Subscribe
I don't remember signing up for Thesis Driven's newsletter, but I'm on it, and it does sound like something I would do. Their latest post, the first of this year by Brad Hargreaves, is called "Seven Real Estate Predictions for 2026." And I'd like to draw your attention to the last one. Here it is verbatim:
The word “sponsor” has historically implied episodic activity: raise capital, do a deal, return capital, repeat. That framing made sense when real estate investing was primarily about financial engineering and asset selection.
It makes far less sense in a world where alpha increasingly comes from operations.
By 2026, I think the most sophisticated real estate operators will stop being thought of—and thinking of themselves—as sponsors at all. They will be platforms. And platforms are underwritten differently.
Rather than being evaluated solely on IRRs and realized multiples, these businesses will increasingly be assessed through a private equity lens: EBITDA generation, revenue streams, margin stability, customer (tenant) retention, technology leverage, scalability of systems, and durability of management teams. Deal performance will still matter, but as proof points—not as the whole story.
The consequences? Platform economics reward longer-term thinking, reinvestment, and organizational maturity. They also open the door to entirely different capital partners, exit paths, and valuation frameworks that look a lot more like growth equity than traditional real estate promote structures.
This really resonates with me. Sponsor, promoter, and developer — these names have historically reflected the entrepreneurial and deal-specific nature of real estate. It's also one of the reasons why project brands typically overshadow developer brands; the focus is on that one deal.
A good deal is a good deal. We all get that. Sometimes a single deal is all that is needed to change your life. But as a general rule, I am much more interested in longer-term thinking, an approach that compounds over time, the opportunity to continually refine a craft, and the growth of brand equity.
In Brad's words, that is "platform over sponsor."
Cover photo by Fabio Sasso on Unsplash
Perhaps for obvious reasons, I am interested in how important issues get debated. I have written before about how I think the community engagement process for new developments is largely broken. I think it naturally incents certain kinds of feedback.
Recently, I've been playing around with an online platform called Kialo. They call themselves "an easy to use, yet powerful tool to engage in thoughtful discussion, understand different points of view, and help with collaborative decision-making."
The site works by trying to create a structured hierarchy of pros and cons around debatable questions. You participate by making claims (supported by links). Duplicate claims are neatly grouped together. And unthoughtful suggestions are moderated out.
The UI looks like this (top level question shown):
But you can then drill down into specific claim groupings (note the org chart looking graphic at the top):
I'm not yet convinced that it creates the "collaborative reasoning system" that they are after (maybe because I haven't used it enough). But I do really appreciate the structure and civility that they are trying to introduce to topics that are often vehemently debated.
Are any of you regular users of Kialo?
I don't remember signing up for Thesis Driven's newsletter, but I'm on it, and it does sound like something I would do. Their latest post, the first of this year by Brad Hargreaves, is called "Seven Real Estate Predictions for 2026." And I'd like to draw your attention to the last one. Here it is verbatim:
The word “sponsor” has historically implied episodic activity: raise capital, do a deal, return capital, repeat. That framing made sense when real estate investing was primarily about financial engineering and asset selection.
It makes far less sense in a world where alpha increasingly comes from operations.
By 2026, I think the most sophisticated real estate operators will stop being thought of—and thinking of themselves—as sponsors at all. They will be platforms. And platforms are underwritten differently.
Rather than being evaluated solely on IRRs and realized multiples, these businesses will increasingly be assessed through a private equity lens: EBITDA generation, revenue streams, margin stability, customer (tenant) retention, technology leverage, scalability of systems, and durability of management teams. Deal performance will still matter, but as proof points—not as the whole story.
The consequences? Platform economics reward longer-term thinking, reinvestment, and organizational maturity. They also open the door to entirely different capital partners, exit paths, and valuation frameworks that look a lot more like growth equity than traditional real estate promote structures.
This really resonates with me. Sponsor, promoter, and developer — these names have historically reflected the entrepreneurial and deal-specific nature of real estate. It's also one of the reasons why project brands typically overshadow developer brands; the focus is on that one deal.
A good deal is a good deal. We all get that. Sometimes a single deal is all that is needed to change your life. But as a general rule, I am much more interested in longer-term thinking, an approach that compounds over time, the opportunity to continually refine a craft, and the growth of brand equity.
In Brad's words, that is "platform over sponsor."
Cover photo by Fabio Sasso on Unsplash
Perhaps for obvious reasons, I am interested in how important issues get debated. I have written before about how I think the community engagement process for new developments is largely broken. I think it naturally incents certain kinds of feedback.
Recently, I've been playing around with an online platform called Kialo. They call themselves "an easy to use, yet powerful tool to engage in thoughtful discussion, understand different points of view, and help with collaborative decision-making."
The site works by trying to create a structured hierarchy of pros and cons around debatable questions. You participate by making claims (supported by links). Duplicate claims are neatly grouped together. And unthoughtful suggestions are moderated out.
The UI looks like this (top level question shown):
But you can then drill down into specific claim groupings (note the org chart looking graphic at the top):
I'm not yet convinced that it creates the "collaborative reasoning system" that they are after (maybe because I haven't used it enough). But I do really appreciate the structure and civility that they are trying to introduce to topics that are often vehemently debated.
Are any of you regular users of Kialo?
As a general rule, I believe that our cities should be striving for less rather than more parking. Which is why it still baffles me when allegedly progressive cities continue to mandate ludicrous parking ratios (even when the sites are next to transit). You know who you are.
But if you absolutely have to build it, the new 9th Avenue Parkade + Innovation Centre in Calgary is a good example to look to.
Designed by 5468796 Architecture in collaboration with Kasian Architecture, Interior Design and Planning, the project does all of the things to ensure that it doesn't look ugly today and it doesn't need to remain a parkade in the future once we all switch over to electric scooters and flying autonomous vehicles.
Some of the moves include 4m floor-to-floor heights and generally flat floor slabs that only rise 1-2%. This was done so that the floors can be more easily retrofitted to residential and/or office in the future.
And in fact, this flexibility already gotten proven out during the design process. Originally the ~335,000 square foot building was going to be entirely parking. But then an innovation centre called Platform came to the table for 50,000 sf, and a portion of the building had to be converted to flexible office space.
Let's hope this trend continues. But in the meantime, here are some pretty pictures:
All photos by James Brittain.
As a general rule, I believe that our cities should be striving for less rather than more parking. Which is why it still baffles me when allegedly progressive cities continue to mandate ludicrous parking ratios (even when the sites are next to transit). You know who you are.
But if you absolutely have to build it, the new 9th Avenue Parkade + Innovation Centre in Calgary is a good example to look to.
Designed by 5468796 Architecture in collaboration with Kasian Architecture, Interior Design and Planning, the project does all of the things to ensure that it doesn't look ugly today and it doesn't need to remain a parkade in the future once we all switch over to electric scooters and flying autonomous vehicles.
Some of the moves include 4m floor-to-floor heights and generally flat floor slabs that only rise 1-2%. This was done so that the floors can be more easily retrofitted to residential and/or office in the future.
And in fact, this flexibility already gotten proven out during the design process. Originally the ~335,000 square foot building was going to be entirely parking. But then an innovation centre called Platform came to the table for 50,000 sf, and a portion of the building had to be converted to flexible office space.
Let's hope this trend continues. But in the meantime, here are some pretty pictures:
All photos by James Brittain.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
