I was reminded of this duality the other day while listening to a Scott Galloway podcast where he talked about his love for expensive hotels, and how he travels to hotels, not to places. This is a bit abnormal. Traditionally, people stay at a hotel because there are things they want to see and/or do in the place where the hotel happens to be located. Meaning they choose the place first, and then figure out where they're going to stay after.

But there is also a statistically significant percentage of travellers who work in the opposite direction. Scott seems to be one of them. Now, his examples were all at the highest end of the spectrum, and that makes intuitive sense. If your M.O. is to travel to hotels, and you're kind of agnostic to place, then presumably the hotels are going to be super nice. But I don't think this market segment only exists at the very top. I don't stay at the same kind of hotels as Scott, but I still love hotels.

One example that I have talked about before is Tuba Club in the south of Marseille. Bianca and I stayed here a few summers ago. We read somewhere that it was about to open, we loved the vibe, and so we organized our travel itinerary just so we could stay there. We ended up loving Marseille (so much so that we went back), but Tuba came first. It was the catalyst.

A local example I can give is the Drake Devonshire in Prince Edward County, Ontario. When it opened in 2014, "The County" was not on my radar. Maybe I had been there as a kid? I don't know. But as soon as it opened, I wanted to go, as did many others judging by the lack of room availability. The design by John Tong was a hospitality offering that just wasn't available in the rest of southern Ontario at the time.

This is a powerful position to be in for a hotel. Because it means that through some magical combination of design, brand, service, and experience, you have a product that people specifically want. They're not just stopping by and need a place to stay, they're actively seeking you out. This is not to say that location doesn't matter; it does. But it is to say that a highly-coveted offering that people love is always better to have than not.

And if you get it right, there's the opportunity that people will even choose you over place.

Update: A previous version of this post incorrectly stated that John Tong had passed away. John unfortunately had a severe stroke, but he did not pass away. Sorry, my mistake, John!

Cover photo by Toni Osmundson on Unsplash

This past week I listened to two podcasts in preparation for Canada's upcoming federal election. I listened to Prime Minister Mark Carney with Scott Galloway and I listened to Pierre Poilievre with Brian Lilley of the Toronto Sun. If any of you have any other recommendations for an interview that I should listen to, please share it in the comment section below.

Here's what I would say. Carney came across as more measured and less direct. But naturally very capable when it comes to understanding the economic implications of our shifting global order. He wasn't forceful when talking about oil and gas pipelines, but I understand that he fully supports them. This is critical to diversifying our trade and frankly gaining more market power.

I'm skeptical of government being able to act as any sort of big developer and/or stimulate a thriving prefab construction industry. The latter is being worked on by a lot of the private sector; what is needed are dramatically lower fees and less barriers to development. I was, however, comforted by the fact that Carney did seem to reduce government's role to an enabler for private enterprise.

Both are promising dramatic cuts to development charges, which is essential. Poilievre is promising to eliminate the federal sales tax on all new homes priced under $1.3 million, whereas Carney wants to do it for homes under $1 million and only for first-time buyers. Carney also focused a lot on increasing construction trade capacity as a way to dramatically increase overall supply.

Broadly, Poilievre was more focused on "axing the tax" and removing the barriers to developing new housing. As we have talked about many times before on this blog, upwards of 30% of the price of a new home in Canada can be attributed to government fees and taxes. This is unsustainable, as we have seen, and it needs to change if we are going to improve housing affordability.

That said, Poilievre did make a specific comment that I didn't care for. He was talking about family formation and housing affordability and he said, "how can you start a family without a backyard and driveway?" He went on to say that, "people want detached single-family houses." Now, there's some statistical truth to this claim, but it's not like it's enshrined in our DNA.

It's an anti-urban statement. There are lots of cities around the world where kids are raised, just fine, without a backyard and/or driveway. They walk to school, they play in wonderful city parks, and they generally enjoy a high quality of life in an urban environment. I'm not suggesting that this has to be for everyone, but I do believe in removing our cultural biases and letting the market ultimately decide.

This is a pivotal moment for Canada. Regardless of who is successful on April 28, the status quo cannot continue. We must become a global superpower. And when it comes to housing, I would encourage whoever wins to give me a call after the election. Prime Minister: I'll walk you through a development pro forma and explain what it will take to make housing more affordable, and get lots of it built.

Cover photo by Hermes Rivera on Unsplash

Here's an excerpt from a recent post by Scott Galloway talking about LA's devastating wildfires:

The question isn’t whether to rebuild, but where. Pacific Palisades is a wonderful place to live, but those amazing views of beautiful topography of foothills, mountains, canyons, and ridgelines are located in fire zones. Early estimates put the total cost of the wildfires at $250 to $275 billion. The property insurance bill is expected to easily top $20 billion. California’s insurance market was already in crisis, as leading insurers had done the math and decided to leave the state or not renew policies in fire-prone areas. California’s state-backed FAIR Plan is the insurer of last resort in these areas. Statewide, the number of FAIR Plan policies in 2024 increased 40% from 2023, and 85% in Pacific Palisades. Continuing to underwrite wood-built craftsman homes in Altadena (median home value: $1.3 million) and mansions along PCH is a wealth transfer from California’s taxpayers to some of its wealthiest people.

This isn’t unique to California; 10 states across the political spectrum, including Florida and Texas, sued a federal flood insurance program after it adjusted premiums to better reflect climate realities. As one meme put it: You may not believe in climate change, but your insurance company does.

He's not wrong, though I'm sure that the impacts of the deadliest and most destructive wildfires in California's history were felt by a broad cross section of people. And, no matter how much money you have, losing your home is going to be traumatizing. My mom's house in New Brunswick burnt down when she was a young girl and she remembers it vividly. You lose things that are priceless. Still, the questions of where and how to rebuild are important ones. Living in a high-risk area has costs associated with it. I do think it's only fair to ask who will be underwriting these costs.