"Rent control is the second-best way to destroy a city, after bombing." —Lawrence H. Summers

Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee for the mayor of New York City, clearly ran a good campaign. He used social media and short-form videos to find his audience and win with the message that the city has become unattainable to most.

But it is also clear that the stock market really does not like his message. Shares of firms with exposure to New York City's real estate market reacted immediately: Vornado Realty Trust, SL Green, Equity Residential, Empire State Realty Trust, LXP Industrial Trust, and others, were all down. At the same time, the wealthy vowed to leave New York for places like Florida, as they so often do these days.

One of reasons for this negative reaction was Mamdani's commitment to not just cap rent increases, but freeze rents in rent-stabilized units for the entire duration of his term. We've spoken a lot about rent control over the years (here, here, here, and other places) but, at a high level, the problem with rent controls is that they create a strong disincentive for landlords to invest and maintain their homes and for developers to build new homes. So what ultimately happens is that you get a more rapidly aging inventory of existing homes and a reduced amount of new supply.

A full-out rent freeze takes this even further. A rent freeze does not mean that utility costs will also be frozen, that insurance and taxes will be frozen, that interest rates will be capped, and that all other landlord operating expenses will be restricted from inflating. (If this were the case, we really wouldn't have market economy.) So what a rent freeze does is ensure that, in real dollars, a landlord is able to collect less money from tenants, while operating costs continue to increase under the line.

The same is true in condominiums and other ownership structures. Whenever somebody talks about frozen maintenance or common element fees, I immediately remind them that this is a bad thing, not a feature. It means the condominium corporation is on an unsustainable path and will eventually run out of money. Something is being sacrificed in order to keep up with rising operating and capital expenses. At the very least, you need to keep up with inflation.

I can appreciate that rents are too high. As a developer, I would love to be able to build to lower rents. It reduces absorption risk and it's better for the city. But rather than just freeze rents, a more productive and sustainable approach would be to attack the underlying root causes for the problem. A rent freeze is a short-term political fix that will have second and third-order consequences. Problems for a different day and for a different mayor, perhaps. But problems nonetheless.

Cover photo by Daryan Shamkhali on Unsplash

Here's a new opinion piece from the Globe and Mail talking about the importance of "early wins" when it comes to building better cities. And whoever wrote it is right.

One of the examples that is given is New York's congestion pricing program. We've talked a lot about this initiative since the beginning of the year, and one of its important features is that it pretty much started working immediately.

Travel times, in some cases, dropped by as much as 48% and, in the first two months of its operation, it brought in over $100 million of new revenue for the city. Less congestion and more money. That's what congestion pricing does.

Because of this, support for the program has risen. In December 2024, which is before the pricing went into effect, some polls suggested that around 51% of New Yorkers were opposed to the charge.

But by March 2025, more New York City residents seemed to support the program than oppose it. And again, this is almost certainly because its positive effects were felt right away.

City building doesn't always work this quickly. Many or most things take too long. But finding ways to post early wins is good practice. It also provides a quick feedback loop just in case things need to be changed.

Cover photo by Murat Onder on Unsplash

Aaron Gordon, who is a data reporter at Bloomberg News, has been working on his coding skills. And so for absolutely no reason whatsoever, he decided to map out the life of one of New York's Citi Bikes, specifically Citi Bike #32606. The dataset is pre-pandemic because Citi Bike stopped publishing unique bike identifiers for each trip around 2020. But based on historical data and far as we know, #32606 is the most-used traditional bike (i.e. not an e-bike) in the history of the Citi Bike network.

It began its life on October 15, 2017 at 11:08am in Park Slope, Brooklyn, and then went on to accomplish 7,060 miles (~11,361 kilometers) and 8,624 trips over a period of 806 days. This works out to an average of just over 10 trips per day. In total, this bike traveled the equivalent of a return trip from New York to Los Angeles, and then a short trip up to Burlington, Vermont. And it was all done with only leg power.

Here's the visual mapping that Aaron created:

What I love about this passion project is that it starts to show just how impactful something as simple as a single shared bicycle can be for a city. These bike networks are relatively new, but they're already doing a lot of heavy lifting when it comes to urban mobility. Earlier this week, we learned that in the City of London, cyclists now make up 2x the number of people in cars. And that of the people cycling, 17% of them do so using a shared bicycle.

In the case of New York, the Citi Bike network had ~128,000 active members and ~34,000 bikes as of February 2025. What you're seeing above is the story of just one them.

Cover photo by Spenser Sembrat on Unsplash