I am working from home today, like many of you, I'm sure. The patio door is open and the news is on in the background talking about some sort of nasty bug that's going around. It's not half bad, except I prefer working in an office and being around other humans.

But never mind that, this recent article from the WSJ has me wondering where I can buy a 2,700 square foot loft for €1 and end up with the following renovation for under US$450,000 (photo by Rene de Wit):

A former school in Rotterdam, the city sold off the building as 7 residences. The loft you see here was the gym. Major foundation work was required (costing about US$565,000), but that got split up across all of the buyers/residences and factors into the number I threw around above.

At 2,700 sf, it's not your typical urban residence. But it is interesting to see how they designed the space to be suitable for a family. There's a separate children's "suite" hidden behind the millwork next to the dining area. Look closely and you'll be able to see the door.

For floor plans and more photos, including some before shots, click here. It's worth seeing more of this place. Two storeys in the city is such a luxury.

I was recently having a debate with one of our architecture partners about the interrelationship between architecture, interiors, and branding. This came up because, in New York City, you almost need a name brand architect attached to your project in order to sell luxury condos.

But this raises an interesting set of questions: How much value is driven by the quality of the architecture versus the architect's brand? (Though, presumably you need the former in order to build the latter.) And how much of the value is actually just driven by the finishes (interiors) and the branding that you layer on after?

This latter scenario is a depressing thought for architects. It is architecture as a kind of "empty vessel." One that just gets dressed up for today's Instagrammable moments. And I am sure that you can think of some examples of this. Not everything can be capital A architecture.

But what is clear is that the most successful design-driven projects don't think in this way. They are thoughtful and deliberate about each component, and they all work together to strengthen each other. Marketing, after all, is about telling the right story. It is always helpful when you actually have one to tell.

Chris Dixon’s recent piece on why decentralization matters is currently making the rounds online. It clearly explains the first two eras of the internet and how the third era is developing as we speak. Cue decentralized cryptonetworks.

I particularly like how he describes the relationship that centralized platforms – like Facebook – have to their users and to their complements (other businesses, software developers, creators, and so on). 

Here are two graphs from his article:

In the early days it’s all about cooperation and doing everything you can to attract users. The platform gets more valuable the more users are on it and so the immediate goal is to build up the network effects and lock people in.

But as the platform grows, the relationship flips (top of the S-curve). In Dixon’s words, it becomes a zero-sum game whereby to continue growing the platform starts extracting data from its users and competing with its complements.

The promise of cryptonetworks is that they will do away with many of these negative externalities, but at the same time empower the kind of sophistication that we see today with centralized platforms.

The venture capitalists are circling because a fundamental shift in the architecture of the internet will mean disruption. I’m following it because I want to understand how it may apply to real estate and the built environment.