4.2K+Subscribers
Popularity
20Supporters
Subscribe
In the world of startups, a unicorn is used to refer to a company with a market cap greater than $1 billion. A decacorn, the latest benchmark, is what it sounds like in that it's a company with a market cap greater than $10 billion.
While unicorn status is just one measure, valuations are an important yardstick for cities and countries. How many big new companies are you creating? That is a critical question because, presumably, these big new companies are going to create a bunch of new jobs and generate a lot of new wealth for people.
This recent blog post by Elad Gil is a great summary of what's happening in the world from this perspective. The raw data is also available if you'd like to dig deeper.
Here are the number of new unicorns since October 2020 by city:
Silicon Valley, not surprisingly, continues to dominate, followed by New York.
Here is a breakdown for the United States as a whole:
Miami and Austin have been in the news a lot over the past year and their startup scenes may very well be on the rise relative to other US cities. But it's interesting to see other smaller cities on this list, like Salt Lake City, who are, at least right now, holding their own.
I found this last set of two charts particularly interesting:
They are showing unicorn count (first) and unicorn market cap (second) as a percentage of their respective countries. For example, Silicon Valley is sitting at about 47% and 51%, respectively. So about half of all unicorns in the US have originated from this geography.
But for most other cities on this list, the percentage is much higher and, in many cases, it is 100%. (Silicon Valley is perhaps relatively low because the US has lots of other big and important cities.) For me, this shows the continued dominance of cities. If you're building the next great unicorn or decacorn, the data tells us that you're probably doing it in a big city somewhere. And I don't see that changing anytime soon.
I love mid-rise buildings. I think they are an incredibly livable scale of housing, which is why I am looking forward to moving into Junction House
Well here are some interesting figures (via MIT Technology Review):
In the past two decades, about 400 million people moved into China's cities -- so more than the entire population of the United States
In the world of startups, a unicorn is used to refer to a company with a market cap greater than $1 billion. A decacorn, the latest benchmark, is what it sounds like in that it's a company with a market cap greater than $10 billion.
While unicorn status is just one measure, valuations are an important yardstick for cities and countries. How many big new companies are you creating? That is a critical question because, presumably, these big new companies are going to create a bunch of new jobs and generate a lot of new wealth for people.
This recent blog post by Elad Gil is a great summary of what's happening in the world from this perspective. The raw data is also available if you'd like to dig deeper.
Here are the number of new unicorns since October 2020 by city:
Silicon Valley, not surprisingly, continues to dominate, followed by New York.
Here is a breakdown for the United States as a whole:
Miami and Austin have been in the news a lot over the past year and their startup scenes may very well be on the rise relative to other US cities. But it's interesting to see other smaller cities on this list, like Salt Lake City, who are, at least right now, holding their own.
I found this last set of two charts particularly interesting:
They are showing unicorn count (first) and unicorn market cap (second) as a percentage of their respective countries. For example, Silicon Valley is sitting at about 47% and 51%, respectively. So about half of all unicorns in the US have originated from this geography.
But for most other cities on this list, the percentage is much higher and, in many cases, it is 100%. (Silicon Valley is perhaps relatively low because the US has lots of other big and important cities.) For me, this shows the continued dominance of cities. If you're building the next great unicorn or decacorn, the data tells us that you're probably doing it in a big city somewhere. And I don't see that changing anytime soon.
I love mid-rise buildings. I think they are an incredibly livable scale of housing, which is why I am looking forward to moving into Junction House
Well here are some interesting figures (via MIT Technology Review):
In the past two decades, about 400 million people moved into China's cities -- so more than the entire population of the United States
Here are two excerpts from a recent Globe and Mail article -- titled "Toronto's mix of planning rules limits growth of mid-rise housing" -- that speaks to this dynamic:
For well over two decades, Toronto’s official plan has called for transit-oriented intensification along the “Avenues,” much of it expected in the form of mid-rise apartments that can be approved “as of right” – meaning without zoning or official plan appeals. Such buildings are often seen as more livable and human scale than 50- or 60-storey towers.
Yet, ironically, the highly prescriptive Mid-Rise Guidelines – combined with skyrocketing land, labour and building costs, as well as timelines that can run to six years for a mid-sized building – have turned these projects into pyramid-shaped unicorns, often filled with deep, dark and narrow units dubbed “bowling alleys.”
“The economics are so frail,” says architect Dermot Sweeny, founding principal of Sweeny & Co., who describes the angular plane requirements as “a massive cost” because they make the structure more complicated and expensive while reducing the amount of leasable or saleable floor space.
The critiques extend beyond the industry. Professor of architecture Richard Sommer, former dean of the John H. Daniels Faculty of Landscape, Architecture and Design at the University of Toronto, describes the controls in the guidelines as “very crude.” “They’re built around a mindset of deference to low-rise communities.”
My opinion is that, at a minimum, we need to revisit the "guidelines" that govern these kinds of projects and we need to make this scale of development "as-of-right." In the same way that laneway suites work, where you simply apply for a building permit, we need to make it just as easy for mid-rise housing. There just too many barriers and too many opportunities for something to come up that could hold up the entire project for months or years.
Building at a variety of scales is important for the fabric and vitality of our cities. Unfortunately, I have all but made up my mind that small doesn't work unless it's as-of-right. I would love to build another laneway house and I fully expect that to happen at some point in the near future. But I just can't seem to get my head around another mid-rise building right now. I wish that wasn't the case. And it's certainly not because of a lack of effort.
By 2035, about 70% of China's entire population is expected to be urban (up from 60% today and up from 30% two decades ago)
To accommodate this scale of growth, China's national urban development approach has shifted to something that now revolves around city clusters, or megalopolises (term coined by French geographer Jean Gottmann back in the 1950s to describe the Boston-Washington corridor in the Northeastern US)
By 2035, there are expected to be five major city clusters (see above)
One of the reasons for this is to improve cooperation across the various clusters -- less competition and less redundancy
But it's also about creating smaller more manageable cities -- is this what one needs to do after a certain scale, go polycentric?
To service these clusters, China is rolling out a network of 16 new high-speed rail lines
By 2035, China expects to have 200,000 kilometers of rail, with a third of it being high-speed -- assuming this happens, China will be home to 60% of the world's high-speed rail coverage
Current cost estimates for the construction of this network comes out to about US$150 million per kilometer
1-2-3 Rule: The plan is that everyone should be able to get around a city within 1 hour; a city cluster within 2 hours; and travel between the country's clusters inside of 3 hours
China is building.
Here are two excerpts from a recent Globe and Mail article -- titled "Toronto's mix of planning rules limits growth of mid-rise housing" -- that speaks to this dynamic:
For well over two decades, Toronto’s official plan has called for transit-oriented intensification along the “Avenues,” much of it expected in the form of mid-rise apartments that can be approved “as of right” – meaning without zoning or official plan appeals. Such buildings are often seen as more livable and human scale than 50- or 60-storey towers.
Yet, ironically, the highly prescriptive Mid-Rise Guidelines – combined with skyrocketing land, labour and building costs, as well as timelines that can run to six years for a mid-sized building – have turned these projects into pyramid-shaped unicorns, often filled with deep, dark and narrow units dubbed “bowling alleys.”
“The economics are so frail,” says architect Dermot Sweeny, founding principal of Sweeny & Co., who describes the angular plane requirements as “a massive cost” because they make the structure more complicated and expensive while reducing the amount of leasable or saleable floor space.
The critiques extend beyond the industry. Professor of architecture Richard Sommer, former dean of the John H. Daniels Faculty of Landscape, Architecture and Design at the University of Toronto, describes the controls in the guidelines as “very crude.” “They’re built around a mindset of deference to low-rise communities.”
My opinion is that, at a minimum, we need to revisit the "guidelines" that govern these kinds of projects and we need to make this scale of development "as-of-right." In the same way that laneway suites work, where you simply apply for a building permit, we need to make it just as easy for mid-rise housing. There just too many barriers and too many opportunities for something to come up that could hold up the entire project for months or years.
Building at a variety of scales is important for the fabric and vitality of our cities. Unfortunately, I have all but made up my mind that small doesn't work unless it's as-of-right. I would love to build another laneway house and I fully expect that to happen at some point in the near future. But I just can't seem to get my head around another mid-rise building right now. I wish that wasn't the case. And it's certainly not because of a lack of effort.
By 2035, about 70% of China's entire population is expected to be urban (up from 60% today and up from 30% two decades ago)
To accommodate this scale of growth, China's national urban development approach has shifted to something that now revolves around city clusters, or megalopolises (term coined by French geographer Jean Gottmann back in the 1950s to describe the Boston-Washington corridor in the Northeastern US)
By 2035, there are expected to be five major city clusters (see above)
One of the reasons for this is to improve cooperation across the various clusters -- less competition and less redundancy
But it's also about creating smaller more manageable cities -- is this what one needs to do after a certain scale, go polycentric?
To service these clusters, China is rolling out a network of 16 new high-speed rail lines
By 2035, China expects to have 200,000 kilometers of rail, with a third of it being high-speed -- assuming this happens, China will be home to 60% of the world's high-speed rail coverage
Current cost estimates for the construction of this network comes out to about US$150 million per kilometer
1-2-3 Rule: The plan is that everyone should be able to get around a city within 1 hour; a city cluster within 2 hours; and travel between the country's clusters inside of 3 hours
China is building.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog