Earlier this month, self-driving car company Waymo announced that it had raised $16 billion (largely from its parent company, Alphabet) at a $126 billion post-money valuation. This is a big number. And according to Bloomberg, the company's annualized revenue run rate is around $350 million, meaning its current valuation is sitting at 360x revenue.
Multiples can often be sky-high for new, huge-bet companies, but Om Malik recently offered an interesting take on the "physics of the problem."
As of the end of 2025, Waymo was operating approximately 2,500 vehicles across its cities, with San Francisco and Los Angeles currently responsible for about 68% of the company's rides. And these cars are already running 16 hours a day, with an estimated 18 minutes of average idle time between trips.
To get from 400,000 trips per week (where they are today) to 1 million trips per week (where they want to be by the end of 2026), Om estimates that the company will need to add at least another 3,500 vehicles to its fleet.
If I then ask Gemini to extrapolate this out such that its revenue increases enough to drop its multiple down to 30x revenue, the company needs a global fleet close to 25,000 vehicles. That's ~22,500 more than it has today, and at $175k per Jaguar, that's an additional $4 billion in vehicles.
I guess it has the money for that, but it'll be fascinating to see how easily the company is able to scale around the world. This year, the plan is to expand to 20 more cities (with a list that erroneously leaves out Toronto). If successful, this will have a profound impact on our cities. And the lofty valuation represents an expectation that it will be.
The Stahl House — also known as Case Study House #22 — is up for sale in Los Angeles.
Even if you don't know this house by name, I'm sure you've seen Julius Shulman's iconic photograph from 1960 showing two women sitting in a corner of the house. It is widely credited with turning the house into one of the city's most recognizable landmarks.
Buck and Carlotta Stahl are the original owners. They purchased the steep lot for US$13,000 in 1954 (equal to about $157,000 today). This was a large sum of money at the time, especially for a lot that was thought to be unbuildable by many architects.
Designed by architect Pierre Koenig, the house was built as part of Arts & Architecture magazine's Case Study program, hence the name. The intent of the program was to come up with templated responses for an expected housing shortage following the Great Depression and World War II.
When the program launched, it stated that "each house must be capable of duplication and in no sense be an individual performance," and that "the overall program will be general enough to be of practical assistance to the average American in search of a home in which he can afford to live."
Sound familiar?
The program also secured material donations from the building industry in an effort to make the prototypes as low-cost and repeatable as possible. Ironically, the house became the exact opposite: It became a singular icon of Los Angeles, used in movies, for fashion shoots, and as a general backdrop for a modernist city.
And today, after 65 years of stewardship under the original owners, the house is on the market for US$25,000,000. This works out to nearly US$11,400 per square foot of interior space.
When I first saw the list price I immediately thought to myself, "Interesting, I wonder how much of this price is being attributed to the real estate and how much of it is being attributed to its status as an icon and piece of art."
This past Monday, approximately 44,770 attendees descended on the SkyDome, I mean Rogers Centre, in downtown Toronto to watch Game 7 of the ALCS between the Blue Jays and the Mariners. I was lucky enough to be one of them. And with one swing of George Springer's bat, we did it.
The Blue Jays became only the fourth team in the history of Major League Baseball to come back and win a best-of-seven series after losing the first two games at home. (Baseball is full of fun little stats.)
This is what makes October baseball so exciting. It's slow and suspenseful, but then all of a sudden — boom — you completely lose your voice because you're screaming so hard. I still don't have mine back at the time of writing this post.
What a game. What a moment for Toronto.
Now let's switch gears and think about all of this from an urban mobility standpoint. Forty-five thousand is a lot of people. How do you efficiently move this many people to and from a stadium? One option is you could build a ton of parking.
Here, for example, is Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles:
But this is a suboptimal approach, which is why a year ago the LA Times had to write: "Going to Dodger Stadium for the World Series? Five ways to avoid parking and traffic headaches." In it, they suggest the following: Take the bus, take the Dodger Stadium Express Bus, take an Uber, ride your bike, or walk 30 minutes to the nearest metro station (Chinatown).
On Monday, we took the Union Pearson Express from Bloor to Union. The train was absolutely packed, but we got on the first one and we were door-to-door in a little over 30 minutes. After the game, it was pandemonium. People were swinging from light poles, lighting off smoke bombs, and the lineup to get back on the UP Express looked like this:
But here's where I need to give a lot of credit to whoever was responsible for keeping things together on Monday night. They had stanchions lined up to accommodate the crowds flooding out of the Rogers Centre, they had staff walking up and down the lines so people could tap on ahead of time, and they had more trains operating. The result was that we waited maybe 10 or so minutes before getting on one.
Nobody got out of downtown this quickly unless you were on a train or you biked. My friends who had to take Ubers home were stuck for hours. In fact, one driver said, "We're not moving for a while. You're better off going into that bar right now and I'll come back for you later."
Sometimes when I write about trains and public transport, people comment that I'm living in the past and that it's an outdated technology. Look, I'm all for new tech. Bring on the autonomous vehicles and let's get the global financial system onto the Ethereum blockchain already. But when it comes to urban mobility, trains work. They're highly efficient at moving the greatest number of people.
And you really see that in action when there are sudden demand shocks, like what happened on Monday night when the Blue Jays punched their card to the World Series for the first time since 1993. Go Jays!
Earlier this month, self-driving car company Waymo announced that it had raised $16 billion (largely from its parent company, Alphabet) at a $126 billion post-money valuation. This is a big number. And according to Bloomberg, the company's annualized revenue run rate is around $350 million, meaning its current valuation is sitting at 360x revenue.
Multiples can often be sky-high for new, huge-bet companies, but Om Malik recently offered an interesting take on the "physics of the problem."
As of the end of 2025, Waymo was operating approximately 2,500 vehicles across its cities, with San Francisco and Los Angeles currently responsible for about 68% of the company's rides. And these cars are already running 16 hours a day, with an estimated 18 minutes of average idle time between trips.
To get from 400,000 trips per week (where they are today) to 1 million trips per week (where they want to be by the end of 2026), Om estimates that the company will need to add at least another 3,500 vehicles to its fleet.
If I then ask Gemini to extrapolate this out such that its revenue increases enough to drop its multiple down to 30x revenue, the company needs a global fleet close to 25,000 vehicles. That's ~22,500 more than it has today, and at $175k per Jaguar, that's an additional $4 billion in vehicles.
I guess it has the money for that, but it'll be fascinating to see how easily the company is able to scale around the world. This year, the plan is to expand to 20 more cities (with a list that erroneously leaves out Toronto). If successful, this will have a profound impact on our cities. And the lofty valuation represents an expectation that it will be.
The Stahl House — also known as Case Study House #22 — is up for sale in Los Angeles.
Even if you don't know this house by name, I'm sure you've seen Julius Shulman's iconic photograph from 1960 showing two women sitting in a corner of the house. It is widely credited with turning the house into one of the city's most recognizable landmarks.
Buck and Carlotta Stahl are the original owners. They purchased the steep lot for US$13,000 in 1954 (equal to about $157,000 today). This was a large sum of money at the time, especially for a lot that was thought to be unbuildable by many architects.
Designed by architect Pierre Koenig, the house was built as part of Arts & Architecture magazine's Case Study program, hence the name. The intent of the program was to come up with templated responses for an expected housing shortage following the Great Depression and World War II.
When the program launched, it stated that "each house must be capable of duplication and in no sense be an individual performance," and that "the overall program will be general enough to be of practical assistance to the average American in search of a home in which he can afford to live."
Sound familiar?
The program also secured material donations from the building industry in an effort to make the prototypes as low-cost and repeatable as possible. Ironically, the house became the exact opposite: It became a singular icon of Los Angeles, used in movies, for fashion shoots, and as a general backdrop for a modernist city.
And today, after 65 years of stewardship under the original owners, the house is on the market for US$25,000,000. This works out to nearly US$11,400 per square foot of interior space.
When I first saw the list price I immediately thought to myself, "Interesting, I wonder how much of this price is being attributed to the real estate and how much of it is being attributed to its status as an icon and piece of art."
This past Monday, approximately 44,770 attendees descended on the SkyDome, I mean Rogers Centre, in downtown Toronto to watch Game 7 of the ALCS between the Blue Jays and the Mariners. I was lucky enough to be one of them. And with one swing of George Springer's bat, we did it.
The Blue Jays became only the fourth team in the history of Major League Baseball to come back and win a best-of-seven series after losing the first two games at home. (Baseball is full of fun little stats.)
This is what makes October baseball so exciting. It's slow and suspenseful, but then all of a sudden — boom — you completely lose your voice because you're screaming so hard. I still don't have mine back at the time of writing this post.
What a game. What a moment for Toronto.
Now let's switch gears and think about all of this from an urban mobility standpoint. Forty-five thousand is a lot of people. How do you efficiently move this many people to and from a stadium? One option is you could build a ton of parking.
Here, for example, is Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles:
But this is a suboptimal approach, which is why a year ago the LA Times had to write: "Going to Dodger Stadium for the World Series? Five ways to avoid parking and traffic headaches." In it, they suggest the following: Take the bus, take the Dodger Stadium Express Bus, take an Uber, ride your bike, or walk 30 minutes to the nearest metro station (Chinatown).
On Monday, we took the Union Pearson Express from Bloor to Union. The train was absolutely packed, but we got on the first one and we were door-to-door in a little over 30 minutes. After the game, it was pandemonium. People were swinging from light poles, lighting off smoke bombs, and the lineup to get back on the UP Express looked like this:
But here's where I need to give a lot of credit to whoever was responsible for keeping things together on Monday night. They had stanchions lined up to accommodate the crowds flooding out of the Rogers Centre, they had staff walking up and down the lines so people could tap on ahead of time, and they had more trains operating. The result was that we waited maybe 10 or so minutes before getting on one.
Nobody got out of downtown this quickly unless you were on a train or you biked. My friends who had to take Ubers home were stuck for hours. In fact, one driver said, "We're not moving for a while. You're better off going into that bar right now and I'll come back for you later."
Sometimes when I write about trains and public transport, people comment that I'm living in the past and that it's an outdated technology. Look, I'm all for new tech. Bring on the autonomous vehicles and let's get the global financial system onto the Ethereum blockchain already. But when it comes to urban mobility, trains work. They're highly efficient at moving the greatest number of people.
And you really see that in action when there are sudden demand shocks, like what happened on Monday night when the Blue Jays punched their card to the World Series for the first time since 1993. Go Jays!
I don't know the LA market very well, so I asked Gemini 3. What it told me is that comparable high-end homes in this area with pools and luxury views often trade for around $2,000 psf. That would put this real estate at around $4.4 million.
If this is accurate (correct me if I'm wrong, LA people), it means that something like 80% of its list price is being derived from its "brand." Not bad for a case study house built with low-cost subsidized materials.
The other possible consideration is that people really like to photograph and film this house. And so there's also a potential income stream associated with buying it. Assuming that continues (and AI doesn't replace the need for physical shoot locations), then we'd also have to capitalize this income.
In this case, the house would have three value components to it: real estate value, art/brand value, and rental income value derived from movies and shoots. Is that equal to $25 million? I don't know, but the market should tell us soon enough.
Cover photo by Julius Shulman
I don't know the LA market very well, so I asked Gemini 3. What it told me is that comparable high-end homes in this area with pools and luxury views often trade for around $2,000 psf. That would put this real estate at around $4.4 million.
If this is accurate (correct me if I'm wrong, LA people), it means that something like 80% of its list price is being derived from its "brand." Not bad for a case study house built with low-cost subsidized materials.
The other possible consideration is that people really like to photograph and film this house. And so there's also a potential income stream associated with buying it. Assuming that continues (and AI doesn't replace the need for physical shoot locations), then we'd also have to capitalize this income.
In this case, the house would have three value components to it: real estate value, art/brand value, and rental income value derived from movies and shoots. Is that equal to $25 million? I don't know, but the market should tell us soon enough.
Cover photo by Julius Shulman
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
