Old in new by Andrew Johnston on 500px

I was out for lunch with a colleague of mine yesterday afternoon and he said to me: “Brandon, I’m really surprised that you’re so interested in technology. It just seems so different compared to real estate and architecture.”

And I’ve certainly heard that exact same comment from a number of people before. But I don’t see it that way and here are a few reasons why.

The common thread for me between architecture, real estate development, and technology is that in all of these cases it is about imagining the way things could be in the future and then creating it. It’s about change. It’s about growth. It’s about creation. And I consider myself a builder in practically every sense of the word.

At the same time, each of these disciplines is about creating engaging spaces for people. Architects and real estate developers do it in the physical world, but many technology products strive to do exactly the same thing in the online world.

In fact, a couple of years ago I was fascinated to learn that Facebook has and continues to draw inspiration from many of the same books and philosophies that architects, planners, and developers rely on when it comes to creating engaging communities. The medium might be different, but it’s still about people.

Finally, as I’ve said many times before here on Architect This City, I think that the distinction between tech and non-tech companies and industries is quickly evaporating. Is Airbnb a tech company or a hospitality company? Is Uber a tech company or a taxi company? Pretty soon we’ll be saying that about many other industries.

Maybe it’s because I’ve always been interested in wading through the overlaps between disciplines, but this is just the way I see it.

Holding Pattern by Sean Arbuthnot on 500px

https://500px.com/embed.js

This afternoon I saw on Twitter that Toronto Police are now starting to crackdown on UberX drivers in the city. The investigation is called “Project Snowball” and they have already charged at least 11 people. The fines are anywhere from $200 to $20,000.

My response on Twitter was the following:

https://twitter.com/donnelly_b/status/582978841083248640

I get that Uber is a highly disruptive company. I’ve written about it many times before. But at the end of the day, this is not just about Uber. This is about a larger shift in the economy.

The buzz term is “sharing economy.” But one of the ways I like to think about it is like so: Facebook doesn’t produce any of its own content, and yet you could define it as a media company. Airbnb doesn’t own any rooms, and yet it is disrupting hotels. Uber doesn’t own any cars or plates, and yet it is disrupting the taxi industry.

What’s happening is that the internet and mobile phones are allowing for peer-to-peer connectivity and more decentralized forms of marketplace supply.

What does that mean?

It means that instead of having a fleet of cars or a centralized hotel building, anyone with an extra car or an extra room (and an internet connection) can plug themselves into the market. And that represents an entirely different cost structure for businesses.

It’s worth noting that prior to Uber, Travis Kalanick founded a peer-to-peer music sharing company called Scour (1998). Its closest equivalent would have been Napster. Remember Napster? This is not a new trend.

That said, I still think we’re at the early stages of this shift. I predict that many other industries will see disruptors similar to Airbnb and Uber. And so when I look at it in this context, I have a hard time believing that fining UberX drivers is the most enlightened way forward.

I believe we should instead be taking a leadership position and trying to figure out how to adapt our rules and regulations to this changing economy. Toronto is not alone in this battle. But we could certainly be the one to lead the way out.

Old in new by Andrew Johnston on 500px

I was out for lunch with a colleague of mine yesterday afternoon and he said to me: “Brandon, I’m really surprised that you’re so interested in technology. It just seems so different compared to real estate and architecture.”

And I’ve certainly heard that exact same comment from a number of people before. But I don’t see it that way and here are a few reasons why.

The common thread for me between architecture, real estate development, and technology is that in all of these cases it is about imagining the way things could be in the future and then creating it. It’s about change. It’s about growth. It’s about creation. And I consider myself a builder in practically every sense of the word.

At the same time, each of these disciplines is about creating engaging spaces for people. Architects and real estate developers do it in the physical world, but many technology products strive to do exactly the same thing in the online world.

In fact, a couple of years ago I was fascinated to learn that Facebook has and continues to draw inspiration from many of the same books and philosophies that architects, planners, and developers rely on when it comes to creating engaging communities. The medium might be different, but it’s still about people.

Finally, as I’ve said many times before here on Architect This City, I think that the distinction between tech and non-tech companies and industries is quickly evaporating. Is Airbnb a tech company or a hospitality company? Is Uber a tech company or a taxi company? Pretty soon we’ll be saying that about many other industries.

Maybe it’s because I’ve always been interested in wading through the overlaps between disciplines, but this is just the way I see it.

Holding Pattern by Sean Arbuthnot on 500px

https://500px.com/embed.js

This afternoon I saw on Twitter that Toronto Police are now starting to crackdown on UberX drivers in the city. The investigation is called “Project Snowball” and they have already charged at least 11 people. The fines are anywhere from $200 to $20,000.

My response on Twitter was the following:

https://twitter.com/donnelly_b/status/582978841083248640

I get that Uber is a highly disruptive company. I’ve written about it many times before. But at the end of the day, this is not just about Uber. This is about a larger shift in the economy.

The buzz term is “sharing economy.” But one of the ways I like to think about it is like so: Facebook doesn’t produce any of its own content, and yet you could define it as a media company. Airbnb doesn’t own any rooms, and yet it is disrupting hotels. Uber doesn’t own any cars or plates, and yet it is disrupting the taxi industry.

What’s happening is that the internet and mobile phones are allowing for peer-to-peer connectivity and more decentralized forms of marketplace supply.

What does that mean?

It means that instead of having a fleet of cars or a centralized hotel building, anyone with an extra car or an extra room (and an internet connection) can plug themselves into the market. And that represents an entirely different cost structure for businesses.

It’s worth noting that prior to Uber, Travis Kalanick founded a peer-to-peer music sharing company called Scour (1998). Its closest equivalent would have been Napster. Remember Napster? This is not a new trend.

That said, I still think we’re at the early stages of this shift. I predict that many other industries will see disruptors similar to Airbnb and Uber. And so when I look at it in this context, I have a hard time believing that fining UberX drivers is the most enlightened way forward.

I believe we should instead be taking a leadership position and trying to figure out how to adapt our rules and regulations to this changing economy. Toronto is not alone in this battle. But we could certainly be the one to lead the way out.