Architect Richard Witt, principal at BDP Quadrangle, has been at the forefront of shaping Toronto’s built form for decades. With experience ranging from mid-rise residential projects to skyline-defining towers, his work reflects both a deep understanding of the city’s evolving needs and a global perspective informed by his time at Foster + Partners in London. Witt has also played a key role in conversations around urban growth through his involvement with the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat.
In this Q&A with Livabl vice-president of national builder partnerships Matthew Slutsky, Witt reflects on the architectural challenges and opportunities facing Toronto and the wider GTA. The conversation touches on the repetition of condo design in the city, the balance between tall and mid-rise forms, and the importance of building homes that serve residents rather than simply meeting investor demand. He also explores international models, from Paris to London, that highlight how density, consistency, and thoughtful design can create vibrant urban environments.
Beyond design philosophy, the discussion dives into practical advice for buyers and residents. Witt outlines what to look for in buildings—such as durable materials, efficient layouts, and meaningful shared spaces—while critiquing common pitfalls like poorly executed balconies and short-term construction practices. Together, the two cover how financing, planning, and sustainability policies are reshaping Toronto’s housing landscape, and why the next generation of projects must be more livable, enduring, and resident-focused.
On Richard Witt
You were principal of Quadrangle, now BDP Quadrangle, with a huge imprint on Toronto’s built form. How would you describe your architectural style?
Architects don’t love the word “style.” Our work is contextual and tied to how housing gets produced at a given moment. Industry systems and speed push uniformity; our job is to take the financially realistic system and push it beyond the base, commoditized version.
When I think “Richard Witt,” I picture both mid-rise and super-tall. Which do you prefer?
Neither was intentional. Toronto’s a strong tall-building city, and I’m active with the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat. I also love mid-rise. The region is polycentric—Mississauga, Vaughan, Markham—so different forms make sense in different places.
Styling the Toronto Skyline
CG Tower in Vaughan really stands out. What were you trying to do there?
It uses the same basic components as others, but we asked how a tall building could feel like a home. Brick at balcony scale gives human texture even 40 storeys up, versus a sheer glass face. We added construction economy to deliver faster. It wasn’t about chasing a look; it was about program, scale, and livability.
Are there distinctive Toronto or Southern Ontario styles?
For 20 years we’ve leaned on one system: window wall—quick and economical but thermally weak and visually limited. At 60 Bathurst we tried offering façade choices like a finishes package—great idea ahead of its time, constrained by budgets and speed-to-market.
Should every building try to be unique?
No. Great cities have fabric buildings that make the whole work—think Paris. We recently finished 900 St. Clair: a quiet mid-rise that fits the street with moments of brick detail. It’s not shouting; it’s comfortable.
As Toronto grows, what residential forms matter most?
There isn’t one answer. Three fronts: (1) gentle density—multiplexes/duplexes in the “yellow belt,” bringing more people to serviced areas; (2) avenues/mid-rise—still a great form when delivered at scale; (3) growth centres—downtown, North York, and new urban cores like Mississauga and Vaughan. Expect less anonymous, investor-driven product and more end-user planning.
Favourite well-done streets?
Segments of College and Dundas are great; Ossington is exciting. The challenge on avenues is assembling enough frontage—20-foot lots make coherent blocks hard. Mid-rise guidelines were well-intentioned, but the lack of density caps inflated land values and pushed massing to edges. Simpler, stretch-based guidance is helping; a sensible density target (say, 4.0) could improve design variety.
Gathering Inspiration
International inspirations?
London—areas like Clerkenwell—offers dense, human-scaled streets with six-storey walls on narrow rights-of-way, prioritizing intensity and proximity over strict sun-angle rules. That closeness creates better street life.
Who shaped your approach?
I worked at Foster + Partners and admire their rigor and optimism, though I don’t chase a Foster “look.” I also appreciate Jean Nouvel. There’s no single stylistic anchor—plenty of good architects here and abroad.
What are you working on now?
Large transit-oriented, mixed-use master plans. Eastgate Square in Hamilton ties together public realm, retail repositioning, a bus interchange, and mixed-use residential and commercial. In Toronto, we’re doing a lot of rental; at Queen & Dufferin, a former condo is now purpose-built rental, with unit plans re-thought for end users.
How should buyers evaluate plans—especially with rentals vs. condos?
Imagine walking the finished unit: entry size, stroller/storage, a workable kitchen, and circulation. Rentals are owned for decades, so we mock up units, simplify layouts, and design for durability. Rentals also justify deeper sustainability—better envelopes, less glazing, geothermal—because owners benefit from long-term operating savings. Toronto should incentivize this more, as New York does.
What should purchasers look for in the building itself?
Prefer “windows-in-walls” over “window wall.” Window wall is prone to leaks, high maintenance, and poor energy performance. Be wary of balconies: they cause thermal bridging and envelope weakness and are rarely truly usable. Trade most balconies for excellent shared outdoor areas, meaningful amenities, and large operable windows or proper French doors.
