Harvard Business Review recently published a conversation between Roger Martin – who is the former dean of the Rotman School – and Tim Brown – who is CEO of the global design firm IDEO. The title of the talk is “Capitalism Needs Design Thinking.” But I decided to call this post something else after reading Roger say this:

My friend Dan Pink argued in an HBR piece in 2004 that the MFA is the new MBA. I wrote to Dan to say that if that’s the case we have a problem because America pumps out a mere 1,500 MFAs a year versus 150,000 MBAs. Thirty MFAs per state per year is just a rounding error. This is one of the reasons I was so keen on transforming business education. It’s a huge infrastructure: 27% of all graduate students in America are in an MBA program. If they’re all being taught how to analyze things to death, that’s going to affect how they’ll shape the future of business.

But what this conversation is really about is the future of democratic capitalism, which is why I think it’s a nice tie-in to yesterday’s Architect This City post about startups and inequality.

I’m very worried about the fact that in America we’ve now gone 24 years without the median household income rising — it was the same in 2013 as it was in 1989. That’s unprecedented in American history. The longest that’s ever happened before is when it took just under 20 years to recover, after the Great Depression. This long period of stagnation has coincided with the top 1% of the economy doing spectacularly.

And so while it’s easy to point fingers at the tech community and say that it’s to blame for rising income inequality, the reality, I think, is that there are other more fundamental issues that need addressing. Roger and Tim believe that design thinking can help. Here’s another great snippet from the former:

I think the way that government generally works is to think, think, think, think, and then finally create legislation that brings about some change, and then they ignore their legislation and say okay, we’re finished with that. Then people go and figure out how to game that legislation, and the government doesn’t do anything about it. Whereas if they had a design view of it, they’d say when they passed a bill, that’s just the best idea we’ve got now, we have to go see how it works in practice, and then fix it. That’s just not the mentality.

Technology is having a profound impact on the world. And it’s something that is very visible. But part of the challenge is that governments aren’t keeping up. They are almost never out in front.

So when something new comes along, like Airbnb or Uber, the reaction is to just stop it. It doesn’t conform to the rules and regulations currently in place, and so it shouldn’t exist.

But as Roger and Tim point out, maybe we need to look at our rules and regulations as simply part of an iterative process (like designers do). Because if we did that, maybe we’d be better equipped to transfer the benefits of innovation over to society as a whole.

Image: HBR

I was out last night near Yonge and College for a friend’s going away party and the topic of the College Park building came up (originally an Eaton’s department store). We talked about how in the 1920s it was planned as a 38-storey Art Deco tower (see above photo), but that the Great Depression forced Eaton’s to scale back their plans. They ended up building a 7-storey building, albeit an impressive one.

Then today, thinking about that discussion, I became curious about the story of Eaton’s. Where exactly did it start and how did they get to a point where they were planning the largest retail and office complex in the world?

Well, as many of you probably know or can guess, the first Eaton’s store was opened where the Toronto Eaton Centre mall currently sits today. The exact address was 178 Yonge Street, which is just north of Queen Street. But what was interesting about this location is that, at the time, it was considered to be far removed from Toronto’s center of fashion and retail. That was King Street East. Below is a map from 1842.

In 1869 when Timothy Eaton opened his first store, the heart of Toronto was what is today known as Old Town (although most people would probably just refer to it either as King East or as the St. Lawrence Market). People shopped along King Street between Yonge and Jarvis, and Queen Street probably would have felt out of the way.

But Eaton’s succeeded at Yonge & Queen, along with rival store Simpson’s, and retailing shifted northward. With Eaton’s College Street, the company was once again looking north. In fact, they wanted to move their entire operation from Queen Street up to College Street, and they even tried to get Simpson’s department store to do the same (somebody clearly understood agglomeration economies).

But since the full build out of Eaton’s College Street never actually happened, both stores were kept in operation and a customer shuttle bus was run between the two of them (until the Yonge subway line opened up in the 1950s). With the opening of the Toronto Eaton Centre mall in the 1970s, Eaton’s closed both Queen and College Street locations, and consolidated operations near Dundas Street.

In 1999, after 130 years of operation, the company went bankrupt.

What I find interesting about this story is that it speaks to how dominant the department store business model was at the time and how it was shaping the city around it. If Eaton’s had achieved its vision for the corner of Yonge & College, Toronto might look a lot different today. Perhaps we’d all be shopping for fashion along College Street.

Harvard Business Review recently published a conversation between Roger Martin – who is the former dean of the Rotman School – and Tim Brown – who is CEO of the global design firm IDEO. The title of the talk is “Capitalism Needs Design Thinking.” But I decided to call this post something else after reading Roger say this:

My friend Dan Pink argued in an HBR piece in 2004 that the MFA is the new MBA. I wrote to Dan to say that if that’s the case we have a problem because America pumps out a mere 1,500 MFAs a year versus 150,000 MBAs. Thirty MFAs per state per year is just a rounding error. This is one of the reasons I was so keen on transforming business education. It’s a huge infrastructure: 27% of all graduate students in America are in an MBA program. If they’re all being taught how to analyze things to death, that’s going to affect how they’ll shape the future of business.

But what this conversation is really about is the future of democratic capitalism, which is why I think it’s a nice tie-in to yesterday’s Architect This City post about startups and inequality.

I’m very worried about the fact that in America we’ve now gone 24 years without the median household income rising — it was the same in 2013 as it was in 1989. That’s unprecedented in American history. The longest that’s ever happened before is when it took just under 20 years to recover, after the Great Depression. This long period of stagnation has coincided with the top 1% of the economy doing spectacularly.

And so while it’s easy to point fingers at the tech community and say that it’s to blame for rising income inequality, the reality, I think, is that there are other more fundamental issues that need addressing. Roger and Tim believe that design thinking can help. Here’s another great snippet from the former:

I think the way that government generally works is to think, think, think, think, and then finally create legislation that brings about some change, and then they ignore their legislation and say okay, we’re finished with that. Then people go and figure out how to game that legislation, and the government doesn’t do anything about it. Whereas if they had a design view of it, they’d say when they passed a bill, that’s just the best idea we’ve got now, we have to go see how it works in practice, and then fix it. That’s just not the mentality.

Technology is having a profound impact on the world. And it’s something that is very visible. But part of the challenge is that governments aren’t keeping up. They are almost never out in front.

So when something new comes along, like Airbnb or Uber, the reaction is to just stop it. It doesn’t conform to the rules and regulations currently in place, and so it shouldn’t exist.

But as Roger and Tim point out, maybe we need to look at our rules and regulations as simply part of an iterative process (like designers do). Because if we did that, maybe we’d be better equipped to transfer the benefits of innovation over to society as a whole.

Image: HBR

I was out last night near Yonge and College for a friend’s going away party and the topic of the College Park building came up (originally an Eaton’s department store). We talked about how in the 1920s it was planned as a 38-storey Art Deco tower (see above photo), but that the Great Depression forced Eaton’s to scale back their plans. They ended up building a 7-storey building, albeit an impressive one.

Then today, thinking about that discussion, I became curious about the story of Eaton’s. Where exactly did it start and how did they get to a point where they were planning the largest retail and office complex in the world?

Well, as many of you probably know or can guess, the first Eaton’s store was opened where the Toronto Eaton Centre mall currently sits today. The exact address was 178 Yonge Street, which is just north of Queen Street. But what was interesting about this location is that, at the time, it was considered to be far removed from Toronto’s center of fashion and retail. That was King Street East. Below is a map from 1842.

In 1869 when Timothy Eaton opened his first store, the heart of Toronto was what is today known as Old Town (although most people would probably just refer to it either as King East or as the St. Lawrence Market). People shopped along King Street between Yonge and Jarvis, and Queen Street probably would have felt out of the way.

But Eaton’s succeeded at Yonge & Queen, along with rival store Simpson’s, and retailing shifted northward. With Eaton’s College Street, the company was once again looking north. In fact, they wanted to move their entire operation from Queen Street up to College Street, and they even tried to get Simpson’s department store to do the same (somebody clearly understood agglomeration economies).

But since the full build out of Eaton’s College Street never actually happened, both stores were kept in operation and a customer shuttle bus was run between the two of them (until the Yonge subway line opened up in the 1950s). With the opening of the Toronto Eaton Centre mall in the 1970s, Eaton’s closed both Queen and College Street locations, and consolidated operations near Dundas Street.

In 1999, after 130 years of operation, the company went bankrupt.

What I find interesting about this story is that it speaks to how dominant the department store business model was at the time and how it was shaping the city around it. If Eaton’s had achieved its vision for the corner of Yonge & College, Toronto might look a lot different today. Perhaps we’d all be shopping for fashion along College Street.