The best part about making predictions for a year ahead is that at the end of the year you get to look back with humility on what you were thinking at the time and realize how much you missed and how different things turned out.
So, what might happen in 2026?
Condominium development in Toronto: I think 2026 will be an important turning point year. If I keep saying this, at some point I'll be right, right? 2026 is the first year where we will start to see new condominium completions from the last cycle fall off significantly. Last year (2025), we were projecting nearly 32,000 condominium home completions. This year, it's projected to drop to ~17,487, with 2027 falling off even further as we head to almost no new supply (based on the current pipeline). What I think this means is that the first half of 2026 will still be painful as the market absorbs new inventory and the inventory from 2025 (including unsold units, units in default, and other scenarios), but that things will start to stabilize and feel better toward the end of 2026 and into 2027. New supply will now be delivering below the 10-year average for the first time in many years.
Purpose-built rental development in Toronto: The story since the condominium market turned in 2022 has been the flip to rental. But not all developers and sites can make this switch and, as I have argued before, the numbers suggest that it won't be enough to offset our dwindling new condominium supply. That said, I think rental rates will remain soft throughout 2026. The supply crunch we're headed toward will need a bit more time to be felt by the market. In the meantime, we will see the highly-amenitized purpose-built rental model fail. The strategy of using over-the-top amenities to drive high rents will finally fall apart in the current market environment. In its place will be a flight to value: boring rental models that offer a quality housing experience at reasonable prices.
Boutique end-user projects: In markets like Toronto and Vancouver, where the development landscape remains unfavourable, we will see a continued focus on smaller projects and projects catering exclusively to end-users. This demand segment is the most resilient and this re-orientation will help the next development cycle start on more solid footing.
Foreign buyer ban: The Canadian federal government will relax the foreign buyer ban (which is set to expire on January 1, 2027) and allow foreigners to buy pre-construction homes. There are already rumblings about this so I acknowledge this isn't that bold a prediction. But beyond just relaxing the ban, I think government will start actively courting foreign capital to help solve our housing needs.
AI bubble: 2026 will be the year that the AI bubble bursts. Not because AI isn't powerful tech that will continue to change the world, but because we are, in the words of investor Howard Marks, in an "inflection bubble." This is different from a fake bubble like Tulip Mania where there was ultimately no underlying reason for tulips to be valued so highly. An inflection bubble is where we get the direction right (AI is a big deal), but the magnitude wrong (shit, we overspent on CapEx). Not every AI company can and will survive. There will only be a select few once the dust settles. And since AI seems to be what's driving the market these days, I think the market will close the end of this year down (measured as the performance of the S&P 500).
Continued AI adoption: That said, AI will continue to change the way we all live and work. While this is going to put some people out of a job, my bias is an optimistic one in that new technologies tend to create new opportunities and generally grow the overall economy. However, I think that at least two enormous internet-type shifts are underway. One, AI is creating a massive productivity leverage for the people and firms that know how to harness it and, two, the backend of the global financial market is moving "onchain." These are profound shifts that I, unfortunately, think will lead to even more social and political division in the short term. A government somewhere in the world will respond with a universal basic income.
AI bubble impact on real estate: An AI bubble bursting will generally help the real estate market as investors look for returns somewhere else, with the exception of the data center market. It will also create downward pressure on interest rates (which, in the US, remain the highest they have been since the Great Recession in 2008). As we know, lower rates help boost the values of highly-levered assets like real estate.
AR/VR/AI for design and construction coordination: I was blown away the first time I tried Apple Vision Pro. It's a magical experience. But it has failed as a consumer product and who knows what Apple will launch next. Regardless, this year we will see clear use cases emerge for AR, VR, and smart glasses. I'd like to see the problems of design and construction coordination get immediately solved because they're massive and costly and they have yet to be solved.
Mainstream tokenization: In yesterday's post, I spoke about the lack of a breakout consumer-facing web3 app in 2025 (with honourable mention going to the Base app). But perhaps one of the big stories of last year was stablecoins entering the mainstream. Most people now agree they have achieved product-market fit. This is crypto solving real problems (cheap/fast cross-border remittances, payments, etc) with users not needing to think or care about the underlying blockchain technology. In 2026, we will see a noteworthy office building or apartment building get tokenized on the Ethereum blockchain.
Autonomous vehicles: Last year, I predicted that autonomous vehicles were going to have a year, and it certainly felt that way. This year will be the first year that I ride in one. I came close on a layover in San Francisco in December. I considered leaving the airport and taking one to Apple Park. But I would have been cutting it too close. In 2026, we will see an insurer refuse to cover a human driver for the first time, marking a clear global shift toward autonomy. Already, none of us should be driving cars anymore looking at current safety data.
Polycentric world: Some have argued that 2025 marked the end of globalization. I'm not sure that is accurate. I think it marked the end of the US-led post-war world order and the acceleration of a more polycentric world order. It was the start of greater US insularity. In 2026, Canada will start to see the benefits of this shift. What it is doing is shaking us out of complacency and forcing us to look east to Europe and west to Asia, as opposed to just south to the US.
What are your predictions for the year ahead?
We've been talking a lot about autonomous vehicles, and in particular Waymo, on this blog. In my opinion, the safety records — which Waymo has published after driving more than 100 million driverless miles — already suggest that none of us should be driving cars anymore. Some or many of you will disagree with this statement, but there's a reason why car crashes are the number two cause of death for children and young adults in the US.
So not only is this a tech breakthrough and a profound city-building shift, but it's also a public health breakthrough. Here's a recent opinion piece published in the New York Times by Dr. Jonathan Slotkin, the vice chair of neurosurgery at the Geisinger Health System in Pennsylvania. I found this statement particularly interesting:
In medical research, there’s a practice of ending a study early when the results are too striking to ignore. We stop when there is unexpected harm. We also stop for overwhelming benefit, when a treatment is working so well that it would be unethical to continue giving anyone a placebo. When an intervention works this clearly, you change what you do.
Now the imperative:
There’s a public health imperative to quickly expand the adoption of autonomous vehicles. More than 39,000 Americans died
Fred Wilson chose the perfect quote by William Gibson, here, to describe the current status of self-driving cars: "The future is already here — it's just not very evenly distributed." That's how it feels right now.
Waymo isn't in Toronto yet, but they are expanding rapidly throughout the US and elsewhere. Last week they announced fully autonomous driving in five new cities: Miami, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, and Orlando. Autonomy is here, as we have talked about many times. There's no longer a question.
But what's interesting is that we're at the point in the hype cycle where expectations are not as inflated as they were a number of years ago (at least that's the way it appears to me). Years ago, everyone in real estate was talking about how it would disrupt parking requirements and reshape the landscape of our cities.
So when does this happen?
Fred ended his post by saying that "the downstream effects of this technology and behavior change are going to be profound." But he doesn't get into what these changes might be. Let's do a reminder of that now. Some of the most commonly believed consequences are as follows:
Cars consume a vast amount of real estate and also spend the vast majority of their lives just sitting around idle. Switching to a "mobility-as-a-service" model will require dramatically less parking. This is going to force landlords to repurpose the parking they already have and it's going to encourage developers to build new buildings with reduced parking, or no parking at all. That will be good for housing affordability.
However, the autonomous vehicles will need to park and corral somewhere at some point. My guess is that we will see something akin to rail yards today. This would be a good use for some of our excess parking, though this use won't require nearly as much. I would also imagine that many of the cars will leave the most valuable and dense parts of a city during off-peak periods.
At the same time, it's not clear what the winning business model for AVs will be. Will it be a Waymo-like model where the ride-hailing company owns and operates all of the cars? Will it be a Tesla Robotaxi model where individuals own the cars and put them out to work? In this case, maybe the Robotaxis just go back to people's individual garages. Or will Uber remain the dominant platform? Meaning, an asset-light model that aggregates customer demand remains the highest-value component of the stack. Personally, I can't see Tesla's Robotaxi model being very lucrative for individual owners, so I'm inclined to look toward Waymo and Uber.
The best part about making predictions for a year ahead is that at the end of the year you get to look back with humility on what you were thinking at the time and realize how much you missed and how different things turned out.
So, what might happen in 2026?
Condominium development in Toronto: I think 2026 will be an important turning point year. If I keep saying this, at some point I'll be right, right? 2026 is the first year where we will start to see new condominium completions from the last cycle fall off significantly. Last year (2025), we were projecting nearly 32,000 condominium home completions. This year, it's projected to drop to ~17,487, with 2027 falling off even further as we head to almost no new supply (based on the current pipeline). What I think this means is that the first half of 2026 will still be painful as the market absorbs new inventory and the inventory from 2025 (including unsold units, units in default, and other scenarios), but that things will start to stabilize and feel better toward the end of 2026 and into 2027. New supply will now be delivering below the 10-year average for the first time in many years.
Purpose-built rental development in Toronto: The story since the condominium market turned in 2022 has been the flip to rental. But not all developers and sites can make this switch and, as I have argued before, the numbers suggest that it won't be enough to offset our dwindling new condominium supply. That said, I think rental rates will remain soft throughout 2026. The supply crunch we're headed toward will need a bit more time to be felt by the market. In the meantime, we will see the highly-amenitized purpose-built rental model fail. The strategy of using over-the-top amenities to drive high rents will finally fall apart in the current market environment. In its place will be a flight to value: boring rental models that offer a quality housing experience at reasonable prices.
Boutique end-user projects: In markets like Toronto and Vancouver, where the development landscape remains unfavourable, we will see a continued focus on smaller projects and projects catering exclusively to end-users. This demand segment is the most resilient and this re-orientation will help the next development cycle start on more solid footing.
Foreign buyer ban: The Canadian federal government will relax the foreign buyer ban (which is set to expire on January 1, 2027) and allow foreigners to buy pre-construction homes. There are already rumblings about this so I acknowledge this isn't that bold a prediction. But beyond just relaxing the ban, I think government will start actively courting foreign capital to help solve our housing needs.
AI bubble: 2026 will be the year that the AI bubble bursts. Not because AI isn't powerful tech that will continue to change the world, but because we are, in the words of investor Howard Marks, in an "inflection bubble." This is different from a fake bubble like Tulip Mania where there was ultimately no underlying reason for tulips to be valued so highly. An inflection bubble is where we get the direction right (AI is a big deal), but the magnitude wrong (shit, we overspent on CapEx). Not every AI company can and will survive. There will only be a select few once the dust settles. And since AI seems to be what's driving the market these days, I think the market will close the end of this year down (measured as the performance of the S&P 500).
Continued AI adoption: That said, AI will continue to change the way we all live and work. While this is going to put some people out of a job, my bias is an optimistic one in that new technologies tend to create new opportunities and generally grow the overall economy. However, I think that at least two enormous internet-type shifts are underway. One, AI is creating a massive productivity leverage for the people and firms that know how to harness it and, two, the backend of the global financial market is moving "onchain." These are profound shifts that I, unfortunately, think will lead to even more social and political division in the short term. A government somewhere in the world will respond with a universal basic income.
AI bubble impact on real estate: An AI bubble bursting will generally help the real estate market as investors look for returns somewhere else, with the exception of the data center market. It will also create downward pressure on interest rates (which, in the US, remain the highest they have been since the Great Recession in 2008). As we know, lower rates help boost the values of highly-levered assets like real estate.
AR/VR/AI for design and construction coordination: I was blown away the first time I tried Apple Vision Pro. It's a magical experience. But it has failed as a consumer product and who knows what Apple will launch next. Regardless, this year we will see clear use cases emerge for AR, VR, and smart glasses. I'd like to see the problems of design and construction coordination get immediately solved because they're massive and costly and they have yet to be solved.
Mainstream tokenization: In yesterday's post, I spoke about the lack of a breakout consumer-facing web3 app in 2025 (with honourable mention going to the Base app). But perhaps one of the big stories of last year was stablecoins entering the mainstream. Most people now agree they have achieved product-market fit. This is crypto solving real problems (cheap/fast cross-border remittances, payments, etc) with users not needing to think or care about the underlying blockchain technology. In 2026, we will see a noteworthy office building or apartment building get tokenized on the Ethereum blockchain.
Autonomous vehicles: Last year, I predicted that autonomous vehicles were going to have a year, and it certainly felt that way. This year will be the first year that I ride in one. I came close on a layover in San Francisco in December. I considered leaving the airport and taking one to Apple Park. But I would have been cutting it too close. In 2026, we will see an insurer refuse to cover a human driver for the first time, marking a clear global shift toward autonomy. Already, none of us should be driving cars anymore looking at current safety data.
Polycentric world: Some have argued that 2025 marked the end of globalization. I'm not sure that is accurate. I think it marked the end of the US-led post-war world order and the acceleration of a more polycentric world order. It was the start of greater US insularity. In 2026, Canada will start to see the benefits of this shift. What it is doing is shaking us out of complacency and forcing us to look east to Europe and west to Asia, as opposed to just south to the US.
What are your predictions for the year ahead?
We've been talking a lot about autonomous vehicles, and in particular Waymo, on this blog. In my opinion, the safety records — which Waymo has published after driving more than 100 million driverless miles — already suggest that none of us should be driving cars anymore. Some or many of you will disagree with this statement, but there's a reason why car crashes are the number two cause of death for children and young adults in the US.
So not only is this a tech breakthrough and a profound city-building shift, but it's also a public health breakthrough. Here's a recent opinion piece published in the New York Times by Dr. Jonathan Slotkin, the vice chair of neurosurgery at the Geisinger Health System in Pennsylvania. I found this statement particularly interesting:
In medical research, there’s a practice of ending a study early when the results are too striking to ignore. We stop when there is unexpected harm. We also stop for overwhelming benefit, when a treatment is working so well that it would be unethical to continue giving anyone a placebo. When an intervention works this clearly, you change what you do.
Now the imperative:
There’s a public health imperative to quickly expand the adoption of autonomous vehicles. More than 39,000 Americans died
Fred Wilson chose the perfect quote by William Gibson, here, to describe the current status of self-driving cars: "The future is already here — it's just not very evenly distributed." That's how it feels right now.
Waymo isn't in Toronto yet, but they are expanding rapidly throughout the US and elsewhere. Last week they announced fully autonomous driving in five new cities: Miami, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, and Orlando. Autonomy is here, as we have talked about many times. There's no longer a question.
But what's interesting is that we're at the point in the hype cycle where expectations are not as inflated as they were a number of years ago (at least that's the way it appears to me). Years ago, everyone in real estate was talking about how it would disrupt parking requirements and reshape the landscape of our cities.
So when does this happen?
Fred ended his post by saying that "the downstream effects of this technology and behavior change are going to be profound." But he doesn't get into what these changes might be. Let's do a reminder of that now. Some of the most commonly believed consequences are as follows:
Cars consume a vast amount of real estate and also spend the vast majority of their lives just sitting around idle. Switching to a "mobility-as-a-service" model will require dramatically less parking. This is going to force landlords to repurpose the parking they already have and it's going to encourage developers to build new buildings with reduced parking, or no parking at all. That will be good for housing affordability.
However, the autonomous vehicles will need to park and corral somewhere at some point. My guess is that we will see something akin to rail yards today. This would be a good use for some of our excess parking, though this use won't require nearly as much. I would also imagine that many of the cars will leave the most valuable and dense parts of a city during off-peak periods.
At the same time, it's not clear what the winning business model for AVs will be. Will it be a Waymo-like model where the ride-hailing company owns and operates all of the cars? Will it be a Tesla Robotaxi model where individuals own the cars and put them out to work? In this case, maybe the Robotaxis just go back to people's individual garages. Or will Uber remain the dominant platform? Meaning, an asset-light model that aggregates customer demand remains the highest-value component of the stack. Personally, I can't see Tesla's Robotaxi model being very lucrative for individual owners, so I'm inclined to look toward Waymo and Uber.
Dr. Slotkin goes on to talk about some of the cities that are pushing back against AV adoption, or simply erecting barriers, namely Washington, D.C. and Boston. That's too bad. This is a decision that can be easily guided by data: Which is the safest option for the greatest number of people? Just do that. Dr. Slotkin gets it right: "policymakers need to stop fighting this transformation and start planning for it."
Street parking will be replaced by a proliferation of pick-up/drop-off zones. This urban design problem will need to be solved as we dramatically increase the number of people getting in and out of AVs on busy urban streets.
In the mid-1990s, Italian physicist Cesare Marchetti remarked that, all throughout history, humans have tended to cap their commute times at about 60 minutes per day. Something like a half hour each way. This became known as Marchetti's Constant. What this has meant is that as new technologies (streetcars, cars, and so on) allowed us to move faster within that 60 minutes, humans have tended to sprawl further outward. Will AVs do the same, and could they actually break Marchetti's Constant?
As we all know, the key difference with AVs is that we will no longer need to pay attention to our commute. We could sit in an AV and sleep, work, watch a movie, or do whatever else we'd like. One can think of it like a mobile office or mobile living room. This should, in theory, make commuting long distances a lot more enjoyable and encourage even greater "super sprawl."
The counterforce to this phenomenon is that if more people are willing to commute long distances in an AV, we will see demand greatly outstrip supply on our roads. In other words, traffic congestion in large cities will get even worse. I think this will force more/most cities to adopt congestion pricing. Politically, it will finally become acceptable, because now we'll be able to use "the machines" as our scapegoat. They're overrunning our cities! Ironically, this means that we won't adopt the thing that makes driving a lot better until we all stop driving.
So where do these opposing forces ultimately net out? Well, my view (and bias) is that human-scaled walkable communities will always have value. We are social animals. I also think that the experience within our cities will improve dramatically. Pedestrian safety will increase (the data already supports this) and far less space will be dedicated to cars. Good.
At the same time, I think that reducing commute friction will encourage an exurban explosion. Like the technologies that came before AVs, it's going to empower humans to further decentralize. What this will do is exacerbate the divide between our urban cores and our suburban and exurban fringes.
Of course, this is just me surmising. I don't really know. But AVs are here, and I think it's time we get back to discussing and planning for the second and third-order effects of this technology.
Dr. Slotkin goes on to talk about some of the cities that are pushing back against AV adoption, or simply erecting barriers, namely Washington, D.C. and Boston. That's too bad. This is a decision that can be easily guided by data: Which is the safest option for the greatest number of people? Just do that. Dr. Slotkin gets it right: "policymakers need to stop fighting this transformation and start planning for it."
Street parking will be replaced by a proliferation of pick-up/drop-off zones. This urban design problem will need to be solved as we dramatically increase the number of people getting in and out of AVs on busy urban streets.
In the mid-1990s, Italian physicist Cesare Marchetti remarked that, all throughout history, humans have tended to cap their commute times at about 60 minutes per day. Something like a half hour each way. This became known as Marchetti's Constant. What this has meant is that as new technologies (streetcars, cars, and so on) allowed us to move faster within that 60 minutes, humans have tended to sprawl further outward. Will AVs do the same, and could they actually break Marchetti's Constant?
As we all know, the key difference with AVs is that we will no longer need to pay attention to our commute. We could sit in an AV and sleep, work, watch a movie, or do whatever else we'd like. One can think of it like a mobile office or mobile living room. This should, in theory, make commuting long distances a lot more enjoyable and encourage even greater "super sprawl."
The counterforce to this phenomenon is that if more people are willing to commute long distances in an AV, we will see demand greatly outstrip supply on our roads. In other words, traffic congestion in large cities will get even worse. I think this will force more/most cities to adopt congestion pricing. Politically, it will finally become acceptable, because now we'll be able to use "the machines" as our scapegoat. They're overrunning our cities! Ironically, this means that we won't adopt the thing that makes driving a lot better until we all stop driving.
So where do these opposing forces ultimately net out? Well, my view (and bias) is that human-scaled walkable communities will always have value. We are social animals. I also think that the experience within our cities will improve dramatically. Pedestrian safety will increase (the data already supports this) and far less space will be dedicated to cars. Good.
At the same time, I think that reducing commute friction will encourage an exurban explosion. Like the technologies that came before AVs, it's going to empower humans to further decentralize. What this will do is exacerbate the divide between our urban cores and our suburban and exurban fringes.
Of course, this is just me surmising. I don't really know. But AVs are here, and I think it's time we get back to discussing and planning for the second and third-order effects of this technology.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog