Architecturally Speaking

Tackling Climate Change Through Design: Insights from the OAA SHIFT Challenge Winners (Part 2 of 3)

• Ontario Association of Architects • Season 3 • Episode 15

Share episode

In this episode of Architecturally Speaking, host Ryan Schwartz continues our three-part series on the Ontario Association of Architects’ SHIFT Challenge. In Part 2, we explore how architects are addressing climate change through innovative, sustainable design.

Ryan speaks with 2025 SHIFT Challenge winners Jerry Hacker, architect and professor at Carleton University, and David DiGiuseppe of Q4 Architects. Jerry’s project, Speculative Assemblies from Pine Needles to Pressed Coffee, reimagines regenerative materials, while David’s Designing for Resiliency at Home focuses on creating climate-ready housing.

Together, they discuss how architecture can reduce carbon impact, repurpose existing structures, and foster a more resilient future.

Tune in for fresh insights on sustainability, innovation, and reshaping communities.

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


Tackling Climate Change Through Design: Insights from the OAA SHIFT Challenge Winners (Part 2 of 3)


Ryan Schwartz: 00:04.315 - 01:49.874

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 based around the Ontario Association of Architects SHIFT Challenge. So the SHIFT Challenge is a design competition held every other year where the OAA picks a particular topic to explore and then invites architects registered with the OAA to submit some conceptual design projects addressing that particular topic. So the topic selected for 2025 was titled 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 do we respond to the modern challenges that our cities are facing, and what can be improved to make our neighborhoods and our communities better for everyone. So the hope being that these projects will get shared and start to inform and educate our thinking a little bit so that eventually evolving into real world projects with some positive impact. A jury then evaluates these anonymous projects and then selects the winners. And today we just happen to have two winners with us today. So we have Jerry Hacker. He's an architect and professor at Carleton University with his project titled Speculative Assemblies from Pine Needles to Pressed Coffee. Welcome, Jerry. All right. Thanks so much. Great to be here. And we also have David DiGiuseppe, an architect representing Q4 Architects and their project titled Designing for Resiliency at Home. Welcome, David. Thanks, Ryan. Thanks for having me. So before we get into your particular project, the challenge this year was called reshaping communities, and that's a pretty broad topic. So what kind of ideas first went through your mind when thinking about this project and this challenge? Like what comes to mind when thinking about reshaping communities? Maybe David, we'll start with you.

David DiGiuseppe: 01:51.825 - 02:35.045

Yeah, I think it's awesome that the OAA hosts this competition and opens it up with such a broad topic. And reshaping communities, obviously in the face of climate change, in the face of the current economic crisis, you know, we're thinking right away about the places where people live mainly and how we can make those better on a day-to-day basis as architects and advocates of the built environment. And so, yeah, I know we jumped right away into looking at climate change and how we can build resiliency to make our communities better. So yeah, that was the jumping off point, really. How about you, Jerry?

Jerry Hacker: 02:36.109 - 03:51.123

Yeah, I think it's really great that the OAA has these opportunities to maybe just step back and try to imagine the way the world ought to be instead of maybe the way it is. And so that's where my mind went right away with speculative assemblies is sort of looking back, taking a step back from a day-to-day practice and even those kinds of things and just you know, really begin to think about alternative ways of looking at the world, alternative ways of trying to shift the needle just a little bit and sort of imagine different futures, different climate futures, different possibilities. So that's really where my mind went in terms of the call, I guess, if you will. That opened up all sorts of opportunities, I think, to kind of really imagine what is it that makes communities, everything from buildings right down to materials. And so there's neighborhoods, and a building is part of a neighborhood, and a neighborhood is a part of a city. And then as you zoom in closer, of course, buildings are made of pieces and components. And so it really has this opportunity to be the full spectrum, really, from a single material to the globe. In some ways.

Ryan Schwartz: 03:52.505 - 04:03.697

So we should dive into your projects here a little bit. Um, if you can take a few moments to kind of walk the audience through your project and, and, and tell us sort of what it's, what it's all about. Um, David, maybe I'll let you go first.

David DiGiuseppe: 04:05.317 - 06:03.288

Sure. So our project's called The Living Core. It's designed for residential housing or a way to rethink the way that we build homes to build in resilience. And especially we're looking at the lens of small town Ontario, what we think of kind of the postcard image of small town Ontario, what attracts us throughout the year to visit these places, to live in these places. And and how we can keep them, how we can make them resilient and keep them viable in the face of climate change. And so our project specifically looked at Godrich, Ontario, and the tornado that hit it in 2011. destroying much of the city and some of the historical fabric and really what makes it such a culturally significant place. And so we've designed a house that's sort of this duality between what we call a core and a shell. So essentially the core is the engine of the home. All of your possessions, appliances, building systems are situated in that core. It's protected somewhat like a bunker. A lot more cost is put into that side of the house to make it more resilient. Um, and then the rest of the house is the shower, something that is a little bit, a little bit more. Uh, cheaper to build maybe, um, something that, uh, areas of the home that you can sort of allow to, uh, be destroyed or, or be, uh, more easily affected by climate change, but, but it's not going to change your ability to live in the home. And so really designing with that core allows these homes to be resilient, to be built back and hopefully built back better and allows these communities to survive natural disaster.

Ryan Schwartz: 06:04.149 - 06:09.494

That's great. And Jerry, how about tell us a little bit about your project, your team's project?

Jerry Hacker: 06:10.037 - 08:15.692

Yeah. Yeah. So I think, um, well, I think speculative assemblies was born really out of one question. And that question was, what if you could plant a building? What would that be? And both, like, what if you could plant it to grow it? What if you could plant it when it was at the end of its life? And so I really wanted to look at a slightly different perspective of some of the issues of circularity, some of the issues of sort of designing for disassembly, really trying to look at a much broader, broader life cycle of a building. Like if you could plant a building, maybe we'd have to start thinking about its existence 20 years before it even came into being, this kind of thing. And so it really took that as a leaping off point. and then threw in a bunch of other little challenges to it. What if you could design an assembly that was completely disassemblable at the end of its life? What if it could be toxin-free? What if it could be constructed from regenerative resources that could also be positioned here in Canada that would replenish themselves over time, really? And what would that mean? And also opening that up to other underutilized or undervalued waste economies or other streams of resources that aren't kind of mined resources in some respects in the traditional sense of the word, and then really kind of work from the ground up and go, what would that mean? What would happen? What would change? What would need to be different? Where are the gaps? How would this work in a cold-weather northern climate where we need vapor barriers? What happens to all that stuff, which happens at the moment to be all petroleum-based materials? These are all plastics. They're full of bitumen. you know, the way they're produced, you know, and the global supply chains that they participate in. So this was a kind of a questioning of that, first and foremost, to just say, what if you could plant a building?

Ryan Schwartz: 08:15.712 - 08:47.997

That's, yeah, pretty interesting. And these two projects, they're quite different, but there's certainly some, I think, some shared philosophies around the environment and sustainability and human well-being and And it seems like both these projects are sort of ultra-realistic, I think, about the sort of the state of our climate and where our world is at. And it's maybe, you know, a slightly pessimistic view, but I think it's sort of a realistic view. So why does architecture really need to sort of tackle climate change head on? Like, what's at stake here? Why is this so important?

David DiGiuseppe: 08:48.334 - 09:34.799

Yeah, I think, uh, the, the built environment is a huge contributor to climate change. And obviously it also, um, provides the places where people find shelter, where they interact with their family, where they hold most of their, um, familial wealth and certain situations where all their friends and family and community live. And, uh, so it's, it's imperative to protect that. Um, and, uh, yeah, I think, I think it's, it's sort of fundamental that, um, You know, when we, when we have a place to live, it needs to be stable. It needs to be welcoming. It needs, uh, you know, look good. And, and it, it needs to, um, protect and, and be nurtured by the environment around it. So we need to protect that environment and preserve it.

Jerry Hacker: 09:37.860 - 11:49.962

Yeah, for sure. I mean, I, obviously I agree with all of that and, and, uh, I think something we were trying to crack a little bit too, is, um, There's a certain degree of curiosity, I guess, or hopefully curiosity in the project we were working on. And some of that comes, you know, there's a lot of kind of doomsday stuff, obviously, you know, like in some ways, everything's at stake. You know, like in some ways with climate change, everything's at stake. We're at a very particularly precarious moment, it seems in history. And yet, at the same time, I teach at the university, and the future architects of tomorrow, let's say, in some respects, aspiring architects, and quite frankly, inspiring architects. I learn as much from them as they learn from me many of the times, and I think that's really great. But I also think they deserve a chance at curiosity, too, that there's a way that we can continue to look at the world in bewilderment and a little bit of awe in some respects. And I think climate change is bewildering. It's so big, it's operating at such a massive scale that sometimes it's hard to dial down, like, what can I do about this? Where is my role in this? How do I imagine alternative futures? And so in some ways, I think the students deserve this kind of chance at curiosity, too, to be inspired, to not see it as something that's, you know, the whole sky is falling in some ways. That, oh, you know, what are what are different ways we can come at this. So everything is at stake, but I also think it's a bit of curiosity towards the bewilderment of it all and the awe of it, but hopefully in an optimistic way too, as opposed to some of the easy road you can fall into a bit more cynical And I always say I'm not a fan of cynicism. I don't like cynical discussions. I like skeptical discussions. You can be skeptical, but hopefully not cynical in some ways, right? So let's be skeptics and sort of investigate what's possible.

Ryan Schwartz: 11:50.911 - 12:33.46

I like that. Yeah, it is a huge problem and it does seem a little overwhelming at times. But I think you're right, breaking it down into little sort of bite-sized chunks. What can I do personally to sort of help? What little pieces can I tackle myself? Um, we touched on this a little bit, but the, there's sort of this relationship between the environment and buildings and, and the environment impacting buildings, but then also buildings impacting the environment, uh, with construction materials and methods. So maybe we should touch on that a little bit. Like what's, what's the impact of the environment on our buildings and vice versa? Like how does, how do our buildings impact the environment? Um, how do we start to look at that relationship?

David DiGiuseppe: 12:35.383 - 14:24.009

I think, yeah, they totally go hand in hand. Both impact each other, our buildings, the environment, vice versa. Obviously, in our scheme, we look a lot at the direct impact of natural disaster on the built environment and on our communities. That's quite obvious, like frank and uncomfortable and really unfortunate because it can have such a huge impact and lasting impact. an expensive impact. So I think the environment affects us clearly through natural disaster, through the, you know, especially in the northern climate, you know, just the impact of climate on a day-to-day basis. You know, I don't know, not to get into detail, I think, like, Jerry's project really addresses this, but, you know, in a day, freeze-thaw, that can have such an impact uh, on, on, on our buildings that, uh, you know, keep us safe and, and are constantly being put at, at, through stress, uh, from the environment. Um, yeah, and, and vice versa, obviously, like I said before, we're a huge contributor to, um, to emissions, to, uh, you know, CO2, uh, to energy, energy intensity, energy use, water use, uh, the built environment. So. and natural habitat. So I think, yeah, architecture, we have to keep both things in mind at the same time, our impact on the environment, the environment's impact on ours, and really find solutions in our work through design, through thinking critically and skeptically, as Jerry said.

Jerry Hacker: 14:25.517 - 18:28.268

I think right now, in the industry for sure, there's a lot of emphasis on carbon, and probably rightfully so, given NASA has released this new composite image of global temperature, and we're at 1.47 degrees already above where we were, and 1.5 degrees was this very critical tipping points, it seems like for warming scenarios. And so, and those are, you know, human, human cause, uh, in many respects. So, so that idea of carbon is obviously very important and low carbon buildings are, you know, as a big topic, obviously in the, in the profession at the moment. But I think, I think maybe there's room to expand that too, because I think, I think we're actually not doing a super great job. Sorry, there seems to be. some university, somebody doing something outside my window. It's a busy spot. It's a busy place. Yeah. Somebody doing something outside my window, like a window washing or something, but nonetheless, you know, the, the impact of, of carbon, but we're actually in some ways, we haven't really figured out a great way to do this. We, we kind of take some factors when we have different materials and we kind of mash it all together and we try to get this, this number. You know and this this material has this much carbon impact and this one has less and then somehow we use that as this. This bar for which materials are good for the environment but i think. What's lacking in that a little bit is the kind of extent of how far these things go, like how entangled we are in such an interconnected global world. And that can be everything from, you know, who's the person in the factory, you know, breathing in benzene? when they're making plastic spray foam insulation or something, right? And we tend not to, you know, it's hard, again, the bewilderment of that, like, it's hard to imagine when we, as architects, specify a material. It's hard to quantify that, yeah. somewhere else, somewhere in the world, you know, somebody is, is running a machine that's, you know, extracting a resource from the earth and, and processing it. And, you know, and I think back to a little while ago with, uh, you know, the great Zaha Hadid, uh, rest her soul, uh, you know, and, and when she was, they were building the world cup stadium for soccer and, and she was, you know, there was some uproar over working conditions, for example. You know, and she said, well, I can't control the working conditions. I'm just, I'm just the architect, you know, in some ways. And, and there's, that's hard to reconcile too. Right. But we make these kinds of decisions, um, about what we put in buildings and in some ways we're complicit. We're the, we're ultimately the people who make that giant manual, right. You know, that says, these are all the things that are going into this building. And the question is. How do we, for me anyways, and for the project I was working on, how do we start to come to better terms with the extent of that? The fact that there are exploitative working conditions, the fact that there are, even on the construction site, You know, somebody, you know, has to install this stuff. So they're torching on roof membranes and, and they're breathing in fumes from two ply bitumen based porch on roof membranes. You know, I don't want to get too into technical weeds, but you know, like that's it. But we don't know how to kind of account that when we say, oh, this is a low carbon building or a low carbon material. in a way, right? Cause it's like how much diesel is in some of those materials that have traveled around the world. So anyway, so it's a kind of a bigger, broader question for me too, about like, what are the, What are the tentacles and how are those tentacles, you know, coming back in, uh, to the building itself?

Ryan Schwartz: 18:28.289 - 19:17.110

Yeah, I think that's such a good point because it is such a, these systems are so big and complicated that it, it really is difficult to know what the impact is. Some of this, you know, materials or methods and, and we're just scratching the surface with things like, like lead, um, you know, and these sort of. I don't know, I don't want to call them surface level, but they're, they're, they're pushing things in the right direction and promoting sustainability, but they, they're not necessarily getting to the heart of things. Um, so would you say that our, our current built environment and our, and our practices, um, are they prepared to sort of handle this? And maybe, maybe we've sort of answered it already here, but, um, and without being too pessimistic, um, and, and if yes, or, you know, why or why not, and then sort of how does your project, uh, address that?

David DiGiuseppe: 19:19.500 - 21:00.059

Well, I think we've come a long way. We should say, you know, being optimistic again, and in the outlook on this, like I, I've been working in architecture for 15 years about I'm a rather new licensed architect of three years. Um, and when I started working, you know, we still, we were very much talking about lead as, as a new thing. And maybe not today. We aren't talking about it as much. We, we have more, um, you know, some more nuanced ways of thinking about sustainability, maybe we have more tools, maybe not yet, you know, the perfect tools to, to really investigate the the world that Jerry's describing this interconnected, you know, sequence from natural resource to to build product. We still as a profession often rely on, you know, spec writers, third party people that are really like, involved heavily in system selection rather than specific material selection. Again, like our project was, was, was thinking a lot about insurance, uh, you know, insurance in the case of natural disaster, but on a day-to-day basis, we think of insurance and warranty of building products and building systems. And they often, um, because of, of client requirement or, uh, authoritative requirement, like, Uh, we're going for best proven longest lasting. And unfortunately, most of those materials, uh, are, are harmful to the environment, like Jerry was describing. So I think we've come a long way. Uh, we're not, we're not, we're not there yet. Um, then we have, I think we have to do better in certain regards.

Ryan Schwartz: 21:01.340 - 21:27.332

I think you brought up the point of insurance. I just want to touch on that before, Jerry, you jump in, because I think that's such a good real world example that, you know, climate change is this big, ambiguous thing that's happening outside and it's not affecting you every day. But your insurance premiums are probably going up because of fires and floods and hurricanes and things like that. And that is a real world impact that people can can feel, you know, when that bill comes in.

David DiGiuseppe: 21:29.184 - 22:23.836

Yeah, totally. I think we, we were addressing that head on in, in our project. Um, obviously we know what's what, what happened in, in LA with the wildfires, what happened, you know, closer to home, I guess in, in Jasper. you know, a billion plus dollars worth of damage, people's homes, you know, if people can rebuild, will they be able to rebuild? How long will it take to remediate those sites? But also, like, is there the money to rebuild? And can we actually, through building hopefully replace some of the cultural capital of places like Jasper, you know, insurance is a is a huge deal in the building industry. And it's become a lot more prominent in our day-to-day thinking and in the way that we talk to our clients, not only about, you know, uh, about the sites they're building in, but also about like individual building componentry.

Jerry Hacker: 22:26.164 - 25:57.474

Yeah, for sure. I love what you're talking about, David, too, in terms of entering entering a profession, too. So, you know, I've I've been at this like 20 years now, and I'm sure David has seen this, too. You know, and I I haven't had a single client say, you know, give me some like short term maintenance materials that I want to really look after and care for. Right. I've only had people say like, how do I not, how do I not touch this for 50 years? You know, and, and the interesting thing, I think that that also drives as a, as a particular material philosophy about care and timeline and, and these kinds of things too. So, you know, like, so you end up with PVC siding and, and then, you know, these kinds of things that are, um, quite damaging and detrimental, but yet, you know, because they can just sit there for, I don't know, forever, I guess. I don't know if plastic ever goes away. We don't really know if it ever leaves. And so there's a notion of if it's durable and long-term, somehow that's part of the sustainable conversation too. But I don't know, we need to maybe reframe that a bit. you know, if things are more regenerative, they're going to require more care. And that's a different philosophy. So that's one kind of aspect, I think, about time and how that comes into sort of play. And then, you know, you're sort of saying, Ryan, Are we ready for this and can we come at it? And, and that's where I think it's, it's such a big issue as well about all the different people that are involved. I was reading something recently where. You know, it said architects are 0.01% of the delivery process of a project. And we are, we are 0.001% of the life cycle, which I think we're more familiar with, but that 0.01 of the delivery process shocks me every time. Right. Because. We're not, we're not in a, you know, a backhoe digging copper out of a mine or whatever, you know, whatever the tools are, we're just not there. Right. And w and our impact is, well, we need electrical wiring in the building. Right. And so, uh, this huge delivery process. So there, and then there's like, there's regulatory bodies and there's policy. And, and so I think to change that, like we all, we all need to come together. Quickly right and and it's gonna take huge energy is not just from architects but. From policy centers from industry from manufacturing and people sort of have to all get on board together in a way and and that's tricky so. Are we ready for that? I think probably not in some ways, right? Because those are massive shifts to systems that are established around the world. And it's like a huge, huge boat with a tiny rudder. We need to like, we need to steer away from the iceberg or whatever, but, but sometimes we're, we're just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic a little bit. Right. And it's like, we can only rearrange the deck chairs for so long before we have to kind of step back and, and, and realign, I think in some ways. So, so it's complicated. I don't, there's no easy solution to this. I'm not purporting easy solutions. I think it's hard work. I think it's optimism. It's people coming together and trying to change that kind of stuff.

Ryan Schwartz: 25:59.173 - 26:27.073

So as architects, how do we help create a sense of urgency there? Cause I think that is a really good analogy. If you have this massive boat and we can only control so much, we can steer it 0.1 degree on the course. And how do we sort of get everyone else on board to, uh, to keep steering the right direction? You know, how do we, how do we create that sense of urgency with all the other professions? Um, and this podcast is sort of one good example, but what else can we do?

David DiGiuseppe: 26:28.915 - 28:21.857

Uh, yeah, like, um, so I, I think like we're, we're advocates for the public. Um, that's, that's really an architect's job, uh, fundamentally to some degree. Um, and, uh, we have to not only think about the public in terms of like meeting the building code, meeting authoritative, authoritative requirements, um, designing, uh, great buildings. Um, but also like educating our clients, educating the public, um, being advocates really also for, for the world, right? This is the world that we live in is the world that we share that we're designing for. And like advocacy is paramount. I think like Jerry's talking about, there are, it's, it's, it's a big picture. There's a lot of components. I mean, I hate to say it, we've all learned so much in architecture to get to this point, but I mean, we need to even learn even more about the building environment, what goes into our buildings, strategies, methods of design that allow us to gather up this information and apply it in new and really better ways. really informing our clients is a huge part of that, right? They make the decisions, they set the budgets. It's really us applying the rules that they've set into place. And I think we just have to be better in telling them, what they can get for their money, how they can be better stewards, how they can be, you know, uh, better landlords, I guess you could say. Right. Um, and I think that, that we do that. We do that every day. We have to get better at it. We have to, you know, uh, have more agency, uh, drive the discussion. Um, and, and hopefully people, people will align. Uh, yeah.

Jerry Hacker: 28:24.065 - 31:25.867

Yeah, and I think it's another, like we're on another tricky point, it seems in history, because, you know, something I study in my sort of academic role, like I have a practice and an academic role, but something, you know, I study the health of the planet and I study health of human relationships. and social interaction and loneliness. And at first, maybe they don't seem connected, but I think they are super connected in a way because, uh, the notion that. As we become more reclusive or we, you know, we're seeing, if we look around the world about how people are communicating with each other, how people treat other people's worldviews, you know, every day there's tension with that. Right. And that's an issue I think, in some ways, when you can't get together to discuss things in a kind of constructive, productive way. And people are sort of in their camp and in on, they're not going to give up their camp because, you know, it's whatever mainstream media is, you know, like whatever the whatever the soup du jour is right in that kind of regard. But I think it's it's critical because I think back to the the 80s when I when I was a young child and the ozone hole was like a problem right it was like oh my god the ozone hole right and and and the world sort of got together and and people you know we i don't know we banned styrofoam containers at mcdonald's or whatever You know, and spray paint cans and CFCs and all this kind of stuff. Right. And, and there was a kind of a global effort towards that. And, and I was reading, you know, like a few years ago, it's like, people are like, yeah, the ozone actually it's closed up now, you know? And I thought that's great. Like we got together, we talked about it, we did something about it and it worked. And I feel like right now, as we become more reclusive, then it's hard to talk about fundamentally common interests. And by that I mean air quality and water quality. You know, and if we can't, if we can't discuss that, we can't fix it either, or help it or change it or move the needle or whatever, because we're all, uh, human relationships are troubled and that seems particularly fragile at the moment too. So the climate's fragile, the human relationships are fragile. Uh, and that fragility is, is a real issue that's hard to overcome in some respects. And we need. We probably need more like global cooperation towards end solutions, but we just, we just sort of have endless conferences. Yeah. And then people just kind of go, I'm not doing that, or I'm not joining in or our country, you know, we want to protect our economic sovereignty or whatever the case may be. It's very apparent to us as Canadians right now, that kind of, that kind of speak as well. So I would just throw that in the mix to the discussion.

David DiGiuseppe: 31:27.022 - 32:30.355

But I just, one more thing, Ryan, I think like, um, I think the fundamentals of sustainability, if we talk about that in the lens of architecture, like I learned in, in university and, and I think I have to applaud Jerry and his project, especially because. Uh, like, yeah, even, even you can see in the shift booklet, you know, photos of Jerry's work. Um, I think with your, with your students, correct me if I'm wrong, Jerry, but. you know, photos of, of these students with their, with their models, with their projects, like they're doing actual research into building materials and into new ways of building. And I think that is really the fundamental place where we access, uh, you know, the ability to, to change minds, create agents of change. Um, and, uh, like that, I really think like that's where it begins. If architects are going to have a place, um, and. agency in this discussion, the ability to make change. It really happens at the institution, learning the fundamentals of architecture and learning how we build better.

Ryan Schwartz: 32:31.488 - 33:37.812

Yeah. And, and really showing those examples. I think that's a great point is that you're, you have to go out on a limb maybe and, and show people, Hey, this is a way we can do it. That's a little bit different. And it might, it might not be the same way we've been doing it for a hundred years. And that's probably a good thing. Um, but sort of setting that example, you know, with your own projects and your own clients and your own, your own house, even, you know, if you're, if you're working on your own, your own home. So, um, I just want to take a step back here because both projects are trying to mitigate the negative effects of climate change and materials and things, but it's interesting because they're at different scales. One is preventative and one's a little bit more responsive. How do you think about that? I just want to touch on that for a minute because one is dealing with materials and the assemblies that we're putting into a project. And then one is kind of dealing with a very acute sort of response to a disaster. So what's your thinking behind that, the sort of prevention and response? And it's just, I guess, a balance between both. Any thoughts there?

Jerry Hacker: 33:39.128 - 34:57.27

Yeah. Well, just, you know, to jump, just jump back one second, cause I, you know, to applaud David as well in the same way. Right. Because I think with the work that they're doing too, you know, he's speaking of the students and giving them this opportunity for this experiential learning, you know, how they take that forward. And then the question is like, how, how do those two worlds of practice and scholarship. You know, how do they influence each other in some way? Because then graduates leave here and then they go do work and they have to do the kinds of work that David is still doing out in practice. Right. So, and then, and then the beauty of that is we get to see that work out in practice and then it can come back to like the school too. Right. And so somehow sometimes these worlds are separated, like, Oh, you're on the, You're on the academic dark side and it depends on what your perspective is, but I don't see it like that. Those two worlds are influencing, so we need people like David doing these projects too. It's obviously to push boundaries outside of the walls of the institution too. is really important there. So I just wanted to build on that a second. And then, sorry, could you just remind me where you wanted to go next?

Ryan Schwartz: 34:57.331 - 35:42.673

Yeah. Yeah. I would just say, yeah, sometimes those two worlds, they maybe don't talk as much as they should, the sort of academic and the private practice. And, you know, there is certainly that dialogue, but it probably could be better. Just going back to the idea of prevention and response and sort of the two projects and sort of the two different scales, like one in terms of scale too in that, you know, materials and you're talking about sort of the longevity materials and this health effects of, you know, Plastic is off-gassing for 50 years and that effect on human health versus, all right, there's a tornado coming down my driveway right now. How do we deal with that? And just that dialogue between the two, you know, long-term, short-term prevention and response.

Jerry Hacker: 35:43.331 - 37:52.727

Yeah, no, and it's true. Like they're, they're again, like the scholarship practice, they, they're not two different worlds, right? The, the cure and the symptom and the results, they're all, they're all sort of connected. Right. So, and I often, I think about that, like, you know, in, in the world of medicine, you know, people are like, what is that? Like an ounce of prevention is worth whatever, 50 pounds of something, right? So similarly, we don't maybe think about it that way, but an ounce of prevention goes a long, long way. I think about that often, too. We've been talking about energy use today, and I think about that a lot, too, because I think You know, we're working so hard to, you know, maybe make buildings more efficient, which is important, super important, right. To use less energy and less of that stuff. And I keep thinking, but we're still like maybe on the wrong fuel stores. Like if we weren't on that fuel stores and the fuels or the energies we were using, if they didn't have these. you know, catastrophic effects that are leading to the tornadoes and, you know, and these kinds of things. Like maybe we wouldn't, we wouldn't be quite so concerned about how much energy per se, because there's no, like the impact of that use is less, right? So we're super hyper aware of it because of the, the thing we're married to. at the moment are wedded to her, right? And so breaking some of those dependencies, that goes back to this idea, I guess, too, about prevention, right? And it's like, you know, we have enough sun, enough sun lands on the earth every single day to power the globe's energy needs for a year. And yet we were like, now we're not going to do that, or whatever, right? It's like, if we just were taking the sun's energy and using it, we wouldn't be so concerned how much we were using, I think, in some ways. So yeah, it is like, you know, like if you're preventing that, then maybe you don't have to build, you know, to manage the catastrophic effects, I guess. So yeah, they're obviously woven together.

David DiGiuseppe: 37:55.120 - 40:14.701

Yeah, totally agree. Like, uh, it's, you know, we, we go back to first principles, building design, but it even goes like, uh, even before that, to look at prevention, like what's the infrastructure that's in place. Why is this a building site, uh, you know, in, in the first place, um, have we serviced it correctly, you know, Um, Prevention. I think like when, when we think about prevention, uh, in our project, uh, that that's the key it's about building resiliency from, from day one. Um, obviously we don't, you know, I think I mentioned like that the core, for example, in our project looks like a bunker, but the key of the project is, is that it's not a bunker. Right. Um, The core is, is, is a, is a tool essentially to, uh, protect the home over time, but really like it's, it's designed not to be. Not to be that is designed to be a home from first principles. Like that's what we're trying to provide to people. And so I think when we think about prevention and resiliency, we have to, we have to still have like that end goal in mind. What, what actually is the space that we're building? It still needs to function as a home. You know, it can't be, I don't think, uh, Yeah, I don't think it's like the minimum shelter that we designed. Obviously, we could always go back and rely on that. But that's not actually the case of how people live and how people live in Southern Ontario in this instance. We need homes. We need homes that meet the marketplace, that allow people to live, that have value, that people rely on throughout their lifetimes. and also, as we say in our project, that have some cultural relevance to the place and the people and the community around those spaces. So I think trying to wrap it up around your question, Like resiliency, it has to start at the beginning. And it's not just about designing for the effect or the after effect. It's really designing for the steady state condition. That's the key. And hopefully building in the resiliency, the margin that allows that steady state to last as long as possible.

Ryan Schwartz: 40:16.061 - 41:06.208

Yeah. And you mentioned, uh, location and like, and taking a step back to say like, is this a good spot to build? And I think that's a really good point is both of these projects. I think location is, is kind of an underlying theme too. Right. Um, sort of being hyper local in terms of the, the threats that you're addressing, you know, if you're living on the coast and there's hurricanes, like that's a pretty important focus. versus, you know, you're in an earthquake prone area, something like that. But then also the materials, like it maybe doesn't make sense to have marble shipped in from Italy and all the fuel that's burned to get it there and that kind of stuff. So can we just touch on the idea of location and using, you know, materials and methods that are kind of local to that area and dealing with the problems that are local to that area too? What are your thoughts there in terms of the project?

Jerry Hacker: 41:08.782 - 45:09.836

Uh, yeah, I mean, that's a great question. It's, it's also, these are, it's, these are awesome. These are like such big, uh, you know, such big things to tackle in some way. Right. And, and when you were talking about that, Ryan immediately, my mind also went like maybe even one step further back, like, do we even need to build anything in the first place? Do we, we might, we might already have enough stuff, right? Like we, we have enough, maybe we have, I know, I know this is like, again, a bit like, uh, you know, dreaming or whatever, because we are architects and people need schools and hospitals and, you know, and, and things come up and, and we, we are in a profession where, you know, we're making those things. Right. And, but I do often wonder if like architecture schools, you know, they might have a cultural problem that we make stuff like as its fundamental root, like we're coming here to make things. Right. And then we are in a way, right. We are coming here to make things. I get that. and I've made lots of buildings over my career. But as I look back, I think maybe that question needs to be widened. Maybe we have enough stuff already, or we're not using the stuff we have as best as we can. And then also, going back to this idea of designing for disassembly, I think on the other side of the ocean, they're doing a slightly better job than we are too in some of these areas, like, like buildings as material banks, like, like creating inventories of everything that's already in the buildings we have, you know, so that when they come down, we can, we can mine our own buildings. Right. And keep using that stuff. There's they're full of copper. They're full of things. Right. So, so under, but you have to kind of understand what's there first to use it. So that might even be like, it might already be here. You're, you know, your question about. shipping marble in a boat, I totally, you know, obviously I'm very sympathetic with that in terms of the project and all. And I'm like, and maybe the marble's already here. Like maybe we don't need to bring it here. You know, I don't, I don't know. Cause we're, we're not doing a great job of sort of tracking what we have and what we might be able to reuse. And then, and then that can build on another conversation of, of these regenerative practices. How, how do materials regenerate themselves? Where are they? We have, we have so many potentials for this in Canada, like everywhere, like straw and like all this stuff, but we have a lot of stuff here. Yeah. Yeah. And we, but we pop it up into tiny little pieces and use it as feed or something, you know? And so we haven't also thought, Hmm, these regenerative things need an industry and they need a place and they, you know, and, and they can be part of that as well in terms of like what you're talking about, I guess, in terms of. like a hyper-regional or not? And then there's a bigger question, like, kind of like, prove it a little bit, like, you know, in some ways, because I think people aren't going to just accept that, like, show me, like, show me that things here are better than things from farther away, right? And There's an architectural practice in the Netherlands called super use. I don't know if people know this practice or not, but they're always creating a harvest diagram for all of their projects. Where are they harvesting the things from? They're really trying to understand what is the radius of how far am I reaching to get this stuff? Can I get it closer? Can I find a cabinetry that's already here? You know, and they're, and they're kind of like, Oh, there's, there's this building being taken down and all the open web steel joists are perfectly fine. Like just bring those over to our building. We'll, we'll use them. We'll just keep them in longer use. So, uh, again, a big conversation about that, but you know, do we have enough stuff? Do we need to build more stuff is unbuilding unbuilding part of the solution and understanding unbuilding as a way to get at some of this stuff. So.

David DiGiuseppe: 45:10.476 - 47:38.543

I just, anyways, I'll turn it, I'm babbling a little bit, so I'll just... Yeah, I think it's all about mindset, especially for architects. We live in a wealthy country, we're very resource rich in this country, we're energy rich in some regard as well. And And so I think we just think like it's right there in front of us. Let's take it, let's use it. Uh, let's make something out of it. But, um, I think, yeah, it's really about changing our mindset. Like if we look at fashion, for example, like vintage fashion or even furniture, vintage furniture is, is in such a, you know, it's such a hot topic right now. It's. It's in demand, there's vintage stores popping up all over the place. And people are rethinking like, uh, about where their clothes come from, for example. Um, rethinking about the, uh, not just, not just maybe the resources that go into that, but also maybe the labor that goes into that. And, uh, it's, you know, we're supporting maybe the, not the best labor practices. And really we have to think about that as well in architecture, like Jerry was saying across. Across the ocean in europe adaptive reuses is kind of the one of the biggest games in architecture renovation is is huge. All across you know more established countries and older countries than ours. And so i think like we're getting to that point where it's it it's darkly in front of us that we sort of need to make a change and maybe it's simply about rethinking how we build our buildings. Where we got those resources from those materials like jerry's describing. Um, I think, I think that, um, hopefully in a new, in a new generation, this new generation that is, is maybe into more DIY, there's more resources for them to learn, um, about how, you know, they can use their hands, how they can, how they can apply craft into our buildings and create, um, create new things out of old, old materials and old methods in some circumstance. I think, I think if we can. If we can support that, if we can somehow find a framework to apply, I don't know, I guess we have to apply some level of regulation onto it, but if, if, if we can figure out a framework to capture the value that's in those materials, that's in those previously used products, um, you know, then we're going to be on our way to, to, to solving some of these issues.

Ryan Schwartz: 47:39.881 - 48:18.339

Yeah, vintage furniture, mid-century modern furniture is popular. We need to make vintage houses popular and then get the demand there. And I like the idea of a harvest diagram. That just made me think of like a farm-to-table restaurant. Like, well, we could do like a farm-to-house sort of, you know, 100-mile house or something. Yes, totally. I know we can talk about this all day, but I want to be respectful of your time here too. Is there anything that we've missed that you'd like to touch on? I know we've covered a lot, but anything that you'd like to, you know, any sort of parting thoughts to leave with?

David DiGiuseppe: 48:19.676 - 49:40.062

I just think jumping off of that last conversation, when we talk about vintage, like our, our project is, is yes, about, about creating resilience, uh, this concept of the core and the shell, but, but really like the impetus was it is, is, you know, looking at these communities around, um, Southern Ontario. uh, Ontario in general, how, how, how fragile they are in, in, in a certain lens. Um, and now really like we, we need to think of new ways to, to invest in them, both in, both in design and building resilience, but also in preserving them, you know, for the next generation and a generation beyond that, like we, We really can't just, you know, we can't rely on everybody moving to the city or moving to the suburbs around the city. Like these are hugely valuable places with a lot of human capital, a lot of culture that we should invest in. We should support people moving into these communities and really staying in these communities by building the right type of housing there and the right type of services and, you know, commercial institutional spaces there. We have to, yeah, we have to find a way to really preserve these in order to preserve, you know, Ontario, the, you know, the place that we love, um, uh, and the people, the people in this, in this province, really.

Jerry Hacker: 49:42.250 - 52:58.937

Yeah. And, and maybe like speed is a bit at the heart of this little chat we're having at the end, you know, David was talking about fast fashion too, and, and shifting that and, and, and we look at, uh, architecture, I know, and we, we sort of participate in that world in some ways. And I, you know, like we kind of, we, we get to that stage of a building where it's, it's a little bit like going shopping, like when you're specifying, Oh, there, I'll just take that tile. And I'll take that. Yeah. And I'll take this toilet. Oh, that thing looks, that toilet's a bit different than that. Well, you know, and, and we, and we're lost in a little bit of that world as architects sometimes. And, and I think, you know, then there's also like the instantaneity or like instance, like we live in a fast world, like fast stuff, fast information, fast things now, you know, information quickly. And, and our profession is like this too. I think, you know, you get a project and a client, I want the drawings and four weeks and I want the, you know, I want the design done and I want the construction drawings and three months after that. And I want a shovel in the ground and eight months. And like, you know, can you even know a place? Like, can you, can you really know a place like in three weeks to kind of come up with a design? Like, really? Do you know, like the human and non-human species of that place and what's being disrupted and, you know, and, and so we're, we're also propelled, right. Because we're also in this kind of service industry, you know, where people hire us and they. You know, and they, they're getting a service and time is of the essence and time is money and time, you know, that, that, that, that, that, and it goes on and on and on, but it has a lot, I think, to do with speed and the way we come at the world. Right. And so. Like a slowing down might be beneficial. Take a breath. Yeah. It's optimistic or maybe I'm a dreamer or whatever, you know, it's a dreaming thought, but it's like, pacing ourselves a little bit can also probably do us a wonder of good in some ways, right? And that might start to go, hmm, what are the implications of this? If I have a little bit more time to understand it, I have a little bit more time to prepare it, then that would be beneficial, right? So I think we are part of that world. We treat building specs like shopping. Yeah, we have lunch and learns and people are coming in and they leave a manual and not so much manuals anymore. I'm dating myself, but it's all online now, but you're kind of. Manufacturer's website. Ooh, that's a nice light, light picture. Ooh, that one's really thin. And it's like buying an iPhone or something, you know, except it's not, it's like that stuff has huge tentacles everywhere. So it's, it's, you know, it's a hard world to live in. We, you know, click and shop and sweep and, you know, and things come to our door. I mean, there it is. It's like, wow, this is a disconnect that probably probably needs to be rethought in some way, in many ways, architecture, society, and all those kinds of things. But huge, huge. Interconnected global problem that quite frankly is bewildering and it's hard. It's hard to imagine how to break some of these chains. Right. And some of the things we're, we're enmeshed in. So that's maybe all I, yeah, maybe I'll just throw that in there too.

Ryan Schwartz: 52:58.957 - 54:26.88

Yeah, no, that's perfect. It kind of wraps it up. You know, take a step back, take a breath and it goes back to what we're talking about before. It's like maybe educate your client, take that moment to do your part, to sort of steer them in the right direction and say, well, if you have to be this fast, you have to pick that material and sort of, you know, doing our public advocacy part. So yeah, that's a good closing thought. I definitely encourage those people listening to check out the OAA website and search for the 2025 Shift Challenge. There you can find these two winning projects that we've been talking about. Learn a little bit more about those. You can find some great images and photographs that illustrate those projects as well. They're definitely worth checking out. If you've made it this far and you've been listening this whole time, you have to go take a look for sure. visit oaa.on.ca to check those out. So that's oaa.on.ca. And thanks for listening or watching if you're following the OAA's YouTube channel. If you're enjoying Architecturally Speaking, leave us a quick review, share it with your friends or a colleague. This helps us create more episodes in the future. And I mentioned the website. There's plenty of other resources there for architects and the general public alike. So if you're interested in learning more about architecture in your own community or your own neighborhood, just search for the Ontario Association of Architects. And that will do it for today. So until next time, I'm your host, Ryan Schwartz, and this has been Architecturally Speaking. Thanks, and we'll see you next time.