When I was in grad school studying architecture and real estate, the Zell/Lurie Real Estate Center used to run a regular lunch series with real estate executives. The way it worked is that executives would come in to the school and 15 or so students -- all of whom were studying real estate -- could sign up to have lunch with them in a boardroom. I can't remember if the school provided us lunch or we had to bring our own, but either way, you had an hour to hear them talk about the industry and ask them whatever you wanted to know.

One time somebody asked a question about what courses they should take outside of their business and real estate classes. And I'll never forget what the executive said. His recommendation was to take courses that were as far away from business, finance, and real estate as possible. He said take fine art history classes, learn about ancient civilizations, or whatever. Just take classes that force you to think a little differently than everybody else.

The reason, I think, this resonated with me so much was because I had a certain amount of academic insecurity at that moment in time. I was coming from an architecture and design background and my classmates were former investment bankers and management consultants, all of whom had a far better grasp of "the numbers" than I did. It meant that real estate recruiters didn't want to talk to me because I was the square peg for their round hole.

But being a square peg really motivated me.

I remember walking into the program director's office at that time and requesting that I be put into what was considered to be the more difficult real estate finance class offered at Wharton. He said that he didn't recommend it. Non-MBAs (which I was at the time) can't typically handle it. And if he put me into it, I would likely come back to him crying about how hard it was. I asked him to put me in it and said that I would come back to show him my "A." He put me in it and, yes, I got an "A."

But at the end of the day, the point that this executive was making at the lunch was that the math and mechanics behind things like cap rates, IRRs, and DCFs is not rocket science. Real estate is not rocket science. You of course need to know how this stuff all works, but it is not the be-all and end-all. The other critical parts of this are more art than science. What are the assumptions that I am making as part of my analysis? What do I believe about the future of the world? To answer these questions, you need think critically and laterally. And having a different perspective can help you do exactly that.

This was true back in 2008 and it's still true today.

I’ve been getting a lot of (email) questions lately about what to study in order to become a real estate developer. So I thought I would reblog this post that talks about exactly that. I wrote it over a year ago and I almost forgot it existed.

At the same time, I’m reminded of something: I think these questions really speak to the fact that there’s a significant opportunity (particularly in Canada) in terms of real estate development education. 

Oftentimes when I get these questions, I end up recommending the Master of Science in Real Estate Development (MSRED) at Columbia, MIT, and USC. Why don’t we have something similar (and better) in Canada? We are falling behind.

I have raised this with some Universities here in Toronto, but the response I got was that they felt the real estate courses being offered as part of their existing MBA programs were more than sufficient. I think we can do a lot better.

One professor suggested that I line up a big donor and work with them to spearhead the creation of the (Insert Donor Name Here) School of Real Estate. I think that’s a great idea, but not something I have the capacity for right now.

Hopefully somebody else out there is of the same mind.

Post Update: 3 days ago the Schulich School of Business (York University) announced a one-year full time Master of Real Estate and Infrastructure (MREI) program – the first of its kind in Canada. 

This is great news. 

Now I would love to see the University of Toronto and Ryerson University (as well as others) step up and leverage their respective architecture schools. Schulich is already out of the gate on this one.

A reader recently shared with me an interesting article from Crain’s New York (2013) profiling three “architects as developers.” The three firms are DDG Partners (which I’ve mentioned before here on ATC), FLAnk, and Alloy.

I’ve written a lot about these emerging business models and I continue to think that we’re going to see more of them in the coming years.  As evidence for that claim, I thought it was really interesting to read in the article that Vishaan Chakrabarti – who is director of the real estate program at Columbia University – made specific mention that there’s growing interest among his students to wear multiple hats. In other words, they don’t want to be just an architect or just a developer. They want do it all.

In a lot of cases, these firms are made up of partners who have those diverse skill sets. There’s only so much that one person can do. But that doesn’t negate the fact that vertically integrated companies are being formed that handle everything from design and construction to property management and development.

And if an increasing number of students today are interested and thinking about those models, then I think it’s a pretty safe bet that many of them will get out into the workforce and eventually create those companies in the future.

Ultimately, I think that’s a great thing for cities. Developers tend to have a bad reputation for thinking only about money. But when you bring design and other disciplines in-house, you create tensions in the process. And tension can be a great thing for innovation and creativity.

Image: 385 West 12th by Flank