A recent article in the Globe and Mail explored how rapidly rising housing prices in the city are affecting not only young adults struggling to enter the housing market, but also residents approaching retirement who are looking to downsize.

According to some Toronto architects, there is a simple solution: rethink the family home to suit several generations. The growing group of local architects and firms taking a multigenerational approach includes Daniels aulumni Janna Levitt (BArch 1986), Dean Goodman (BArch 1983), Lloyd Alter (BArch 1976), and Williamson Chong Architects, firm of alumnus Donald Chong (BArch 1994), Associate Professor Shane Williamson and Betsy Williamson.

Not wanting to move into an apartment or to leave their familiar neighbourhood, Alter and his wife have taken a creative approach to the architecture of the empty nest. "We're going into a generational change where the kids don't have enough money, and the parents have the house and don't need it," Alter told The Globe and Mail.  With that in mind, they chose to divide their house, which they've inhabited since 1984, into a duplex with one unit for themselves to occupy and the other for their daughter and her fiancé.

That adaptability can be built into the architecture of a new house, according to Williamson Chong. Their Grange Triple Double house, which was also recently profiled in the Architectural Record, was built for a three-generational family and designed to adapt as the owners' needs evolve. "The ingredients for this kind of house," partner Betsy Williamson tells The Globe and Mail, "are spaces that are discrete yet flixible."

With the same goal of adapatability in mind, Levitt and Goodman designed their own home a decade ago, when their children were still teenagers. The foresight to design a private area for their children has turned into an opportunity to rent that space out now that their children have all moved out.

The soultion comes down to good design: "It's important to think about what you're building for," Goodman tells The Globe and Mail, "not just right now, but in the longer term."

Related:

• Multigenerational home designed by Williamson Chong Architects featured in Metropolis magazine

Earlier this year, the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada (RAIC) announced Monica Adair (MArch 2005) as the recipient of the 2015 Young Architect Award. This award recognizes a young architect for excellence in design, leadership, and service to the profession.

Adair is the co-founder of Acre Architects along with Stephen Kopp (MArch 2005). The firm believes in “the importance of creating our own stories,” and “how the power of the story can convey strong and deep-felt emotions that are key to the structure that form our lives.” In addition to her professional work, Adair has held multiple teaching posts including an Instructor position in History of Canadian Architecture at the St. Thomas University Fredericton, and the Gerald Sheff Visiting Professorship in Architecture at McGill University. She has also served on the New Brunswick Arts Board, and currently sits on the Saint John Waterfront Development Board.

“In choosing Adair, the five-member jury cited the consistent quality of her project work, commitment to her hometown and her work in the arts community,” writes the 2015 Young Architect Award jury. “They also recognized her teaching, advocacy, and contribution to regional collaboration in Atlantic Canada.”

Started in 2011, the RAIC bestows the Young Architect Award to one recipient every year. Adair received her award at the RAIC/AAA Festival of Architecture, which took place in Calgary, June 3rd to 6th. Previous winners include past sessional lecturer Taymoore Balbaa, and Lola Sheppard (Lateral Office co-founder). 

Related:

• Canadian Builders Quarterly features 23-page-spread on the Daniels Faculty and alumni
• Daniels sessional lecturer Taymoore Balbaa wins Young Architect Award
• Williamson Chong Architects named the recipient of RAIC's 2014 Emerging Architectural Practice Award
• George Baird recipient of 2010 RAIC Gold Medal
• Team North receives RAIC award | Innovation in Architecture

Ja Architecture Studio recently received fourth place — out of 831 proposals from around the world — in the Bauhaus Museum Competition in Dessau

. A number of Daniels Faculty alumni and students worked on the winning proposal as part of the Toronto-based office's team.

Participants in the two-stage international competition were challenged to design a Bauhaus Museum for Dessau, Germany. Thirty firms were shortlisted firms to continue to the second phase.

“The design is characterized first and foremost by its polygonal and self-contained structural shell that sensitively addresses its urban design position," Wrote the jury in its citation of Ja Architecture Studio's proposal. "It shows a clear-cut edge towards Kavalierstrasse and a ramp forms a clear transition to Friedrichstrasse. All in all, the draft design convinces with its sculptural approach which demonstrates a strong commitment to the museum as a municipal building.”

Team Members included:

Architect:
Nima Javidi (MUD 2005, Daniels Faculty Sessional Instructor), OAA M.Arch LEED A.P

Landscape Architect:
Behnaz Assadi (MLA 2008), MLA BFA

Project Team:
Hanieh Rezai (MUD 2004), M.Arch MUD
Zhou Tang, M.Arch Candidate at the Daniels Faculty
Sally Kassar, M.Arch Candidate at the Daniels Faculty
Kyle O’Brien, M.Arch Candidate at the Daniels Faculty
Goldie Schlaf, M.Arch Candidate at the Daniels Faculty
Arittro Noor, BBA, University of Western Ontario

Professional Consultants:
AMA Design, Structural Design
Thomas Technical, Technical Building Services

Earlier this year, the firm was also recognized with an Honorable Mention, amongst 1715 international proposals in the Guggenheim Helsinki Competition.

For more information about Ja Architecture Studio, visit: http://www.jastudioinc.com

For more information about the competition, visit: http://bauhausmuseum-dessau.de/en/home.html

News & Media

• OAA
• Archinect
• Bustler
• Canadian Architect
• Archdaily
• Dezeen
• Afasia
• Beta Architecture

Daniels Faculty graduates working as part of the Toronto-based office Ja Architecture Studio received an Honorable Mention for their submission to the Guggenheim Helsinki Competition. The competition was launched in June 2014 to invite design proposals for the new Guggenheim museum located on Helsinki’s harbour. With 1,715 submissions, the event set the record in attracting the most number of entries for a design competition.

Team Members:

• Nima Javidi (MUD 2005)
• Behnaz Assadi (MLA 2008)
• Hanieh Rezaei (MUD 2004)
• Thomas Mustel, Master of Architecture student at École National Supérieure d’Architecture (Intern)
• Sarah Hunter, Bachelor of Architectural Studies graduate from University of Waterloo

Ja Architecture Studio was the only studio from Canada to win an Honorable Mention. Their entry is currently part of Guggenheim Helsinki Now, an exhibition showcasing the top submissions, which will be on display until May 16^th at the Kunsthalle Helsinki. Their submission can also be viewed at http://designguggenheimhelsinki.org/stageonegallery/view/#!/stageonegallery/view/gh-33457384

For more information about the competition, visit http://designguggenheimhelsinki.org/en/

Designed by Finish architect Viljo Revell and completed in 1965, City Hall is one of Toronto's most iconic landmarks — but a decade earlier, in 1955, City Council had a different building in mind.

That November, Council presented residents with a proposal for a modernist stone slab edifice that would face a civic square. Architecture students at the University of Toronto wrote an open letter to then-mayor Nathan Phillips stating their opposition to the plan, calling the proposed building “a funeral home of vast dimensions” and an “inhuman pile of stones.” (Ouch.)

U of T’s student newspaper, The Varsity, reported on the students’ outrage and call for an international competition. It’s been said that the architecture students influenced the plebiscite that rejected City Council’s original proposal, leading to the world-wide competition that was ultimately won by Revell.

Republished below are the two articles printed in The Varsity in 1955. The first reports on the architecture students' open letter. The second — by School of Architecture Instructor Richard Grooms, and students Pete Richardson and Harvey Cowan — outlines in great detail the students’ criticisms of the original proposal.

Thanks to The Varsity for permission to republish both articles.

Tuesday, November 22, 1955
Architects Say New city Hall Just Inhuman Pile of Stones
The Varsity, Vol. 75 – No. 41

Toronto’s proposed new City Hall was condemned in an open letter to Mayor Phillips from students at the University of Toronto’s School of Architecture.

“Why have we been presented with this monstrous monument to backwardness? Should the Toronto City Hall become another member of the insipid collection of Insurance buildings on Bloor St.?” asked the Architectural students, calling the planned building a “funeral home of vast dimensions.”

“These two colourless and inhuman piles of stone do not satisfy our feeling for beauty,” said the students.

“This structure represents nothing more than a monument to our city Fathers rather than a symbol of the progressive attitude our administration is supposed to support in a democracy.”

The students’ letter referred to the Massey Commission report that all civic buildings should be the object of competitions to ensure good design and free enterprise.

They recommended a national competition for Toronto’s City Hall. If a competition is impossible at this time, the letter continued “a special Architectural committee of critics could be chosen.”

The Toronto City Council has just approved the construction of a new multi-million dollar city hall.

Monday, December 5, 1955
The Varsity, Vol. 75 - No. 46

Editor’s Note:

The design of Toronto’s new City Hall has aroused much controversy. On this page The Varsity attempts to present some students’ opinions on the topical question.

While a new City Hall, whatever the cost, seems desirable, we must calculate the risk of having the present design foisted upon us. Is the booming city of Toronto to put up with the minute merits of the present design?

The succession of city fathers in Toronto’s notoriously inefficient administration has done a sloppy and haphazard job of presenting the new building. Our choice is whether we ought to condone for the sake of expediency or condemn in order to promote greater efficiency in the civic government.

The material on this page was submitted by Richard Grooms, lecturer in first year basic design, School of Architecture; Pete Richardson, President Arch. IV; Harvey Cowan, IV Arch.

City Bungles Civic Centre; Designs Cloudy, Fuddled

We all agreed that a new city hall is a good idea. In this election referendum these two issues must be kept separated:

1. Should $18 million be approved for a City Hall?
2. Should the City Hall be designed as the artists’ rendering has shown it?

This design has not been approved by the City Council, and has only been used as bait to entice the voters into approving the $18 million. To drag this architectural red herring across the path of the issues in question, does nothing to acquaint the public with good civic design.

First, there should have been a programme of requirements drawn up for the Civic Square, outlining the functions the Civic Square should include, and the buildings necessary to satisfy these requirements.

Secondly, a detailed programme should have been prepared analyzing the specific requirements of each individual building in the Civic Square.

Third, these programmes would have served as the basis of a national or international architecture competition for the design of the Civic Square in general, and the buildings in particular. The facilities or the rules and judging of such a competition are provided for by the Ontario Association of Architects.

The city, in its usual bungling manner, has failed to adopt a definite course of action. To our knowledge, these are the steps the city has followed to date.

1. In a plebiscite in 1947, the expropriation of land for a civic square was approved by the voters.
2. In June, 1953, the Daily Commercial News reported that 3 firms of architects, Marani & Morris, Mathers & Haldenby, and Shore & Moffat were retained by “the City.” The three architectural firms have also assumed the role of designers of the Civic Square. This would seem highly irregular in light of the fact that we now have a City Planning Board that should supervise all civic design.
3. We are now asked to approve the issuing of $18 million in debentures for the construction of a City Hall in the Civic Square.

The manner in which this was achieved was similar in putting several carts before the horse.

1. The City Hall was planned.
2. Now it is necessary to decide what a city hall should include and what is needed.
3. Then a Civic Square will be arranged around the completed City Hall.
4. After that, it will be decided what a civic square should include.

Does this not seem a very peculiar procedure, to do a thing first and then think about it? A bold, fresh design, unencumbered by any previously misconceived buildings, is what is needed.

Toronto must learn to act in the grand manner, have the courage of its convictions and not be misled by specious economic considerations.

A government such as ours, which is supposed to support free enterprise and fair play should have seen the necessity for a competition. If the Massey Report on Arts & Sciences, and the Ontario Association of Architects statement of 1952, on the necessity of competitions for public buildings, had been heeded, we would have stood a chance of acquiring a better design.

If the City Council must accept a design from these 3 firms, then it should ask the Council of the OAA and the City Planning Board to appoint a committee to evaluate and pass on any design submitted.

The whole issue is at best cloudy, and befuddled. To be handicapped in the future by what has been done already is not the best way to proceed in these matters.

What’s Wrong With The New Design?

Specifically then, what is wrong with this proposed City Hall? Let us take its aspects one by one.

1. It lacks any dignity or true monumentality. Sheer size is not the same as monumentality. Bulk alone is not a substitute for character. At least the old City Hall has character. It could never be confused with just another office building. It looks like a public building.

This new City Hall has been called a “dehumanized pile of stones” and “anonymous.” It is more than this. It is dull and uninteresting and indistinguishable from all the other insurance buildings these firms have hacked out.

1. The relation of the masses of the building is poorly conceived. The great slab of the office building is not pleasingly proportioned to either the buildings near it, or to its own lower part. It is sheer size and bulk without meaning.
2. As to bad details, these are almost too numerous to mention. The little services addition tacked on the top of the big slab is ludicrous. It ruins whatever silhouette the slab possesses. The silliest detail is the use of false columns for effect on the lower 4-storey section facing the square.
3. One of the main criticisms of the large slab is the monotonous heaviness of its appearance, due to poor window placement. They have just omitted every other stone and put in a window. If used properly, windows can be a good source of natural light, and can afford a pleasant view for the office dweller.

The placement of windows should also be related to the site and climate. This building has not been oriented from the standpoint of wind direction and climate control. It has just been planted on the site to survive as best it can. It supposedly has the latest of air-conditioning systems. This is fine for it will need it. It will be a huge stone oven to cool in summer, and a huge stone cellar to warm in winter.

1. Economically this building for $18 million is a farce. It is much too costly for what it will accomplish. It shows no structural imagination or inventiveness. Nothing new is being tried in any sense. It has no consideration of future needs or requirements.
2. As the interior plans have not been made public, it is not possible to comment on circulation or services. But it is unlikely that the building will be related from the standpoint of interior and exterior space. Almost no interior space could be related to the exterior of this building.
3. As to the important relation of building masses to open spaces, almost no thought has gone into this. It is but a token gesture to put in a few rows of trees and a few stagnant pools of water. Would it not be pleasant to have color and flowers and flowing water, fountains and a sidewalk café? Must we create a space only for the vagrants and bums to snooze and booze?

This is the most conspicuous waste of space possible because it says and does nothing.

1. On the matter of color and texture there is a stultifying monotony and drabness in using stone exclusively. Could not a more pleasant, colorful series of buildings be constructed so that a play of light and shadow could be enjoyed?

The use of colored lights at night could highlight or play down various aspects of the scene.

Toronto will probably agree to spend $18 million on this building and never again shock itself or anyone else. The spirit of Casa Loma is dead. For all the castle’s folly, it was at least different and visitors from other cities remember it.

This is more than our proposed city hall will ever accomplish. We will be confronted with the external monstrosity for at least 75-100 years.

PDFs of the original articles:

Tuesday, November 22, 1955
Architects Say New city Hall Just Inhuman Pile of Stones
The Varsity, Vol. 75 – No. 41

Monday, December 5, 1955
City Bungles Civic Centre; Designs Cloudy, Fuddled
The Varsity, Vol. 75 - No. 46

Image, Top:
Proposal for City Hall, Toronto
Marani & Morris, Mathers & Haldenby, Shore & Moffat, 1955
Rendering by Schell Lewis
City of Toronto Archives, Series 1188, File 5, Item PT 344-C-5

Assistant Professor Erica Allen-Kim presented a lecture titled Storefront Museums and Pagodas: Memory and Place on Argyle St. at the 68^th Society of Architectural Historians (SAH) Annual Conference. The event took place April 15^th – 19^th at the Holiday Inn Chicago Mart Plaza in Chicago, with Allen-Kim presenting on April 16th.

Allen-Kim’s lecture was based on research from her manuscript Mini-malls and Memorials: Building Saigon in the American Suburb.

“During the late 70s and early 80s, Southeast Asian refugees were resettled in Uptown near Argyle Street, which had been proclaimed a ‘New Chinatown’ by restaurateur Jimmy Wong and the Hip Sing Association in 1971,” writes Allen-Kim. “Through a reading of the vernacular architecture of Argyle Street, this paper illuminates the integral role of buildings and cultural landscapes for communities seeking a center in Chicago.”

The SAH conference aims to bring “discussions of the built environment into the present day.” It will feature “local architects, historians, and policy makers addressing two important issues in architecture and planning: the history and future of Chicago waterways, including Lake Michigan and the Chicago River; and issues of community and preservation in Chicago neighborhoods such as Pilsen.”

Allen-Kim’s research on the Pagoda at the Argyle Red Line ‘L’ Station was also featured in an article published by Curbed Chicago earlier this month. “Her research into its construction brought to light the intricacies of race and resettlement in Chicago's Asian neighborhoods,” writes Patrick Sisson in the article's introduction.

For more information about the conference, visit: http://www.sah.org/conferences-and-programs/2015-conference-chicago/program

Photo courtesy of Erica Allen-Kim

Last fall Dean Richard Sommer spoke to U of T News writer Brianna Goldberg about regional transit, the commuter experience and the urban-suburban divide. A portion of the interview, which was featured on U of T’s Cities Podcast, was recently published in U of T Magazine.

“For many Torontonians, the daily commute is a spirit-crusher,” reads to introduction to the Q&A, “but what if it could enrich your life instead?”

Sommer argues that when the debate around transit is narrowly focused on how to simply move people from A to B, we often “fail to ask questions about the overall network experience we are trying to build, who we’re building it for, and what the bigger picture looks like.” In other words how does our transit system affect our quality of life?

The interview also discusses the book Huburbs, which the Daniels Faculty published in partnership with Metrolinx, the provincial agency that helps coordinate transportation infrastructure in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area.

“Huburbs looks at the inconvenient-to-access and often-ugly transit hubs in the outer GTA,” explains Sommer. “It uses complex documentation analysis and visually sophisticated models to explore how these hubs could be lively and enriching, instead of barren platforms surrounded by parking lots and vacant space.”

On the urban-suburban divide, Sommer argues it’s not always helpful to label one place a suburb and another a city. “It really has to do with the level of maturation of the geography in question,” he says. “It’s all urbanization, and some of the most interesting and diverse areas, culturally, are in what some think of as a suburb.”

For the full Q&A, visit the U of T Magazine website.

Related:

• Professor Liat Margolis and Dean Richard Sommer featured in new U of T Cities podcast series
• John Lorinc reviews the Daniels Faculty's new book: Huburbs
   

Associate Professor Mason White’s firm, Lateral Office, has received a number of awards for its work in the arctic — including the inaugural Arctic Inspiration Prize and a special mention from the jury at the 2014 Venice Biennale for the exhibition "Arctic Adapations: Nunavut at 15." This week, Mason White and his partner Lola Sheppard were profiled in the Globe and Mail among other architects who are working to address the needs of the north.

The article outlines the growth taking place in many northern communities: Iqaluit, where White has worked, for example, has seen its population more than double since becoming Nunavut’s capital in 1999.

White explained to the Globe’s Matthew Hague, “Typically, people in Iqaluit have been told, ‘Here’s the plan,’ without being consulted...There might be a fear of innovation. Because in the past, innovation may have done bad things."

“But there are other forms of innovation,” says White, “that are based on collaboration and intelligent, informed knowledge-sharing.”

Writes Hague:

One of their design proposals, envisioned after extensive travel and consultation throughout the Arctic, is a series of beautifully articulated trading huts and food storage sheds, collectively called the Arctic Food Network. The buildings would be lashed together like snow sleds, and take advantage of snow-pack walls that insulate in the winter and melt for better ventilation in the summer. But they would be strategically placed to take advantage of a food distribution strategy that largely relies on snowmobiles to reallocate hunted meat between various communities.

For the complete article, visit the Globe and Mail.

Related:

• Arctic Adaptations: Nunavut at 15 recognized by the 2014 Venice Biennale jury
• Mason White and Lateral Office win the Arctic Inspiration Prize
• Architecture embraces the Canadian arctic at upcoming Venice Biennale
• Mason White works with Nunavut carvers to produce stone models of arctic buildings for the 2014 Venice Biennale
• U of T's Mason White and Lateral Office at Venice Biennale

Nader Tehrani and Katie Faulkner, Principals at NADAAA, received a Holcim Award last week for their design of the Daniels Faculty’s new home at One Spadina Crescent, one of Toronto’s most prominent and historic addresses. Presented by the Holcim Foundation, the awards recognize “projects and visions that contribute to a more sustainable built environment.”

The Holcim Awards jury called the One Spadina project “a rare approach towards bringing a heritage building back to life through new construction, one respectful of the existing structure, while introducing new spatial qualities to the entire ensemble.”

The foundation also commended the project’s approach to sustainability: “The project’s basic objectives are to rehabilitate existing urban, landscape, and architectural elements — and, to demonstrate the [University of Toronto’s] aim to foreground sustainability as part of its pedagogic program via state-of-the-art construction materials and energy systems.”

The jury further commended the design for creating a dialogue "between the past and the present,” adding that this dialogue is “most clearly expressed in the sequence of spaces at the intersection of the ‘new’ and the ‘old’.”

Renewal of the existing historic building on the iconic site is now underway, and work to build the stunning modern addition will commence this fall. Once complete, the project will be a model of sustainable construction, with a resilient structure and the ability to adapt over time. Features such as rainwater harvesting, extensive daylighting, bicycle parking, and green roofs built to incorporate photovoltaic technology as it evolves are part of a broader low-carbon approach to lowering the project’s environmental impact.

The Holcim jury expressed a particular respect for “the efforts undertaken to integrate environmental principles in the development of the design, without falling into the pitfalls and clichés of ‘sustainability’. On the contrary, new standards for architecture are confidently brought to the fore.”

Architecture and Urbanism Professor Richard Sommer, Dean of the Daniels Faculty, joined Baudouin Nizet, CEO of Holcim Canada, and jury member Lola Sheppard, a partner with Lateral Office, to present Tehrani and Faulkner with the award on September 18th in a ceremony at Toronto’s Evergreen Brickworks.

The Holcim prize is one of many awards that NADAAA has received. Earlier this month, the office was named the top design firm in the United States for the second year in a row by Architect, the magazine of the American Institute of Architects. Tehrani has received fifteen Progressive Architecture Awards, the American Academy of Arts and Letters Award in Architecture (2002), and the Cooper Hewitt Award for Architecture (2007). Recent commissions either completed or underway include the Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning at the University of Melbourne, and the College of Architecture at the Georgia Institute of Technology.  

One Spadina is a $72-million dollar project, which has received substantial support from the University of Toronto and lead donors John and Myrna Daniels. Last year, the Daniels Faculty launched a campaign to raise $50-million, $45 million of which will support the redevelopment of One Spadina ($5 million of John and Myrna Daniels’ gift is devoted to new scholarships for students.) The Faculty’s fundraising campaign has recently received several new landmark gifts from alumni and friends, and continues to seek new levels of support from a broad spectrum of donors in the art, design, and city building community. The One Spadina project will have a major impact on students, the professions, and the city.

The Holcim Foundation has recognized the work of several members of the Daniels Faculty in recent years. Lecturer Jonathan Enns also received an award at last week’s ceremony. The designer — whose current work investigates how design systems (digital and otherwise) can be used to understand, manipulate and intelligently introduce foreign elements into design geometry — was awarded a “Next Generation” prize for his development of an interlocking panelized timber system. Professor Aziza Chaouni received the International Gold Award in 2009, and Professor Mason White won the North American Gold Award in 2011. Przemyslaw Latoszek won third prize in the Next Generation category while he was a student at the Daniels Faculty in 2011.

The Holcim Foundation received a total of 211 entries in this year’s North American competition. Out of these, the One Spadina project and Jonathan Enns’ work were the only Canadian projects to be recognized.

Arctic Adaptations: Nunavut at 15, Canada’s exhibition at the 14th International Architecture Exhibition of the Biennale di Venezia, was honoured with a “Special Mention” at the Biennale’s awards ceremony on June 7 for “its in-depth study of how modernity adapts to a unique climatic condition and a local minority culture.”

The exhibit, which explores the past, present, and future of architecture in Nunavut (Canada’s youngest territory) was curated by Associate Professor Mason White, Lola Sheppard, and Matthew Spremulli (MArch 2011). Local community groups in Nunavut as well architects and architecture students from across Canada contributed to the display.

This year’s jury included Francesco Bandarin (President, Italy), Kunlé Adeyemi (Nigeria), Bregtje van der Haak (The Netherlands), Hou Hanru (China), and Mitra Khoubrou (United Arab Emirates).

The 14th International Architecture Exhibition was curated by Dutch Architect Rem Koolhaas, who chose the theme “Fundamentals.” The theme “exposes modernity as a vehicle for social, cultural and geopolitical transformations,” explains the Biennale's website. “It shows that modernity has not only been absorbed, but also adapted, rejected and critically transformed.” Forty countries participated in the exhibition.

Architecture critic Alex Bozikovic reviewed the Arctic Adaptations: Nunavut at 15 exhibit in this weekend’s Globe and Mail.

“It’s a region that is awe-inspiring in its beauty and its complexity and its strangeness,” says Lateral’s Lola Sheppard. She and fellow principal Mason White have visited Nunavut dozens of times over the past five years, researching the history and the current state of the territory’s communities and buildings, and they see important challenges in its profound state of flux.

The Inuit “have gone from igloos to the Internet in 60 years,” Sheppard says. “We’re trying to establish what a Canadian Arctic urbanism would look like. I don’t think we know what that is yet, at least in [Nunavut].”

…

“A building is just one piece of any architectural design. This philosophy reflects Lateral Office’s approach to its work, part of a broad movement in the profession toward what’s called “social architecture.” “It’s about motivating a new approach to design,” White says, “one that responds more directly to culture and environment.”

Click here for the full article.

The Daniels Faculty would like to extend its congratulations to the team at Lateral Office on its exhibition and the recognition that it has received.

Related stories:

• Mason White and Lateral Office chosen to represent Canada at the 2014 Venice Biennale
• U of T's Mason White and Lateral Office at Venice Biennale
• Architecture embraces the Canadian arctic at upcoming Venice Biennale
• Venice Biennale exhibition, Arctic Adaptations, explores how architectural design can enhance daily life in Nunavut
• Mason White works with Nunavut carvers to produce stone models of arctic buildings for the 2014 Venice Biennale