À¶Ý®ÊÓƵ

Of the thesis entitled:ÌýCollective Form: Infill housing and newÌýdomestic spaces in Toronto'sÌýresidentialÌýneighbourhoods

Abstract:

TorontoÌýis facing a housing crisis, the symptoms of which are apparent across the city;Ìýproperty values are increasing at a dizzying rate, rental vacancy rates are atÌýhistoric lows, poverty and displacement are being made more visible by waves ofÌýgentrification. And yet,ÌýToronto is undergoing a boom of residentialÌýconstruction, with high rise condominiums changing the fabric of large parts ofÌýthe city. Housing in this climate is conceived as a speculative commodity,Ìýrather than as a space of dwelling; this is a crisis not only ofÌýaffordabilityÌýand access to housing, but also the quality of domestic space. This conditionÌýis not simply an issue of the current supply of housing, but inherent to itsÌýproduction and form. The thesis proposes an alternative to the contemporaryÌýproduction of housing, as aÌýcritical response to the housing crisis andÌýcontemporary domestic space.
Ìý
The historical evolution ofÌýresidential typologies in the city makes legible policy and planning tools asÌýwell as socio-economic tendencies. The initial subdivision of large scaleÌýproperties in the early city into individual residential lots and accompanyingÌýcommodificationÌýof property led to the large-scale production of semi andÌýdetached single family homes as the dominant historic type in the city,Ìýcreating a perceived image of Toronto as a ‘City of Homes’ that persists intoÌýthe present. Post war development expanded this production ofÌýsingle familyÌýhomes to the suburbs, while displacing substantial urban communities throughÌýUrban Renewal schemes and the construction of high rise towers. While largerÌýsocial and economic institutions have undergone rapid changes characterised byÌýthe currentÌýtendency towards neoliberalization, domestic space is stillÌýstructured around the institution of the nuclear family, and the type of theÌýsingle-family home. The thesis positions itself in the tradition of urbanÌýanalysis and infill typologies proposed by architects like DiamondÌýand MyersÌýand George Baird, and associated reform planning movements that emerged inÌýresponse to these patterns in the 1970’s, while imagining the possibilities ofÌýnew domestic spaces that reflect contemporary living conditions.
Ìý
Building upon this precedentÌýof infill housing, the proposal contextualizes low-rise high density developmentÌýwithin Toronto’s residential Neighbourhoods; large geographic areas of singleÌýfamily homes currently protected from any densification. The design proposalÌýacts as a synthesis to these ideas about the form of contemporary domesticÌýspace and the contextual nature of infill, creating increased density forÌýreasons of affordability for residents, but also to respond to both social andÌýecological sustainability made possible byÌýincreased density and more efficientÌýland use. The logic of the building form is contextually responsive,Ìýestablishing a series of setbacks based on the existing structure of theÌýneighbourhoods, as well as manipulating the forms based on subtractive planes.ÌýA resident ledÌýdevelopment model is proposed to resist the commodification ofÌýhousing, while creating spaces that are more suitable for a diverse range ofÌýcontemporaryÌýdomestic realitiesÌýwith reference both to international models, as well as a longÌýhistory of cooperative housing inÌýToronto. The internal organization of theÌýbuilding reinforces these social organizational structures through theÌýprovision of common spaces and the collectivization of domestic labour. TheÌýreplication of these typological experiments across the urban fabric allows usÌýtoÌýenvision the production of new forms of collective dwelling as a radicalÌýproposal for transforming the city and domestic space as a right to the city.

The examining committee is as follows: