Compared to 2019, the Tate galleries in London are seeing ~2.2 million fewer visitors, representing an approximately 27% decline in patronage. Much of this is coming from a decline in international/European visitors. They're at 61% of pre-COVID levels, whereas domestic visitors are at 95%.

One of the biggest groups to fall off has been young visitors (aged 16-24) from the EU. Between 2019-2020, the Tate Modern alone welcomed 609,000 people from this segment. By 2023-2024, this had dropped to 357,000 and it remains depressed.

So now the Tate is cutting its staff and blaming two macro changes: the pandemic and Brexit. Though some people are arguing that it's really because the programming has been too woke and stuff.

In my mind, the Brexit excuse makes the most sense because it has clearly created additional friction. If you're a school traveller in France and want to visit the UK, you now need to complete a school trip information form (I'm assuming this wasn't the case before).

And if you're a student from any another country, you need a passport. In some cases you may also need a visa. So it makes sense that schools and teachers might say, "yeah, let's make our lives easier and just stay within the EU."

Based on a very cursory review of how other cultural institutions are doing, this possibly checks out. In 2019, the Centre Pompidou in Paris welcomed over 3.2 million visitors and in 2024 it welcomed 3.2 million visitors. In 2019, the musée d'Orsay and the musée de l'Orangerie welcomed over 4.6 million visitors, and by 2023, this number had jumped to over 5.1 million.

Could it simply be better programming? Yes, of course. But it's hard to argue that erecting barriers to become more closed off from the rest of the world, won't, you know, make you more closed off from the rest of the world. Here we're just talking about one cultural institution in the UK. But the lesson scales.

I'm thinking of you right now, America.

Cover photo by Clifford on Unsplash

I never used to listen to very many podcasts. But lately I've started doing it while heading to/from meetings, either in the car or on the train. This past week I listened to a Bankless podcast talking about crypto and AI, and one of the arguments that was made was that it's probably a safe bet to assume that we're going to need dramatically more compute and electricity in the future.

This seems obvious enough. If you recall, there's no such thing as a wealthy, low-energy nation. If you're a wealthy country, you consume a lot of energy. And that's why Build Canada recently argued that we need a kind of energy revolution. By 2050, it's likely Canada will have 2-3x the electricity demand that we have today. So today I thought I would share a few related charts.

Here's electricity production by source across the world. Coal dominates.

Looking at renewables more closely, we again see that wind and solar are making a run for it. And if you consider that solar is one of the fastest growing energy sources, it's not inconceivable that it will start to become a more dominant source in the near term. In the US, solar PV projects make up the largest share of new planned generation capacity.

But the US is not winning this race today. Right now it's China. (Chart below sourced from here.) They have the largest cumulative solar capacity, followed by the EU, and then the US. That said, coal still forms a dominant part of China's energy mix, and the country continues to construct coal-fired power plants to meet its short-term energy needs.

It's unfortunate that Canada is not on this list. That needs to change.

Cover photo by Benjamin Jopen on Unsplash

For some reason, I woke up extra early this morning, well before my alarm. As soon as I came to and noticed the time, I immediately reached for my phone to pull up Twitter and see what happened with the UK referendum. And frankly, I was shocked to see that they had voted to leave the EU. 

Once I saw what had happened, I then went to my computer and started looking for maps of the voting results. 

Here’s one from the Guardian:

They also found that the best predictor of how people voted (with Scotland being a bit of an exception) was whether or not they had a degree. Residents with higher education were more likely to vote “remain.”

Here’s another vote map from the Telegraph, broken down by 12 regions:

According to these regions, only Northern Ireland, Scotland, and London voted to remain. If we get a bit more granular though, the map turns into this:

Not surprisingly, it is London and other big cities (remain) vs. the rest of England (leave). Here’s another case of urban divide.

Compared to 2019, the Tate galleries in London are seeing ~2.2 million fewer visitors, representing an approximately 27% decline in patronage. Much of this is coming from a decline in international/European visitors. They're at 61% of pre-COVID levels, whereas domestic visitors are at 95%.

One of the biggest groups to fall off has been young visitors (aged 16-24) from the EU. Between 2019-2020, the Tate Modern alone welcomed 609,000 people from this segment. By 2023-2024, this had dropped to 357,000 and it remains depressed.

So now the Tate is cutting its staff and blaming two macro changes: the pandemic and Brexit. Though some people are arguing that it's really because the programming has been too woke and stuff.

In my mind, the Brexit excuse makes the most sense because it has clearly created additional friction. If you're a school traveller in France and want to visit the UK, you now need to complete a school trip information form (I'm assuming this wasn't the case before).

And if you're a student from any another country, you need a passport. In some cases you may also need a visa. So it makes sense that schools and teachers might say, "yeah, let's make our lives easier and just stay within the EU."

Based on a very cursory review of how other cultural institutions are doing, this possibly checks out. In 2019, the Centre Pompidou in Paris welcomed over 3.2 million visitors and in 2024 it welcomed 3.2 million visitors. In 2019, the musée d'Orsay and the musée de l'Orangerie welcomed over 4.6 million visitors, and by 2023, this number had jumped to over 5.1 million.

Could it simply be better programming? Yes, of course. But it's hard to argue that erecting barriers to become more closed off from the rest of the world, won't, you know, make you more closed off from the rest of the world. Here we're just talking about one cultural institution in the UK. But the lesson scales.

I'm thinking of you right now, America.

Cover photo by Clifford on Unsplash

I never used to listen to very many podcasts. But lately I've started doing it while heading to/from meetings, either in the car or on the train. This past week I listened to a Bankless podcast talking about crypto and AI, and one of the arguments that was made was that it's probably a safe bet to assume that we're going to need dramatically more compute and electricity in the future.

This seems obvious enough. If you recall, there's no such thing as a wealthy, low-energy nation. If you're a wealthy country, you consume a lot of energy. And that's why Build Canada recently argued that we need a kind of energy revolution. By 2050, it's likely Canada will have 2-3x the electricity demand that we have today. So today I thought I would share a few related charts.

Here's electricity production by source across the world. Coal dominates.

Looking at renewables more closely, we again see that wind and solar are making a run for it. And if you consider that solar is one of the fastest growing energy sources, it's not inconceivable that it will start to become a more dominant source in the near term. In the US, solar PV projects make up the largest share of new planned generation capacity.

But the US is not winning this race today. Right now it's China. (Chart below sourced from here.) They have the largest cumulative solar capacity, followed by the EU, and then the US. That said, coal still forms a dominant part of China's energy mix, and the country continues to construct coal-fired power plants to meet its short-term energy needs.

It's unfortunate that Canada is not on this list. That needs to change.

Cover photo by Benjamin Jopen on Unsplash

For some reason, I woke up extra early this morning, well before my alarm. As soon as I came to and noticed the time, I immediately reached for my phone to pull up Twitter and see what happened with the UK referendum. And frankly, I was shocked to see that they had voted to leave the EU. 

Once I saw what had happened, I then went to my computer and started looking for maps of the voting results. 

Here’s one from the Guardian:

They also found that the best predictor of how people voted (with Scotland being a bit of an exception) was whether or not they had a degree. Residents with higher education were more likely to vote “remain.”

Here’s another vote map from the Telegraph, broken down by 12 regions:

According to these regions, only Northern Ireland, Scotland, and London voted to remain. If we get a bit more granular though, the map turns into this:

Not surprisingly, it is London and other big cities (remain) vs. the rest of England (leave). Here’s another case of urban divide.