Subscribe
I have been following Chris Dixon for many years and, yesterday, I learned that he has written a new book called, Read Write Own: Building the Next Era of the Internet. It is a book about web3 (crypto things) and the title is based on thinking about the evolution of the internet in terms of these three phases:
The first act, called the “read era”, circa 1990-2005, democratized information. Anyone could type a few words into a browser and read about almost any topic through websites.
The second act, the “read-write era”, roughly 2006-2020, democratized publishing. Anyone could write and publish to mass audiences on social networks and other services through posts.
The third act, the “read-write-own era”, 2020-present, is democratizing ownership. Anyone can become a stakeholder in a digital service or network, gaining power, governance rights, and economic upside previously reserved for only a small number of corporate affiliates, like stockholders and employees.
The book won't be out until March 2024, but if you're interested, maybe you want to pre-order it or at least get it on your radar. I immediately put this in my queue and I'm looking forward to welcoming it to the pile of books next to my bed.
Full disclosure: I don't get anything if you pre-order this book. I'm only putting this out there because I have a high degree of conviction about this coming shift and because, in the future, I want to be able to look back at posts like this one here. I think they'll age well.
I have heard from some of you that you don't like it when I write about crypto and NFTs. This personal blog is supposed to be largely about city building after all. So today I thought I would write about crypto and NFTs. More specifically, this podcast episode, which I watched last night.
It's with Marc Andreessen and Chris Dixon of the venture firm a16z, and it's actually less about specific things like NFTs and more about the reinvention of the internet in general. Why I found it particularly interesting is that Marc co-invented the first widely-used web browser. Anyone remember Netscape?
So he was around for what we are now calling web 1 and he is around for what we are today calling web 3. And there are lots of parallels between then and now. Similar to today with crypto, the early internet had lots of critics and lots of people who thought it was dumb and that it would never amount to much.
Oops.
Here are a few other thoughts and ideas from the podcast that I found interesting (some of them even relate to city building):
No matter how many times we have seen the same movie, humanity seems doomed to repeat the same mistakes when it comes to, among other things, embracing new ideas and innovations. I agree with Marc in that part of this is generational. Younger people are often more open to new ideas because they view it as a way for them to establish themselves and make their mark on the world. Whereas older people (established people) often view new ideas and change as a threat to their current position in the world.
Marc drops a number of books throughout the talk and one of them is The Mystery of Capital -- Why Capitalism Succeeds in the West and Fails Everywhere Else. This is a well known book by Hernando De Soto and the big idea is that property ownership and property rights are really the fundamental ingredients in our modern world. People need to know that if they hold title and invest money into something, it's not just going to get taken away by someone. And it is this underlying legal structure that has allowed people to leverage property into wealth.
This is a fascinating observation in its own right, but it also relates to crypto. Hear me out. Chris Dixon makes the argument in the episode that web1 democratized information (anyone can search for stuff), and that web2 democratized publishing (anyone can share stuff through platforms like Twitter or the blogging platform I'm writing on right now). He then goes on to argue that the promise of web3 and crypto is really to democratize ownership of the internet. Anyone can buy crypto tokens.
Why might this be a big deal? Well if property rights in our offline world are a fundamental ingredient to modern society, it seems logical to me that property rights in our digital world(s) might also be equally transformative. And this is precisely one of the things that blockchain technologies enable for the very first time.
Finally, on a mostly unrelated note, I liked Marc's comparison of happiness vs. satisfaction in life. Happiness, he explains, is like getting an ice cream cone on a hot summer day. The first and second feel great, but after that you move on. Satisfaction on the other hand is enduring. It's the feeling you get from working on something really challenging and then finally succeeding. And that's exactly how I feel about real estate development. There are lots of shitty days and lots of grinding. But in the end, I do feel very satisfied.
Alex Bozikovic of the Globe and Mail recently made a good point in one of his articles about how challenging it is to properly "placemake" when it comes to large-scale masterplanned projects. This blog post is not at all intended as a commentary on any one project, but I would like to acknowledge that, for a variety of reasons, places do often need time, layers of history, and some patina on them in order to really settle in. When you build big, it can be easy for things to end up feeling sterile.
It is also true that tastes can change over time (as we have talked about before), though you could argue that this change is driven by the settling in process. Spaces start to get rethought, reconfigured and recast, and that can make them more desirable.
But it's not just about time. What else is going on here that makes masterplanning so tricky? Four things immediately come to mind. If you have any others, please share them in the comment section below.
One, a lot of the old stuff that we love is now illegal and no longer possible. Here is a great example from Paris that I wrote about. But there are countless others. Another example from Toronto might be the corner retail stores that used to dot our residential neighborhoods. In my opinion, these are wonderful additions. They create urban vibrancy. But today they are generally legal non-conforming uses.
Two, great urban experiences often happen at the micro scale. Things like the perfect patio with a great view of the street and full afternoon sun. Or that intimate side street lined with beautiful homes. These are some of the moments that make cities great. But when you're masterplanning at the master scale, it is perhaps easier for more of these intimate details to get lost.
Three, any new community needs to be seeded. Cities and communities are nothing without people. And so what will be the anchors? What will bring people here? How are we going to animate its streets and public spaces? These can be tricky problems to solve and they often take time (and density).
Four, masterplanning likely equals fewer feedback loops. I recently came across this great line from Chris Dixon: "Composability is to software as compounding interest is to finance." Composability is the ability to mix and match software components. And the idea here is that open source software allows new software to get built on top of existing stuff (just like interest on top of interest). This way the world never needs to solve a problem twice.
I'm not sure what the pithy line should be for city building, but cities also compound. We are constantly building on top of the efforts of others, except when we're largely not, and we're designing a whole bunch of new stuff all at once, as is typically the case with masterplanned projects. This isn't inherently wrong, but building a community from scratch will always be more difficult than adding on to one that is already successful.
I have been following Chris Dixon for many years and, yesterday, I learned that he has written a new book called, Read Write Own: Building the Next Era of the Internet. It is a book about web3 (crypto things) and the title is based on thinking about the evolution of the internet in terms of these three phases:
The first act, called the “read era”, circa 1990-2005, democratized information. Anyone could type a few words into a browser and read about almost any topic through websites.
The second act, the “read-write era”, roughly 2006-2020, democratized publishing. Anyone could write and publish to mass audiences on social networks and other services through posts.
The third act, the “read-write-own era”, 2020-present, is democratizing ownership. Anyone can become a stakeholder in a digital service or network, gaining power, governance rights, and economic upside previously reserved for only a small number of corporate affiliates, like stockholders and employees.
The book won't be out until March 2024, but if you're interested, maybe you want to pre-order it or at least get it on your radar. I immediately put this in my queue and I'm looking forward to welcoming it to the pile of books next to my bed.
Full disclosure: I don't get anything if you pre-order this book. I'm only putting this out there because I have a high degree of conviction about this coming shift and because, in the future, I want to be able to look back at posts like this one here. I think they'll age well.
I have heard from some of you that you don't like it when I write about crypto and NFTs. This personal blog is supposed to be largely about city building after all. So today I thought I would write about crypto and NFTs. More specifically, this podcast episode, which I watched last night.
It's with Marc Andreessen and Chris Dixon of the venture firm a16z, and it's actually less about specific things like NFTs and more about the reinvention of the internet in general. Why I found it particularly interesting is that Marc co-invented the first widely-used web browser. Anyone remember Netscape?
So he was around for what we are now calling web 1 and he is around for what we are today calling web 3. And there are lots of parallels between then and now. Similar to today with crypto, the early internet had lots of critics and lots of people who thought it was dumb and that it would never amount to much.
Oops.
Here are a few other thoughts and ideas from the podcast that I found interesting (some of them even relate to city building):
No matter how many times we have seen the same movie, humanity seems doomed to repeat the same mistakes when it comes to, among other things, embracing new ideas and innovations. I agree with Marc in that part of this is generational. Younger people are often more open to new ideas because they view it as a way for them to establish themselves and make their mark on the world. Whereas older people (established people) often view new ideas and change as a threat to their current position in the world.
Marc drops a number of books throughout the talk and one of them is The Mystery of Capital -- Why Capitalism Succeeds in the West and Fails Everywhere Else. This is a well known book by Hernando De Soto and the big idea is that property ownership and property rights are really the fundamental ingredients in our modern world. People need to know that if they hold title and invest money into something, it's not just going to get taken away by someone. And it is this underlying legal structure that has allowed people to leverage property into wealth.
This is a fascinating observation in its own right, but it also relates to crypto. Hear me out. Chris Dixon makes the argument in the episode that web1 democratized information (anyone can search for stuff), and that web2 democratized publishing (anyone can share stuff through platforms like Twitter or the blogging platform I'm writing on right now). He then goes on to argue that the promise of web3 and crypto is really to democratize ownership of the internet. Anyone can buy crypto tokens.
Why might this be a big deal? Well if property rights in our offline world are a fundamental ingredient to modern society, it seems logical to me that property rights in our digital world(s) might also be equally transformative. And this is precisely one of the things that blockchain technologies enable for the very first time.
Finally, on a mostly unrelated note, I liked Marc's comparison of happiness vs. satisfaction in life. Happiness, he explains, is like getting an ice cream cone on a hot summer day. The first and second feel great, but after that you move on. Satisfaction on the other hand is enduring. It's the feeling you get from working on something really challenging and then finally succeeding. And that's exactly how I feel about real estate development. There are lots of shitty days and lots of grinding. But in the end, I do feel very satisfied.
Alex Bozikovic of the Globe and Mail recently made a good point in one of his articles about how challenging it is to properly "placemake" when it comes to large-scale masterplanned projects. This blog post is not at all intended as a commentary on any one project, but I would like to acknowledge that, for a variety of reasons, places do often need time, layers of history, and some patina on them in order to really settle in. When you build big, it can be easy for things to end up feeling sterile.
It is also true that tastes can change over time (as we have talked about before), though you could argue that this change is driven by the settling in process. Spaces start to get rethought, reconfigured and recast, and that can make them more desirable.
But it's not just about time. What else is going on here that makes masterplanning so tricky? Four things immediately come to mind. If you have any others, please share them in the comment section below.
One, a lot of the old stuff that we love is now illegal and no longer possible. Here is a great example from Paris that I wrote about. But there are countless others. Another example from Toronto might be the corner retail stores that used to dot our residential neighborhoods. In my opinion, these are wonderful additions. They create urban vibrancy. But today they are generally legal non-conforming uses.
Two, great urban experiences often happen at the micro scale. Things like the perfect patio with a great view of the street and full afternoon sun. Or that intimate side street lined with beautiful homes. These are some of the moments that make cities great. But when you're masterplanning at the master scale, it is perhaps easier for more of these intimate details to get lost.
Three, any new community needs to be seeded. Cities and communities are nothing without people. And so what will be the anchors? What will bring people here? How are we going to animate its streets and public spaces? These can be tricky problems to solve and they often take time (and density).
Four, masterplanning likely equals fewer feedback loops. I recently came across this great line from Chris Dixon: "Composability is to software as compounding interest is to finance." Composability is the ability to mix and match software components. And the idea here is that open source software allows new software to get built on top of existing stuff (just like interest on top of interest). This way the world never needs to solve a problem twice.
I'm not sure what the pithy line should be for city building, but cities also compound. We are constantly building on top of the efforts of others, except when we're largely not, and we're designing a whole bunch of new stuff all at once, as is typically the case with masterplanned projects. This isn't inherently wrong, but building a community from scratch will always be more difficult than adding on to one that is already successful.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog