Reshaping Parks and Community Hubs: Insights from the OAA SHIFT Challenge Winners (Part 3 of 3)

In this episode of Architecturally Speaking, host Ryan Schwartz continues the three-part series on the Ontario Association of Architects’ SHIFT Challenge, focusing on the 2025 theme: Reshaping Communities.

Ryan speaks with David Peterson of David Peterson Architect and Luke Johnson of Lloyd London Architects. David presents Swansea Park, a conceptual redevelopment of the former Swansea Mews in Toronto, while Luke discusses his project, Parkdale Commons, a dynamic community hub that functions as a living food bank, providing fresh food, resources, and social services while fostering neighbourhood connection.

Together, they examine innovative approaches to community design, strategies for enhancing neighbourhood resilience, and creative solutions for the future of urban living.

Tune in for insights on how architecture can rethink communities and inspire more inclusive, adaptable urban spaces.

Subscribe now to Architecturally Speaking on YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts.

Transcript

Reshaping Parks and Community Hubs: Insights from the OAA SHIFT Challenge Winners (Part 3 of 3)

Ryan Schwartz: 00:04.386 - 01:04.649

Hi, and welcome back to another episode of Architecturally Speaking. I'm your host, Ryan Schwartz, and today we're continuing our three-part series focused on the Ontario Association of Architects SHIFT Challenge. The SHIFT Challenge is a design competition held every two years where the OEA picks a particular topic to explore and then invites architects who are registered with the OEA to submit a conceptual design project related to that topic. So the theme selected for 2025 was called Reshaping Communities. So the challenge this year was coming up with an architectural solution that starts to rethink our communities and how they're designed, how we can respond to the modern challenges that our cities are facing. So basically, how can we make our neighborhoods and our communities better? A jury then reviews the submissions, they pick a handful of winners, and we just so happen to have two of those winning architects with us today to discuss their projects. So we have David Peterson of David Peterson Architect with his team's project called Swansea Park, a development concept for the former Swansea Muse in Toronto. Welcome, David.

David Peterson: 01:05.450 - 01:06.350

Welcome. Thank you.

Ryan Schwartz: 01:07.271 - 01:35.444
And we also have Luc Johnston of Lloyd London Architects with his team's project Parkdale Commons, a living food bank. Welcome, Luc. Thanks, Ryan. So before we get into the specifics of your projects, the challenge this year was called reshaping communities. That's a pretty broad topic. Um, so what, what first comes to mind when you were sort of dealing with this challenge and starting to think about this project in terms of reshaping communities? Who wants to dive in first?

Luc Johnston: 01:37.045 - 02:55.133

Luc, go ahead. Thanks, David. Yeah, it's a tough thing when you start to think about reshaping communities, especially from an architectural perspective where what can you do? What are the things and the people and the topics that you can reach? It becomes quite broad, it becomes quite challenging. For our project, we were lucky enough to have a conduit to the Parkdale community. Both my partner and I had lived in the Parkdale community, so we had a sense of kind of the needs and the deficiencies, but working with the Parkdale Food Bank, they are in touch with that community every day. So we were able to tap into kind of a direct pipeline of things and ultimately we had to just choose, pick and choose what things we wanted to address in the competition. Even though it's an unbuilt, you know, dreamt competition, you still have to focus that lens to come up with something that makes sense. So yeah, we had a tough time narrowing it down, but yeah.

Ryan Schwartz: 02:57.113 - 03:01.236

How about you, David, what, what came to mind about when thinking about reshaping communities?

David Peterson: 03:02.097 - 04:18.600

For me, it was already a project that was happening inside our community. So it was a project we knew was going to happen and we really felt that there needed to be an alternative. So we really wanted a counterpoint to what we knew would be proposed. You know, from our point of view, we really wanted to have the project grow out of our analysis of the community. What we expected was that the built form would tend toward very typical tower and podium. And that that strategy would not be as careful about how it would deal with things like the ecology of the site. or, um, or other kinds of things that, that we felt that the community really needed. So our proposal really grew out of, uh, analysis that really began with ecology and then made buildings, um, that fit that. So we were free from the pressures of having to deal with a development partner that would default to tower and podium. Um, and, and that really meant that we were free to do more things with the proposal and, um, and think about really the community as a client, as a fictional client, you might say.

Ryan Schwartz: 04:19.949 - 04:42.804

And it's interesting that both of these projects, although they are, they're quite different. There's some, certainly some overlapping themes, but geographically they're very close together. They're sort of in the West end of Toronto. And I guess you sort of have both alluded to this. I was going to ask what sort of drew you to those locations for your projects. And it sounds like they basically are a part of your communities. Is that correct?

Luc Johnston: 04:45.035 - 05:42.123

Yeah, for us, I mean, you know, we moved further north out of the Parkdale community, but we still feel an attachment to the, our former community, but it really was also because they were a client. So Parkdale food bank, um, they had a very, uh, smart and strategic game plan and started to kind of squirrel away a nest egg and ended up purchasing a building. which is a rare thing for a food bank. Lots of times food banks just go from one leased space to the next and kind of get kicked out as gentrification happens. So when they did purchase the building, we got in touch with them just to see what kind of services we could offer. So they are clients and we are still continuing to work with them. And we feel very lucky for that too because they're great clients and we feel very lucky to work in that community and give back in that sort of way. But that is, that is our initial kind of touch point was a professional one.

David Peterson: 05:45.125 - 06:33.885

For us, like I say, it was also in our community. The picture behind me is actually from Swansea in 1910. And what you see in the picture is that the land is not made flat. It really has this kind of undulating, um, condition of, of, um, reversed ravines and conditions that's like highly planted. And still today, that is the case for Swansea. It's that kind of unusual part in the West and between High Park, um, and then the Humber river and then the lake to the South. So really it's kind of wrapped by this area of, of, uh, ecologically sensitive lands. And that's really why, too, we felt that it needed a different approach than would be typical.

Ryan Schwartz: 06:35.852 - 07:06.518

And David, you, you mentioned this earlier about the, the community being a client. And I think that's a, an interesting point based on both of these projects because they're, they are sort of a standalone project, but they are serving what seems to be kind of a greater community as sort of a larger swath of people and, and folks passing through. And maybe you can, you can both speak to that and how your projects do sort of They serve the people that live there and work there and the people that the building serves, but also a broader range of people. Does that make sense?

David Peterson: 07:07.984 - 08:41.704

Yeah, I'll maybe I'll speak to that a little bit. I mean, um, part of this site, it was the Toronto community housing site. So when it gets redeveloped, it will be owned by this public agency. Um, but the thing to kind of that we've done, um, is that our public agencies have partnered with private entities over and over again to make things. Um, and those private entities have their own ways they do things. Uh, if you're partnering with, uh, a kind of market housing developer, then like I say, they default to power, uh, tower and, and podium. Um, which, uh, even as they try to manage, um, the community's needs, it's made difficult because there is essentially this conflict for how they begin that process and how they think about that process. So, um, you know, I would advocate for if it's really going to be publicly, uh, initiated that it starts with public interest and, and, and ask questions about what is the, uh, essential portion of this development that belongs to the public or that creates and gives back something to the public. Which is not necessarily how, um, you know, um, a private proponent, uh, in a development would think about it. And, and for good reasons, they, I mean, they are a for-profit business and it's in part why we probably should keep, um, them at arm's length as we make some of these decisions.

Ryan Schwartz: 08:42.264 - 08:52.246

Yup. They have their own agenda. Yup. How about you, Luc? I mean, a food bank, maybe that's a little more self-explanatory. It's, it's certainly serving a larger community.

Luc Johnston: 08:53.945 - 11:05.205

Yeah. Yeah. I think certainly it's, it's, it serves a larger community. And I think, um, you know, just, just talking, touching on what you said, David, about, you know, bringing a private partner into a public thing. And, you know, even the word client kind of assumes a certain relationship. As soon as you say client, it becomes, you know, um, a relationship of capitalism and cost. And, you know, as architects, we're always part of that cycle. We, we work on a for-profit for services model. But when we work with Parkdale, ultimately they are a client, but it's a different kind of client, right? Because Parkdale Community Food Bank doesn't operate to make a profit. They operate to just serve community needs. And I think that was the real kind of beautiful thing working with them is that the case of profit didn't come up. When we designed this silo for food production, it wasn't so that they could sell food, it was actually so that they could save costs and deliver a better community service to those people. But the community, you know, even if you're not using the food bank too, I think there are those fringe benefits of if this project was developed, you know, I think in our design we We looked for public washrooms because in discussing operational things with Parkdale Food Bank, they said, When people are waiting in line for hours to get their groceries, obviously people need to use the washroom. And the closest washroom was the Parkdale library. So, you know, people are queuing and then they're going to the library, they're using the bathroom. So in our design, we thought, you know, the bathroom should be there. It should be a community public washroom. So that has fringe benefits, right? Like if you're just, even if you're not using the Parkdale food bank, but you're using the library, Um, those washrooms aren't as well used, you know, they're more, they're vacant more often. So I think there's fringe benefits to even the people who don't directly interact with the food bank. But, um, yeah.

Ryan Schwartz: 11:06.553 - 11:37.313

And so when you think about the, the community kind of as this sort of client, um, maybe not directly, but indirectly they're a client. Um, and how do you sort of sort out what they need? You know, how do you design for the community and, and maybe, you know, being part of that community certainly helps you sort of you're immersed in that and you know, what's going on. Um, but you know, how do we design maybe with the community as well, instead of just saying, Hey, this is what you need. Um, Any thoughts there?

Luc Johnston: 11:37.733 - 13:12.420

Yeah, no, that's a great question. I think I said previously too that we had this conduit with the executive board of Parkdale Food Bank and the people who work there operationally. So they gave us really good insight into the day-to-day operations and we were able to address those operations kind of directly, like lack of washrooms, people queuing in line, we could address that directly. Well, I mean, ultimately, if this were a real funded project, you know, it would be great to have open houses, to have more kind of, you know, like boots on the ground, so to speak, for us to be engaging directly with, with the users, right. And taking more of a leadership role in driving those conversations and trying to get as much information from the community as possible about what those needs are. I think the tough part with any sort of program that you come up with is the changing needs, right? It's an evolving living service, right? And I would love to dream of a future where food banks aren't actually required. So then what happens then to this building? How does this building continue to serve a public need? You know, we didn't tackle the end of hunger in our proposal. It's a big project. It's a big project, but yeah, it's a question, right? How do these things evolve over time? And we tried to do our best to kind of address it.

Ryan Schwartz: 13:14.997 - 13:16.939

How about you, David, any thoughts?

David Peterson: 13:17.099 - 16:05.600

I think like, um, it always begins with analysis where you can understand, um, the very particular areas of the site condition. Um, and that can, for instance, in our site, we knew that there was, um, a pond that was, uh, buried underneath the existing, uh, set of buildings. And it's why they had a raised parking, um, garage. Uh, so, you know, thinking about that and then reinstating that pond was part of what our thinking was. And then really thinking about the, um, natural heritage, uh, that's also, you know, is going to be important to our community, uh, and going forward to trying to create schemes that would, uh, keep, uh, that natural heritage in place. Uh, and you know, that becomes part of the community and then really thinking through how the community gathers and what public life starts to look like. Um, and, and then the buildings kind of follow from that. It's really this idea that where you start, uh, you know, for me too, it's an interesting, like our projects, uh, and thinking about them that when we're talking about libraries and food banks, there's clarity that it is a public project. But public housing has become this thing. This is strange mix of public and private and the private you, you know, if you looked at private developments, would you really be able to set them apart from the public development? They kind of look the same. Are they doing the same things? Especially if we said, uh, the built, we're looking just at the built form, um, apart from programming. Um, we could say that the built form is really resembling the for-profit enterprises. So then, you know, what is really the role of, uh, the kind of a public builder when we're looking at this, uh, in the past, it's been that we expect that the, um, public housing relies on charity, essentially. that he create this property. Um, it's, there's a kind of capital cost to making it, but after that, the charity ends and we walk away from it. Right. And we leave it to its own devices and the agencies that monitor it. Um, so for our proposal, what we tried to do is by calling it Swansea park was to say that the public stays invested in this, in this community or in this development. by making, by adding a public amenity to the, to the development. So it forever becomes something that the larger community or city takes care of, uh, by adding a park. So public investments stays inherently a part of, uh, what we're thinking about. And so that's why the name change that the idea of calling it a park is fundamentally thinking about funding.

Ryan Schwartz: 16:07.395 - 16:15.659

That's interesting. Yeah. It just makes it more accessible for the rest of the city as a, a place that you're maybe invited to. Oh, it's a park. I can, I can go and use it myself, even if I don't live there.

David Peterson: 16:16.119 - 16:46.091

Imagine if every public housing project included a park and through the making of more housing, we got more parks and the parks department. brew each time we made quick housing, it would be, um, then there'll be a fair distinction, right? We know that we're getting a public, uh, amenity every single time. And we're increase increasing, um, public life and adding to the kind of complexity and beauty that can happen in public space.

Luc Johnston: 16:46.840 - 18:18.598

Yeah, sorry to jump in. I just wanted to say that that is a great move, David, to just try and integrate the larger community. Because lots of times we see buildings in isolation only. We don't see their connection. And I know with our own project we tried, there is a low-income rental going right up next door to the food bank. For us, it was about how does this community extend, even as an architectural or mechanical form. We proposed something that would likely never happen in real life, but it was to have a, you could call it a parasitic architecture, but we called it a symbiotic architecture because Essentially we had this silo full of green growing material and these are basically lungs, right? So our proposal was to integrate the mechanical system of the low-income house so that they were drawing fresh oxygenated air through the silo and then dispelling the old stale air. So we wanted to, in the same way you're calling a park, a community center, you're drawing people in, we wanted to make this physical connection to our neighbors. to really make that connection more solid, to realize that the people of that housing development relied on the food bank for fresh air. It's symbolic and you don't need to do this sort of thing, but I think if we thought more about how our buildings could interact with other buildings, it just might bring us a little bit closer.

David Peterson: 18:19.699 - 19:40.904

Yeah. You know, I mean, uh, to follow up on what you're saying, Luc, like my feeling is that, um, every time that we make architecture and we think about it in isolation, then we've done, we're not going to make the best version of what that building must be. Um, that we need to ask questions about its integration. Um, I'm mentioning economic integration and an economic system for how our architecture, what it belongs to, um, Part of what we do, uh, with inside the city is we look around the world and we ask ourselves, how did they do it over there? How are they managing to, in Singapore, do this amazing sets of public housing projects and other kinds of things that we lament here. And my answer comes often comes back to that. We have an economic me or economic systems that limit our thinking and that kind of keep us tied to old models. Um, And so the idea too, of expanding how architecture relates to different economic systems, but also ones of the ecology and thinking about how we integrate ourselves, the architecture does, to broader ideas of what we're growing inside of the city, I think is important for making architecture that's not just standalone.

Ryan Schwartz: 19:42.386 - 20:20.062

I think that's a really interesting conversation because so often we do think about architecture as these individual buildings. Like it's a building over here and a building over there, but here we are talking about natural ecosystems and economic integration and food supply chains and all these things. And they really are, these projects in particular are kind of part of a larger system. Um, and, and maybe you can both speak to that a little bit about how You know, should we be doing that more? And maybe you've already answered that a little bit. It's like, should the buildings that we're building try to accomplish more of this integration with other, other systems throughout the city?

Luc Johnston: 20:22.014 - 21:36.689

I mean, hopefully, yes. You know, I, I think there's one, there's one thing, you know, I'm not familiar with, with condominium builds and kind of the mechanisms that they operate under the city, but lots of times we see the public art quotient associated with, with condominiums. And, you know, uh, you know, I think that's a positive thing for sure, but what are the options for the developer and the architects? Like, could they take that public art funding? Could it be more of. a systems heating and cooling integration with deep, deep geothermal in Great Lakes. What else can we do beyond that? What is the mechanism that incentivizes developers and enables architects to come up with creative solutions to integrate buildings into the public sphere? Because I think sometimes the public art feels very tacked on. It doesn't feel um, you know, integrated into the community. Um, so I think, you know, I'm trying to be critical of that program because I think it's important, but I'd like to see it expanded and, and just given more power, empowering architects and designers to, to create better. Um, connections with the city. And I don't know the answer to that. I don't know what that is.

David Peterson: 21:37.550 - 23:50.294

To my mind, it begins with our values. Like, you know, when I think of like some of the things we try to, I'm still thinking about housing, but the idea that, um, when we're asking questions about housing, most of the time we're asking the question of how many units are we getting? We've got a housing crisis and that crisis necessitates that we count numbers of units, uh, first. And then my feeling always is, well, Um, after we've counted numbers of units, um, are we asking questions about other values? Are these going to be socially viable places? Are, are we asking questions about how they integrate into communities? Um, are, do we have the right built form? Uh, in fact, are we just defaulting to other built forms? Are we asking questions about mixed use? Like there's so many things about how we, uh, regulate these buildings and, and how they're made like that. Keep them isolated. Um, you know, I'll give you one regulatory thing and we want to talk about that. Uh, the idea that, um, every, uh, condo building must provide amenity, uh, inside of that building, hearkens back to a time when these buildings were really thought of as little objects in isolation and that the building needed to create the amenity for the residents rather than seeing the community as an amenity. and thinking about how that building might kind of, you know, make use of the community amenity and, and connecting it to, to a larger systems. Um, and I think it's, it's how we, uh, value things. I think as soon as we decide that there's this kind of hierarchy where, um, the numbers of units will trump all other values. Then we're going to find ourselves in a place where we're not finding, um, our buildings integrated into the neighborhoods or into the ecology or to other social systems. It'll always be, it'll become this thing where we've checked that box and off we go. Um, and you can see too, it feeds into this idea of a tower. Uh, we can say that that tower is the best version of things. If all we're wanting you to do is count numbers of units. Yeah.

Ryan Schwartz: 23:50.314 - 23:52.81

It sort of comes down to what we're measuring. Sorry. Go ahead, Luc.

Luc Johnston: 23:53.337 - 24:54.551

No, I was just going to say, and it's very, it's a very timely discussion. Cause you know, we have our prime minister coming out with, you know, build Canada and pushing the number of units, like you're saying, David, but. You know, this is a very turning moment in our history. You know, if we look at the post-war building of World War II, and the type of residential units that we came up with, I think we're at the same inflection point. And, you know, I would hate to see it as just simplified to the number of units, but it does feel like that. And, you know, admittedly, I haven't dug into all the policies that the government is pushing through. It does feel like as architects, we're not part of that conversation. We're not part of a larger conversation about yes, people need housing, but how does that fit in? How do we tie it in to our communities? How do, how do we tie it in with transit? How, what is, how does it look even? How does it perform? It becomes very simplified, I think, like what you're saying, David.

David Peterson: 24:54.571 - 26:53.731

So, you know, I, um, still have the, maybe it's the kind of glass half full part of me. that wants to say, when we imagine Toronto, our city in 20 to 30 years from now, if I was describing this future city, future Toronto, what would be the kind of key things I would say that differentiates our city from other places? Um, and you know, I'd like to be able to say, oh, well, we have, uh, all these mature trees through our city. Our tree canopy is this, uh, thing that covers 30% of our, our kind of urban area. Uh, we maintained our rivers. brew this and didn't, and kept them as natural banks and people recreate. Like one of the joys I still have, cause I live close to the Humber river is when I see people arrive from a subway ride with a paddle and inflatable kayak. Right. And I think that's a nice story to tell about our city. I want to imagine our future city that has these kinds of things, um, going on. And when we ask questions about how nature, uh, is gets integrated into our city, I'd like to say that we did more than just, um, limit, uh, reduce bird mortality, that we actually increased, increased habitat. And that we thought about where our food comes from and we created places to grow food inside our cities. And that, and this, these kinds of like are things that we can imagine for ourselves. Um, but, and they can be possible. They're, they're not so farfetched. that we couldn't already see them. And I think that's an important part of the OAS ideas competition, that they are counterpoints to what's going on. So that, that they're not necessarily, you know, things that we might have in the building, but we could imagine that they could be built. Uh, it's not so far fetched that we can't imagine a city where this happens.

Ryan Schwartz: 26:55.865 - 27:34.431

I think, um, I think you're very right. Like architecture can be a lot more than a condo that's just maximizing units. It can be very multifunctional. I can do a lot of other things. It can kind of be a tool more than just a space. Um, and, and that's something I wouldn't mind touching on with both of your projects. Cause I think they are trying to address that and they are trying to do more than one thing. We're looking at food security and housing security, but also natural ecosystems and things like that. So could you speak a little bit about how your projects try to be a little more multifunctional and they're trying to achieve more than just being one thing?

Luc Johnston: 27:36.815 - 29:51.742

Yeah. I'm going to talk a little bit about it. I guess, I think sometimes it's, it's difficult when you have a multifunctional space, when you're designing something like that, cause it can come off as maybe vague and not like, when I think about great architectural projects, they're very pointed. They're very like, this is a library, this is a museum. So I think for ours anyways, it was, um, It was challenging, right? The silo where we're growing food was very simple. The existing building that functions as a food bank, again, very easy. A bathroom, a community restaurant, that stuff. But then we had this rooftop area, and we knew that we wanted to solve a problem of basically covered space for people queuing in line for the food bank. That's what we wanted. That's its intent, right? But then it was like, well, can it be beautiful, right? Should it be, you know, so we ended up calling it a conservatory. We started adding plants and nature into it. But yeah, it was a concern that like, what is, is this kind of a vague architectural intervention? And I still think it actually is a little bit, right? So we're, we talked about putting misters in to kind of, you know, facilitate growth of like, you know, trees and plants, but it also worked as like a cooling center in hot times. So people are up there. And we designed these aerogel curtains that could fold in in the winter to enclose the space to kind of keep it heated and reusing the waste heat from the freezers and fridges from the food bank, the rooftop units. So yeah, the multifunctional part Yeah, it was difficult. I feel like it maybe lost a bit of its true form, but I'm happy with the way it turned out and it looked. But those spaces are difficult to design, just speaking from a design perspective. But I do think it would be beneficial to that community, right? I think that space would actually might be the most important space for the most amount of people coming through it.

Ryan Schwartz: 29:52.742 - 29:59.465

Yeah, provide some flexibility. And sometimes it's tough to draw the line. You're Like you're trying to do so much that, yeah, where do you, where do you stop? But yeah.

Luc Johnston: 29:59.745 - 29:59.965

Yeah.

Ryan Schwartz: 30:00.845 - 30:01.726

Um, how about you, David?

David Peterson: 30:01.746 - 32:27.377

How, how does your project, uh, I think that like, um, you know, diversity of uses and buildings that are, um, you know, that, that speak to lots of different ideas, I think can be valuable to communities because, um, It, uh, you know, Parkdale, I really love and I think a lot of people love for the diversity of activities that happens on the street. Um, and, uh, and I think that that creates kind of vibrant public life. Uh, that there is this kind of unexpectedness at times too, that happens in public spaces, um, that really can only occur when you have a certain amount of density and mixed uses going on. And I think that's what, uh, continues to be an attraction to a city. Like I would say, like, you know, if we look at the opposite, like the way that we can answer this is by looking at the very opposite end of the spectrum. And you'd say, uh, where there is no diversity of built form and use, where we have suburbs that are featureless, uh, as how I think about it, because they're featureless because they don't have, uh, an architecture that stands out or programs that stand out or features with inside of neighborhoods that land has been made flat. Uh, all these kinds of like featureless, uh, conditions that has one new condition represent like, uh, resembling another such that you get lost in them because they look so much alike. Uh, I think if we looked at it from that point of view and you'd say, well, we're, we want something that is. far more diverse and has more use. And then it also allows communities to where you can then easily walk to things and find more. And you have to travel to specific spots that are designed for that use. This is where you go grocery shopping rather than what happens through these established neighborhoods like Parkdale and Swansea, where you find smaller independent participants. or to pick up your groceries and other kinds of things. I think it makes for, um, better public life. Uh, so, you know, and even if there is some ambiguity around, um, complex projects, I think, um, that's fine. It's I'd prefer it than the alternative, I guess.

Luc Johnston: 32:27.881 - 32:52.130

Yeah. I think, I think too, it's hard for architects to let go, you know, to be like, I designed this space to do this. And then the inhabitants, the community might have a totally different idea of what that space is. Right. And as architects, you try your best and you have a vision. Um, but ultimately the community is going to use your space the way they want to. Right.

David Peterson: 32:52.910 - 34:34.243

Yeah, I'll bring it back to our proposal in this one respect that we had created along the Queensway, this kind of the arterial street that serves our site that we, we imagined a large public porch with that created a microclimate that then could be the infrastructure for lots of different kinds of uses. Uh, because we were thinking about, um, what happens there as a market or what happens there is like, um, uh, students in the neighborhood coming to a place where they could learn about ecology and there could be any number of things, but really it was the infrastructure to allow all kinds of uses. Um, and, and that infrastructure really was like providing some power, providing a microclimate. creating, um, uh, shelter that was semi enclosed that allowed for more things to happen. And I think, um, you know, that way of behaving is, you know, there's some aspect that each project that's public that should allow that to happen. Um, and, and then we start to see how, and then we can start to react to how it evolves. And then there's maybe another minor intervention. I don't think that, um, what's the way I love about landscapes and that kind of approach to things that, uh, when it's made and it's done, it's not done. Plants are still growing. The trees are still growing. They're evolving. I think the mistake we might make in architecture is thinking that, um, it's built and it's done. And then we move on, uh, rather than this thing that evolves, uh, programmatically or even spatially as it gets adjusted. So I think that's an important lesson to come out of ecological thinking.

Ryan Schwartz: 34:35.816 - 35:19.049

And, and you both mentioned public space and creating a little bit of space for the public and these, you know, some room for these interactions, these random interactions to happen. And, and this project or this challenge was called reshaping communities. And I just want to touch on the importance of public space and how maybe that actually creates community instead of just reshaping it. It's like you're creating a space for community to kind of grow, um, Does that make sense in terms of your projects? You're not just helping an existing community, you're kind of evolving it and you're creating a space where people can bump into each other and form those relationships and have those little random conversations on the street or in your project, wherever it may be. Any thoughts on the importance of public space?

Luc Johnston: 35:21.189 - 36:40.509

Yeah, I mean for us it was actually a kind of a directive from Parkdale Food Bank in that they act as a food bank, but they realize that they are a gathering spot for community. So they asked for kind of a rotating You know, almost just like a millwork, a built piece inside the space that different organizations could inhabit during food bank operational hours. So sometimes it's Toronto Community Health, sometimes it's legal services, so those people are, you know, they understand that they need this thing. So luckily they told us, right? And we were able to design this. But yeah, can you design for the unexpected? And I mean, no, like, you know, we have this idea of this conservatory being this beautiful thing and everyone's queuing and waiting for the food bank and enjoying the beautiful trees. at night it might turn into a rave. Like maybe that's what the community wants, right? And that would be super fun too. So I think, um, yeah, you make these spaces and you, um, I think you just hope that the community likes it and, and uses it. Right. And I, I think that's, that, that should be the goal as opposed to like, you know, contemplative sitting by a tree, uh, you know, or what we show in our renderings. Right.

David Peterson: 36:43.197 - 38:44.558

Yeah, for my part, I'd like to think that like, um, when we think about the city of Toronto, when I explain it to people who live outside of the city, uh, family who come here to visit and watch, go to a Blue Jays game or something like that, I don't really get a chance to experience the kind of greater part of the city. Um, it really relies on, uh, cities and just as kind of one large entity, it really is made up of communities and neighborhoods. And then if we're talking about public life and that public life exists on different scales. The scale of High Park that's intended to be this kind of West end landscape that serves multiple neighborhoods. Um, there still needs to be other scales of public life that exists in inside a neighborhood. And, and Toronto does that in lots of ways. I mean, like a parkette does that, uh, that serves like a street. Uh, and then, you know, you know, for our part, we were thinking about what does a West end public space look like that allows for more urban activity. Uh, and that's why we created this public porch. Um, so I think, you know, when we're asking questions and we're looking around our city and we can ask questions about this different scales of public life, um, and how those, um, you know, varied scales then speak to one another. Um, and it allows us then to, um, really create a mental map of where things might be missing. Uh, because there are communities really that, um, you know, it's easy to point, Oh, you've got, you've got something that's like two or three kilometers away as your park free where your kids might play. or you might, where you might gather with friends. Um, but then it doesn't necessarily because of its scale or it's distanced where you live, it doesn't belong to you in the same way. Uh, so there is something about scale and proximity to public spaces. I think that are important, um, or how we think about communities.

Ryan Schwartz: 38:46.016 - 39:31.870

And Luc, you mentioned the community may be taking over space and turning it into a rave. And I think that's an interesting point because some of these projects can be, especially the, I think the, the social projects can be difficult to kind of measure the success and maybe disagree, but it's, it's harder than say, Oh, we built X number of, of a condo units and that's easy to measure. Um, we hit our target, but then other things, these sort of more social projects, it can be difficult, I think, to sort of measure the success, but maybe what you mentioned is kind of the measured, like people are coming in, they're using the space, they're sort of taking it over in their own way. So any thoughts on how, how we look back after these projects are done and say, Oh, this was a great project and people are using it versus not so great a project. How do we, how do we sort of measure that success?

Luc Johnston: 39:32.310 - 40:51.330

Yeah, it's interesting. I think a successful, if our project was truly successful, it actually would just be used as a raving space. If we didn't need a food bank, if we didn't need more public washrooms, if we didn't need community outreach, I think we'd be in a great spot, right? So success is a funny thing to try and quantify with this building. But I mean, taking it in a more immediate context, yeah, success is people finding community in this building. It's people coming to a space that they feel welcome and secure and beautiful. Why do you have to queue up outside two, three hours to get your groceries? Why can't you be in an enclosed, comfortable space? Why can't you linger in that space longer? Because you know that there's a washroom, you know that you might meet someone, you might make these connections with um, other people. And I think that would be the measure of success. I would apply to it is do community members find connection? Do they feel comfortable? Do they feel safe? And are they being, are their needs being met by the, by this building?

Ryan Schwartz: 40:54.172 - 40:57.474
Any thoughts, David, on, on how to measure success on these tricky buildings?

David Peterson: 40:58.237 - 41:59.636

Well, I think Luc's got it right. Like it's ultimately like the, it's creating vibrant public spaces. Speaking of raves there, my neighbors had told me of like a rave that was happening underneath one of the overpass on the Humber river. Um, and someone had taken it over and just underneath this, you know, next to bridges overhead, um, and underneath it is this river and a bank that's not getting used. And someone decided let's make, let's have a rave here. And, uh, there were pictures of like purple lights flashing and, uh, and I thought fantastic, you know, like, uh, Uh, fantastic. That's a little used space and we didn't plan for anything to happen there. Um, and someone's found it and now makes use of it. And then, uh, and I think that's how that's again, part of like what makes cities fantastic was then these spaces get found and reused and we, um, continue to evolve that within our city. Yeah. I like that.

Ryan Schwartz: 41:59.777 - 42:00.677

Flexibility. Yeah.

David Peterson: 42:00.937 - 42:01.117

Yeah.

Ryan Schwartz: 42:02.908 - 42:18.566

Um, we've covered a lot. Uh, is there anything I want to be respectful of your time? Um, is there anything that we, you want to touch on that we, we haven't looked into in terms of your projects or discussion in general, any sort of closing, closing thoughts or remarks? Not to put you on the spot.

David Peterson: 42:18.926 - 43:41.185

I'm looking at your show notes, like your notes and, uh, coming back to some of it. Um, I think one thing that you had mentioned was this idea of, uh, shelter and could our buildings and spaces be more than shelter, um, was a thought. And I think for me, um, part of some of our housing that we've been making has fallen into that category of only being shelter. The, as there's so far removed, uh, units, 30 stories into the sky is removed from social connections. You're not meeting people in their corridor. You're not, you know, you're really divorced from the street at that point. Um, where housing has always been historically, this thing that connects communities, you're on a porch, you're in a low rise, even multi-residential buildings, low rise, multi-residential buildings. that still have connections to, um, the other residents and to the neighborhoods and then have us has a chance to influence the street. Um, I think when we're thinking about shelter, we, it's good to remind ourselves that it has always been more than just shelter. Um, it has been ways that, uh, neighborhoods at become vibrant or stay vibrant. So we should be mindful of like the kind of built farms we choose that only provide shelter.

Ryan Schwartz: 43:42.642 - 43:53.219

Yeah, I think buildings can really offer a lot more back to the cities, back to the communities. I totally agree. How about you, Luc? Any, any final thoughts that you want to double down on?

Luc Johnston: 43:53.860 - 44:43.770

No, I think we've certainly talked more about raves than I expected in this conversation, but I think we've touched on a lot of important points. Ultimately, I would love both of these projects to be built and funded and free of any private intersection, you know, I think it would be hard to argue with a member of the public when you propose these projects to say, do you want more green space? Do you want a food bank that generates its own food? Do you want washrooms, more public washrooms? You know, and I think it's, it's too bad that these things can't be more forefront within the city. I'd love to see more of these things being built because yeah, like I said, I don't think anyone would say no to either of these projects.

Ryan Schwartz: 44:45.000 - 45:54.044

Yeah, I think, uh, everyone would agree more, more parks, more washrooms, more community space, all that stuff. No, one's going to say no. Um, so totally agree. Um, I definitely encourage those people listening to check out the OAA website, search for the, the 2025 shift challenge. You'll find both these, uh, projects there. You can sort of dig into them in a little more detail. Um, and you can see some great images and some visualizations there that really showcase these projects as well. And thanks to both of you for joining. You can visit the oaa.on.ca, that's oaa.on.ca to check those out. And thanks to those listening as well, or those watching along on the OAA's YouTube channel. If you're enjoying Architecturally Speaking, you can leave us a quick review, share it with your friends or a colleague. This will help us create more episodes in the future. If you'd like to learn more about architecture in your own community, I mentioned the website, so you can search for the Ontario Association of Architects. There's plenty of information and resources there for architects and the general public alike. So that will do it for today. Until next time, I'm your host, Ryan Schwartz, and this has been Architecturally Speaking. Thanks again to our guests, and we will see you next time.