This Tuesday evening at 630pm, WORKSHOP – which is a design studio, gallery, and retail shop located in Yorkville, Toronto – will be hosting a panel discussion titled: What is Smart Now?

On the panel will be a building scientist, a computer scientist, and two architects. The moderator will be Larry Wayne Richards, who is Creative Director of WORKSHOP and the former dean of the Faculty of Architecture, Landscape, and Design at the University of Toronto. He was dean when I was completing my undergraduate degree and is one of my favorite people in the world of Toronto architecture.

Here’s a bit more on the panel:

For more than half a century, visionaries and companies such as Monsanto, Hewlett-Packard, Microsoft, and Samsung have promoted the concept of technologically smart homes with highly integrated, interactive systems.  However few of these homes have actually been realized, leaving us to wonder why.

Meanwhile, architects, builders, and home owners have become aware of the advantages of being smart in terms of energy efficiency and sustainability, from using common sense to selectively employing high-tech.  

But now, with the digital realm and software advancing rapidly, will sophisticated smart home systems merge with recent advances in high performance materials and energy-efficient construction, making “totally smart” (and affordable) homes commonplace? Will we finally be living in the magical future that was imagined 50 years ago?  And what are the implications for architects and architectural education?

And here are the panelists:

• PAUL DOWSETT, Architect and Founding Principal, Sustainable TO

• SRINIVASAN KESHAV, Professor of Computer Science, University of Waterloo

• TED KESIK, Professor of Building Science, University of Toronto

• JANNA LEVITT, Founding Partner, LGA Architects, Toronto

• LARRY WAYNE RICHARDS (Moderator), Creative Director, WORKSHOP

Given the current “Internet of Things” trend and the fact that software is creeping into so many non-tech fields, such as housing, I think this is a really timely discussion to be having. I also think it’s critical for these kinds of conversations to be cross-disciplinary. There are infinite opportunities in the housing market for people who are able to think in that way.

If you’d like to attend, click here to sign up. It’s free and open to the public. WORKSHOP is located in the lower concourse level of 80 Bloor Street West.

Image: WORKSHOP

Yesterday evening I moderated a panel on innovation in real estate at the Rotman School. The panelists included Subhi Alsayed (Innovation Manager at Tridel); Michael Lio (President of buildABILITY Corporation); Alison Minato (VP of Sustainability at The Minto Group); and Tad Putyra (President and COO, Low Rise Development at Great Gulf).

Though the general consensus was that the real estate industry is terrible at innovation, it was comforting to hear that a number of both low-rise and high-rise developers are working on and/or towards building “net zero” homes. A net zero home is a home with no net energy consumption. What this means is that the home produces as much as energy as it consumes.

The general strategy with these homes is to design the building so that it’s as energy efficient as possible (as in R-40 walls and triple-pane glazing) and then use renewable energy sources (such as solar) to fulfill any remaining energy needs. Of course, the next step would be homes that actually produce more energy than they consume so that they become net contributors to a city’s energy grid. But let’s not put the cart before the horse.

There are a number of challenges to achieving this goal—one of which is on the consumer side. Many of the panelists mentioned that consumers simply don’t care enough about building performance and energy efficiency. Instead of worrying about air tightness, they’re worried about cosmetic things, like granite countertops and hardwood floors. That’s not to say that these pieces aren’t important, but they’re only one aspect of a home.

So what’s the solution? Do developers and home builders need to get better at consumer education? Or should utility companies be the ones shouldering this responsibility? After all, improving energy performance means lower utility costs.

One thought that came to mind (and I’m testing this for the first time with the Architect This City community), is that maybe homes need to become more of a product. Today, developers often market projects and communities ahead of themselves. But maybe that’s not the best way to drive innovation within the real estate industry.

For example, think about how car brands segment the market. When you buy a Mercedes, you expect a certain level of performance and quality. You probably don’t know about every little technological innovation in the car, but you assume that they’re pretty damn good.

With a new home on the other hand, you’re buying (insert generic name) on the Park or the Residences of (something regal sounding). The developer’s brand is secondary. And maybe that’s the wrong approach. Maybe it’s making consumers believe that the only thing that matters is whether you’re getting stainless steel appliances and granite countertops.

Maybe consumers need to know whether or not they’re buying from the Mercedes developer or from the Ford Pinto developer. After all, consumers make decisions based on heuristics. They need to be able to say to themselves:

"This home is $50,000 more, but it’s from the Mercedes developer so I can justify it. I’ll have less problems in the future, I’m sure."

Instead, consumers are saying to themselves:

"This home is $50,000 more. Why is that? They both have stainless steel appliances and granite countertops. I’ll just go for the cheaper one."

I refuse to believe that the real estate industry can’t be as innovative as other industries. There’s always a way. We just need to figure it out.

What are your thoughts?

I sat on a panel tonight for a discussion on investing in condominiums. It was organized by the Six Degrees Real Estate Mixer group.

My overall position was that we’re now returning to a more balanced market. The days of massive appreciation and overnight riches are gone. But that doesn’t mean we’re going to see anywhere near the correction that the US housing market saw in 2008.

What I do think it means is that everyone - from developers to small investors - needs to remain focused on fundamentals. Buy quality assets in great locations and make sure the rental income is there. Cash is king. That’s fundamentally what the real estate business is about.

Overall, the data shows that developers are pulling back with respect to releasing new product to the market and that price appreciation has slowed, almost trading sideways. All of this is good for the market if you’re worried about a catastrophic crash.

I think the experience in the US has made us all paranoid about our own housing market. But it could end up saving us from repeating their mistakes.