the work in this year’s Twenty + Change is more local in scope, committed to specific problems in architecture, landscape architecture and urbanism that reflect the climates, geographies, and different cultures of their cities. Many of these projects are very good, and I am a fairly close observer of Canadian architecture, so while looking at this project I found myself wondering: Why haven’t I seen this work before? The answer is simple: because this show didn’t exist yet. Nobody can be all that knowledgeable about all the good design being done locally across Canada. And you might be surprised by what’s flying under the radar. For that reason I’d strongly suggest that you drop by the Gladstone before August 23rd for a look, or pick up the catalogue. The last edition of Twenty + Change showed you what your friends and colleagues were up to, helping render the architectural culture of this city. This one will give you something else: work you haven’t seen before, and a summary of how young Canadian architects, landscape architects and urban designers are facing their own obstacles with their own tools.
Beaten Track, Quebec City, QC, NIPpaysage
Eels Lake Cottage, Apsley, ON, Altius Architecture Inc.
Alex Bozikovic is an editor at the Globe and Mail and a writer for publications including Azure, Frame, and Dwell. He will soon start blogging on Toronto and contemporary architecture: please send your suggestions, comments and pitches to contact@alexbozikovic.com.
City of Toronto Green Roof Bylaw Carolyn Moss
On May 26, 2009, the City of Toronto passed a bylaw requiring green roofs on all new buildings over 2,000 m2. The Bylaw applies to new building permit applications made after January 31, 2010 for commercial, residential and institutional buildings and January 31, 2011 for industrial buildings. Toronto is the first city in North America to have a Green Roof Bylaw. The Bylaw sets out on what type of buildings green roofs are required, and how big the green roofs need to be. In conjunction with the Bylaw, a Green Roof Construction Standard was also created to regulate the construction of green roofs. The Bylaw has encountered its share of controversy. Opponents claim the regulations go too far, proponents say not far enough. The City of Toronto has been looking at green roofs for some time. Since the first demonstration plots were installed on the podium deck of Toronto City Hall in the Fall of 2000, numerous studies, position papers, reports, stakeholder and public meetings have led to the development and implementation of policy to encourage and now legislate green roofs in the City of Toronto. The Green Roof Construction Standard was released in November 2008. In November and December of that year, three stakeholder meetings were held to garner input. The results were presented to the Planning and Growth Management Committee who requested that additional consultations be held. A draft of the Bylaw was issued February 25, 2009. The size of green roof required is determined by the GFA of the building. This version had a 2,000 m2 threshold for ICI buildings and 5,000 m2 for residential. The area of green roof required ranged from 20 – 50% of the footprint of the building.
Mountain Equipment Co-op Green Roof, Toronto
Larger buildings would require a higher percentage of the roof be covered by a green roof. Industrial buildings could meet the ICI standard, or meet an industrial alternative which included cool roofs, rain water harvesting and additional vegetation. Affordable housing was exempted from the GFA calculation. In addition to meetings with individual stakeholders, City Staff conducted three more public meetings in February 2009 to obtain feedback on the Draft Bylaw from the development community. Attendants at these public meetings included representatives from the roofing industry, building owners and developers, green roof manufacturers and installers, architects and landscape architects, green roof consultants, government agencies and other interested parties, including private citizens, and food policy advocates. As a result of these consultations, the proposed Bylaw was revised. The threshold for ICI buildings was increased to match residential at 5,000 m2. The coverage requirements were increased and now ranged from 30 – 60% of the ‘available’ roof area. ‘Available roof area’ allowed for areas dedicated to renewable energy devices, non-vegetated areas required by the Construction Standard and private terraces to be excluded. A legal review determined that the ‘alternative compliance’ for industrial buildings could not be offered, so industrial buildings were exempted altogether. Affordable housing was changed to ‘Non-profit’ and was still exempt. Residential buildings under 23 m in height and schools also gained an exemption. The variance procedure was defined, including a ‘cash in lieu’ requirement for all applicants who sought an exemption from the Green Roof Bylaw. Funds from this process would be directed to the Eco-Roofs Incentive program. In effect, the Bylaw had been watered down significantly.
After going back to staff for review, the proposed Bylaw once again came before the Planning and Growth Management Committee on April 14th and May 6th, 2009. Deputations were heard at both meetings from interested parties. The version of the Bylaw presented to Council on May 26, 2009, strove to find a balance between the ambitions of the City of Toronto to present a world class standard, and the concerns of some in the development community. In this version, the Bylaw was strengthened and better defined. Changes included: • The GFA threshold was reduced so all buildings 2,000 m2 and over would be included. • The coverage requirements were still graduated and ranged from 20 –60%; • Industrial, non-profit housing and schools were no longer exempted. Industrial buildings would have a 10% coverage requirement to a maximum of 2,000 m2. Schools and non-profit housing would have to meet the requirements of their respective categories; • The height limit for exemption for residential buildings was reduced to 20m; • Available roof space does not include area designated for renewable energy technologies, private terraces or residential amenity space; • The tower roof is exempted for buildings with a floor plate less than 750m2; • All complete site plan applications received prior to January 31, 2010 would be exempted; • The Bylaw would be reviewed in January 2012. Council passed the Bylaw with a vote of 36 to 2.
Chicago City Hall ,William McDonough + Partners
Many architects in Toronto and further afield, have buildings currently in development that are scheduled to go for permit after January 2010. It is important that we all understand the Green Roof Bylaw and how it will impact current and future projects. Green roofs can have a big impact on the cost, structure, detailing and maintenance of a building and should be considered at the earliest stages of the design process. Training of City staff will also be imperative. I recently spoke with a planner who had not even heard of the Bylaw! I expect the Bylaw will go through some growing pains. I think it would benefit from some flexibility to encourage innovation, but in the meantime, I applaud the City of Toronto for making such a strong commitment to greening the city. In 2009, the demonstration green roofs on the City Hall podium are being replaced with a new 36,000 ft2, $2.3M extensive green roof. We are fortunate to be on the forefront of the green roof movement in North America and should look forward to the opportunities this provides. For more information see the City of Toronto web site at www.toronto.ca/ greenroofs Carolyn Moss is a founding partner of MOSS SUND inc, a boutique architectural firm based in Toronto that specializes in residential, healthcare and commercial/retail projects. The firm, in conjunction with industrial designers fig forty, recently developed CISTA, a rain water harvesting concept that has gained worldwide attention.Â
Toronto Green Roof Construction Standard Monica Kuhn
The Toronto Green Roof Construction Standard (TGRCS), authorized under Section 108 of the City of Toronto Act and completed in late Spring 2009, is the first such comprehensive standard in North America. It was created to serve as a technical support document for the City’s new mandatory Green Roof Bylaw which will come into effect at the end of January 2010. In early 2008, the City hired technical consultants Halsall Associates Ltd. to prepare a draft standard. The Chief Building Official then appointed a Technical Advisory Group (TAG) to review both the draft and stakeholder comments, gathered during the public consultation process on the Bylaw, and to make recommendations for the final document. TAG members were nominated by various related sectors, as representative experts in their fields, which included design, material and component manufacturing, development, construction and roofing, research, building officials and regulatory bodies, and the green roof industry. This diverse group met four times over a period of three months, and the day-long working sessions were both intense and productive. Since green roofs are not specifically mentioned in the Ontario Building Code, they are considered an “alternative solution”. The intention of the Standard is to address the City’s policy objectives not covered by the Code, to note applicable areas of the Code, and to present a series of best practices, recommendations, and mandatory requirements for achieving a Code compliant design. Approved industry standards from Europe and North America are noted for reference, where applicable. The challenge facing TAG members was to ensure that the Standard worked
New Heden Apartment Block Proposal in Gothenberg, Sweden, Thesis Project by Daniel Andersson
within the context of the City’s Green Roof Bylaw and the Code, while keeping in mind – front and centre - the Standard’s very real impact on the stakeholders – the economic feasibility for building owners, the applicability for builders, and the enforceability by authorities having jurisdiction. It is important to note that although the Bylaw itself only applies to new buildings of a certain size and height, every green roof (installed on a structure that requires a permit) must meet the requirements set out in the Standard, including applying for a building permit. The TGRCS calls for a “Green Roof Declaration” Form, which lists compliance with each of the requirements listed in the Standard, to be submitted at time of permit application. “How to craft a standard that is not overly restrictive in its requirements (for consultants and testing) on the individual home owner who wants to install a green roof on his garage, and yet also addresses the very different requirements and budgets facing a developer with a large, multi-unit condominium project?”, was a topic of much heated discussion.
In the end, the final version leaves a few of these issues unresolved, however the process was designed to allow for ongoing updates to the TGRCS as more research data is brought forward and other related standards are approved, and the TAG has agreed to meet yearly if and as required to discuss and make recommendations for these amendments. The TGRCS presents and makes clear recommendations on the following issues: • The components that make up a typical green roof system, some of which are classified as mandatory, and some as optional, depending on the specific application; • The design for structural loading requirements of the green roof system, and structural loading capacity of the roof itself. Specific formulas for structural design by an engineer are presented, as well as a default value for dead load if a structural engineer is not otherwise required; • Waterproofing and roofing, including parapet heights and scupper locations, drainage, water retention, slope stability, and the need for a mandatory root barrier and leak detection testing; • A minimum 4” depth of growing medium to ensure plant survivability, with an option for designers to use a shallower engineered system which can guarantee comparable plant survivability; • Plant selection considerations of no-monoculture, no noxious weeds, and a preference for native plants, limited mainly by its requirement to pass a test of % vegetative coverage over time, instead of restricting plant types; • Quality assurance through the requirement of a mandatory maintenance plan and available irrigation to ensure the durability of green roof systems;
School of Art, Design & Media at Nanyang Technological University, Singapore ,CPG Corp.
The following three issues will surely be reviewed for the next version of TGRCS: • A standard for wind uplift is currently under development by GRHC (Green Roofs for Healthy Cities), SPRI (Single Ply Roofing Industry), and ANSI (American National Standards Institute). Since the TGRCS could not reference an incomplete standard, the proposed compliance path was the requirement for a stamped engineer’s report; • A standard for fire safety is currently under development by GRHC, SPRI, and ANSI. Since the TGRCS could not reference an incomplete standard, the proposed compliance path was the requirement for breaks in vegetation to mitigate spread of fire, vegetation free borders around roof penetrations and planted areas; and • The accreditation of a Green Roof Professional has just been formalized through GRHC, but the proposed compliance path requires a registered landscape architect and / or an architect to be responsible for the design of every “permit”ed green roof. All in all, the TGRCS is a comprehensive document, and should provide designers, building owners, and building officials with solid information on what is required in designing, installing, and maintaining a green roof. Monica E. Kuhn, Architect Inc. is a small architectural practice located in downtown Toronto. Established in 1994, the firm specializes in residential, environmental, and green roof / roof garden design. Monica is a founding member of Toronto’s ‘Rooftop Gardens Resource Group’, established in 1993, and a past board member of and consultant for ‘Green Roofs for Healthy Cities’.
Summer 2009 Toronto Society of Architects Design Exchange 234 Bay Street, P.O. Box 18 Toronto Dominion Centre Toronto ON M5K 1B2 telephone: 416-216-2147 email: tsa@torontosocietyofarchitects.ca Visit our website at: www.torontosocietyofarchitects.ca
Meg Graham Heather Dubbeldam Phil Goodfellow Susan Lewin Richard Witt Antonio Gomez-Palacio Kevin McIntosh Margo Welch Bindya Lad Owen Peat Jane Burgess David Craddock
Chair Vice-Chair, Newsletter Vice-Chair, Urban Affairs Vice-Chair, Poster Competition Treasurer Past Chair Guide Map Distribution Executive Director Secretary Executive at large OAA Liaison RAIC Liaison
Newsletter layout: Johanna Bollozos
Cover image: Prince George Airport, Prince George, BC, mcfarlane | green | biggar
This newsletter was generously sponsored by:
www.boszkoandverity.com
Printing: Astley-Gilbert Limited 416.288.8666 Intelligent Imaging On Paper and Online.