I am a fan of the double opt-in introduction. I am guilty of not doing it, but I’ve been hearing of this approach from a few people and I think it makes a lot of sense. And it is probably only going to make more sense as we all become even more connected.
The way the double opt-in introduction works is that before you make a cold introduction, you simply ask both parties if they would like to be introduced to the other party. If one party doesn’t opt-in, then you don’t make the introduction. Simple.
The reason this is so valuable is because, without this double opt-in framework, it can be easy to get sucked into a call or meeting that you may not want to be a part of, which in turn means that you’re not in control of and managing your own schedule. Somebody else is doing that for you.
This may seem harsh, but as we’ve discussed before on the blog, there’s a ton of value in saying no. We all need filters, especially today. And if we don’t say no often enough, we’re all bound to run out of time for the things that really matter and that we should be focusing our attention on.
The underlying principle behind the double opt-in introduction is that it’s a lot easier to say no to an introducer than it is to a person you have just been introduced to: “Sorry, I have no interest in talking and/or meeting you.” Now that’s not very nice.
I am a fan of the double opt-in introduction. I am guilty of not doing it, but I’ve been hearing of this approach from a few people and I think it makes a lot of sense. And it is probably only going to make more sense as we all become even more connected.
The way the double opt-in introduction works is that before you make a cold introduction, you simply ask both parties if they would like to be introduced to the other party. If one party doesn’t opt-in, then you don’t make the introduction. Simple.
The reason this is so valuable is because, without this double opt-in framework, it can be easy to get sucked into a call or meeting that you may not want to be a part of, which in turn means that you’re not in control of and managing your own schedule. Somebody else is doing that for you.
This may seem harsh, but as we’ve discussed before on the blog, there’s a ton of value in saying no. We all need filters, especially today. And if we don’t say no often enough, we’re all bound to run out of time for the things that really matter and that we should be focusing our attention on.
The underlying principle behind the double opt-in introduction is that it’s a lot easier to say no to an introducer than it is to a person you have just been introduced to: “Sorry, I have no interest in talking and/or meeting you.” Now that’s not very nice.
Things are busy right now as we get ready to unveil Junction House this fall and so I’m a bit behind on my news and reading.
I just finished reading Alex Bozikovic’s Globe article on BIG’s new KING Toronto project (official name). It is an interesting piece about creating villages and a sense of community in new developments – something that Bjarke Ingels has been focused on for many years.
Below are a few renderings of the project. I’m excited for this one. And as I said before on the blog, I am sure it will be precedent setting in a number of ways.
Things are busy right now as we get ready to unveil Junction House this fall and so I’m a bit behind on my news and reading.
I just finished reading Alex Bozikovic’s Globe article on BIG’s new KING Toronto project (official name). It is an interesting piece about creating villages and a sense of community in new developments – something that Bjarke Ingels has been focused on for many years.
Below are a few renderings of the project. I’m excited for this one. And as I said before on the blog, I am sure it will be precedent setting in a number of ways.
São Paulo, and Brazil more broadly, are near the top of my list of places that I want to visit.
Starting in the 1930s, Brazil became an early adopter of modern architecture with projects like the
One remark from the article that stood out for me is this one here:
Still: The design breaks a lot of rules. Which is why it took two years of difficult negotiations with city planners to reach approvals. “We wanted it to be quieter,” says Lynda MacDonald, a senior Toronto planner who was involved in overseeing the project. “It’s a very large project, and we wanted to make sure it respected the character of King Street.”
I am often asked why we don’t see more innovation in architecture and real estate. There are a number of reasons for that. One of them is risk. Development is in many ways a game of risk mitigation.
But another reason is that when you try and do something unconventional that disrupts the status quo, you also call into question the typical planning criteria used to evaluate projects. And that may slow you down.
Alex accurately points out in his article that we are used to doing things around here in one of two ways:
The King Street project is also an ambitious experiment with urban design. There are basically two species of tower in Toronto: a midrise slab of six to 10 storeys, which steps back at the top; and a “tower-and-podium,” a model borrowed from Vancouver that combines a fat, squared-off base (or “podium”) with a tall, skinny residential tower. Both can work, but can also create the big-box blandness that many people dislike about new urban housing.
None of this is to suggest that we should ignore the character of a particular area. It is critical and I believe that KING Toronto has been mindful of that.
But I also firmly believe in ambitious city building and I think there’s no question that KING Toronto is doing exactly that.
One remark from the article that stood out for me is this one here:
Still: The design breaks a lot of rules. Which is why it took two years of difficult negotiations with city planners to reach approvals. “We wanted it to be quieter,” says Lynda MacDonald, a senior Toronto planner who was involved in overseeing the project. “It’s a very large project, and we wanted to make sure it respected the character of King Street.”
I am often asked why we don’t see more innovation in architecture and real estate. There are a number of reasons for that. One of them is risk. Development is in many ways a game of risk mitigation.
But another reason is that when you try and do something unconventional that disrupts the status quo, you also call into question the typical planning criteria used to evaluate projects. And that may slow you down.
Alex accurately points out in his article that we are used to doing things around here in one of two ways:
The King Street project is also an ambitious experiment with urban design. There are basically two species of tower in Toronto: a midrise slab of six to 10 storeys, which steps back at the top; and a “tower-and-podium,” a model borrowed from Vancouver that combines a fat, squared-off base (or “podium”) with a tall, skinny residential tower. Both can work, but can also create the big-box blandness that many people dislike about new urban housing.
None of this is to suggest that we should ignore the character of a particular area. It is critical and I believe that KING Toronto has been mindful of that.
But I also firmly believe in ambitious city building and I think there’s no question that KING Toronto is doing exactly that.
