Brandon Donnelly
Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly.
Brandon Donnelly
Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly.
Entrepreneurship is a critical component of city-building. You want people taking risks, starting new companies, and creating jobs to grow the overall economy. And to accomplish this, you roughly need a bunch of smart people, access to money, and a culture that accepts failure and risk-taking. Then, maybe, you might get some successful startups.
The key word, however, is maybe.
Here's an interesting essay by Jerry Neumann — a retired venture investor — called "We Have Learned Nothing." In it, he argues that there is no science of entrepreneurship:
Of course, no science of entrepreneurship can be a science in the sense most people think of the term. There are no fixed and universal recipes, no ultimate truth. This may be unsatisfying to the aspiring founder, but any science that guaranteed success would bring us right back to the perpetual money machine. The best we can hope for is a science that makes startups meaningfully more likely to succeed and that is honest about the limits of its own prescriptions. And then, when those prescriptions harden into orthodoxy, we try something different. A true science of entrepreneurship embraces the Red Queen dynamic so completely that it rejects any attempt to permanently systematize it.
The "Red Queen hypothesis" is an evolutionary biology concept that states that one has to constantly adapt and evolve just to survive and maintain a position, never mind make any progress. It follows that as soon as you stop innovating as a company, you don't just stay where you are; you fall behind. And that's because the entire landscape is constantly shifting around you. Neumann argues that this is a better mental model for startups and that it's a fool's errand to try to permanently codify what it takes to create a successful one.
I'm going to take this even further and say that the same is true for cities. It's not enough to just follow "best practices" and copy what has been successful in other places. There is no set formula for urban leadership. Cities are rewarded most for being different, and for doing that different thing first. This is particularly true in a world of increasing global sameness. Creating a replica of the London Eye or New York's High Line will not magically turn you into a comparable global city. It is a recipe for mediocrity.
Cover photo by Laine Cooper on Unsplash
Now that the results from Paris' first round of municipal elections are in, I thought I would do a follow-up to my post from a few days ago (which was mostly about bicycles). The second and final round happens this weekend, but here's what we've learned so far:
Every time you get into a car, there is a non-zero chance that you might get injured, or worse, die. The probability of this happening depends largely on where you're driving and, of course, how much you drive. However, there are a few different ways to measure this statistical risk. A recent Bloomberg article by David Zipper highlights one ongoing debate.
The three most common methods are:
Road deaths per capita
Road deaths per registered vehicle
Road deaths per distance traveled
In my opinion, options 1 and 3 seem the most relevant. Option 1 is useful because it measures a citizen's overall risk and allows driving risk to be easily compared to other causes of death (which tend to be measured on a per capita basis). The limitation is that it is harder to compare a country where everybody drives to a country where few people drive.
That's where option 3 comes in. In theory, it provides the best indicator of road risk by accounting for distance traveled, which is the primary argument for why it's commonly used in the US where the car is king. But it does "dilute" the fatality count the more people drive, and it hides overall car dependency. In his article, Zipper likens this approach to measuring cancer deaths per cigarette smoked.
In any event, here is how both methods appear in the International Transport Forum's 2025 Annual Road Safety Report (which is cited in the article):
Entrepreneurship is a critical component of city-building. You want people taking risks, starting new companies, and creating jobs to grow the overall economy. And to accomplish this, you roughly need a bunch of smart people, access to money, and a culture that accepts failure and risk-taking. Then, maybe, you might get some successful startups.
The key word, however, is maybe.
Here's an interesting essay by Jerry Neumann — a retired venture investor — called "We Have Learned Nothing." In it, he argues that there is no science of entrepreneurship:
Of course, no science of entrepreneurship can be a science in the sense most people think of the term. There are no fixed and universal recipes, no ultimate truth. This may be unsatisfying to the aspiring founder, but any science that guaranteed success would bring us right back to the perpetual money machine. The best we can hope for is a science that makes startups meaningfully more likely to succeed and that is honest about the limits of its own prescriptions. And then, when those prescriptions harden into orthodoxy, we try something different. A true science of entrepreneurship embraces the Red Queen dynamic so completely that it rejects any attempt to permanently systematize it.
The "Red Queen hypothesis" is an evolutionary biology concept that states that one has to constantly adapt and evolve just to survive and maintain a position, never mind make any progress. It follows that as soon as you stop innovating as a company, you don't just stay where you are; you fall behind. And that's because the entire landscape is constantly shifting around you. Neumann argues that this is a better mental model for startups and that it's a fool's errand to try to permanently codify what it takes to create a successful one.
I'm going to take this even further and say that the same is true for cities. It's not enough to just follow "best practices" and copy what has been successful in other places. There is no set formula for urban leadership. Cities are rewarded most for being different, and for doing that different thing first. This is particularly true in a world of increasing global sameness. Creating a replica of the London Eye or New York's High Line will not magically turn you into a comparable global city. It is a recipe for mediocrity.
Cover photo by Laine Cooper on Unsplash
Now that the results from Paris' first round of municipal elections are in, I thought I would do a follow-up to my post from a few days ago (which was mostly about bicycles). The second and final round happens this weekend, but here's what we've learned so far:
Every time you get into a car, there is a non-zero chance that you might get injured, or worse, die. The probability of this happening depends largely on where you're driving and, of course, how much you drive. However, there are a few different ways to measure this statistical risk. A recent Bloomberg article by David Zipper highlights one ongoing debate.
The three most common methods are:
Road deaths per capita
Road deaths per registered vehicle
Road deaths per distance traveled
In my opinion, options 1 and 3 seem the most relevant. Option 1 is useful because it measures a citizen's overall risk and allows driving risk to be easily compared to other causes of death (which tend to be measured on a per capita basis). The limitation is that it is harder to compare a country where everybody drives to a country where few people drive.
That's where option 3 comes in. In theory, it provides the best indicator of road risk by accounting for distance traveled, which is the primary argument for why it's commonly used in the US where the car is king. But it does "dilute" the fatality count the more people drive, and it hides overall car dependency. In his article, Zipper likens this approach to measuring cancer deaths per cigarette smoked.
In any event, here is how both methods appear in the International Transport Forum's 2025 Annual Road Safety Report (which is cited in the article):
Emmanuel Grégoire (Union of the Left) is in the lead with 37.98% of the vote:
And Rachida Dati (Union of the Right) is in second with 25.46% of the vote:
What is not unexpected, but super interesting nonetheless, is the clear divide between the west and east within Paris proper. The west voted right, and the east voted left.
Here in Toronto, our voting maps typically exhibit a semi-clear divide between "Old Toronto" and the inner suburbs. For example, these are the results from our 2023 mayoral by-election:
Conveniently, it is a divide that loosely tracks the city's built form. If you live in the oldest parts of the city, where transit usage is higher and there's rail in the middle of the street, there's a higher probability that you voted for Chow. The inner suburbs, on the other hand, tended to vote for Bailão.
In the case of Paris, there isn't the same built form contrast. This is not an urban-suburban divide; it's a socio-economic divide. The western arrondissements have historically been the wealthiest areas of Paris (for a variety of reasons), and that continually appears in the voting patterns.
It also shows up in the modal splits. The western arrondissements tend to have higher car ownership rates compared to the east. These basic facts are interesting because Paris represents more of a controlled urban experiment, in contrast to Toronto's dense downtown and otherwise generally low-rise built form.
But in the end, I'm not sure the political mappings of Paris and Toronto are all that different. If you look closely at Toronto's 2023 by-election map, you'll see that the wealthiest pockets of the city voted exactly as you would expect. Turns out, bank balances may matter more than built form.
Cover photo by Maximilian Zahn on Unsplash
On a per vehicle-kilometre basis, the data appears much more gradual. But on a per capita basis, the countries with the highest road fatalities appear much more as outliers. Here, you can more easily see that, broadly speaking, a person in Colombia is nearly ten times more likely to die in a road-related incident than a person in Norway (pretty much the gold standard when it comes to road safety).
Perhaps the answer is to just look at both figures to make sure you're not lying to yourself.
Cover photo by Tom Barrett on Unsplash
Charts from Road Safety Annual Report 2025
Emmanuel Grégoire (Union of the Left) is in the lead with 37.98% of the vote:
And Rachida Dati (Union of the Right) is in second with 25.46% of the vote:
What is not unexpected, but super interesting nonetheless, is the clear divide between the west and east within Paris proper. The west voted right, and the east voted left.
Here in Toronto, our voting maps typically exhibit a semi-clear divide between "Old Toronto" and the inner suburbs. For example, these are the results from our 2023 mayoral by-election:
Conveniently, it is a divide that loosely tracks the city's built form. If you live in the oldest parts of the city, where transit usage is higher and there's rail in the middle of the street, there's a higher probability that you voted for Chow. The inner suburbs, on the other hand, tended to vote for Bailão.
In the case of Paris, there isn't the same built form contrast. This is not an urban-suburban divide; it's a socio-economic divide. The western arrondissements have historically been the wealthiest areas of Paris (for a variety of reasons), and that continually appears in the voting patterns.
It also shows up in the modal splits. The western arrondissements tend to have higher car ownership rates compared to the east. These basic facts are interesting because Paris represents more of a controlled urban experiment, in contrast to Toronto's dense downtown and otherwise generally low-rise built form.
But in the end, I'm not sure the political mappings of Paris and Toronto are all that different. If you look closely at Toronto's 2023 by-election map, you'll see that the wealthiest pockets of the city voted exactly as you would expect. Turns out, bank balances may matter more than built form.
Cover photo by Maximilian Zahn on Unsplash
On a per vehicle-kilometre basis, the data appears much more gradual. But on a per capita basis, the countries with the highest road fatalities appear much more as outliers. Here, you can more easily see that, broadly speaking, a person in Colombia is nearly ten times more likely to die in a road-related incident than a person in Norway (pretty much the gold standard when it comes to road safety).
Perhaps the answer is to just look at both figures to make sure you're not lying to yourself.
Cover photo by Tom Barrett on Unsplash
Charts from Road Safety Annual Report 2025
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
