Toronto's chief planner, Gregg Lintern, published this piece in the Toronto Star over the weekend where he argued that "expanding housing options in [Toronto's] neighbourhoods is the missing piece of the growth puzzle."

What he is saying is that if we're going to have any chance at reasonably accommodating the 700,000 or so people who are expected to move to this city over the next three decades, we're going to have to evolve our low-rise neighborhoods. That includes more retail, more amenities, more density, and yes, built form that houses multiple units.

I immediately thought that this was meaningful progress in the right direction. It is acknowledgement that things need to change and that our low-rise communities need to change.

But others felt that this was a case of soft-serve ice cream, arguing that there's "danger in praising incremental, belated change when dramatic change is what's needed." I also see this point.

To quote the late architect Daniel Burnham, "make no little plans." But this is arguably a little easier to subscribe to when you're rebuilding after a great fire has decimated your entire city (he was instrumental in the rebuild of Chicago following its fire of 1871).

The unfortunate reality today, at least in this environment, is that bold vision isn't often rewarded politically. The status quo bias is simply so great. Change is painfully slow. That's why we rely so heavily on pilot projects when it comes to city building.

So while I too am a fan of bold vision, I also see value in what Simon Sinek and others refer to as consistency over intensity. Small, repetitive, and compounding actions can have powerful long-term results. You just have to keep going in the right direction.

And I think that many of us, or perhaps most, will agree that the right direction is rethinking our low-rise neighborhoods.

Photo by Tungsten Rising on Unsplash

I’ve been spending my mornings this weekend, listening, watching, and reading things. I’m always reading to find content for this blog, but I’ve allocating more time to consumption this weekend. So you might be noticing a slightly different varietal of posts over the past few days.

This morning it’s a podcast called Dorm Room Tycoon. It’s an interview with Andy Weissman, who is a partner with the New York venture capital firm, Union Square Ventures. The topic is “how we invest” and I’m enjoying the discussion.

Andy describes their firm as being boutique and thesis-driven. Meaning they have theses and they look for companies that dovetail with them. But in addition, he also labels their approach as “conversational investing.”

What does that mean?

It means they listen, watch, and read. They blog (all the partners write their own personal blog). They engage and discuss. They put themselves and the firm “out there”. And they don’t pretend to have all the answers or to be able to predict the future. Instead they let their conversations – both internal and with the broader market – help them make their investing decisions.

So why do I bring this up?

Because in my own small way, I am trying to do the same with real estate development, architecture, and city building. I write every day to learn and because I am infinitely curious. If you want to know what I’m thinking about, read this blog.

It’s for this reason that my favorite blog posts are the ones in which there’s lots of discussion in the comment section. It’s the market talking back, telling me whether I’m out to lunch or not. Ultimately, this idea of “conversational investing” is really about iterative decision making.

Here’s the podcast embed in case you would also like to listen:

[soundcloud url="https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/266734055" params="auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&visual=true" width="100%" height="450" iframe="true" /]

Regardless, the Dorm Room Tycoon is worth checking out. They have other interviews with people like Malcolm Gladwell and Simon Sinek.

One of the things I think the real estate industry is notoriously bad for is transparency. It’s getting better, but we’re nowhere near as transparent as some other industries, such as tech. In tech, you get companies like San Francisco-based Everpix who fail and then release all of their private documents to the public, including revenue, subscribers, cap table and so on.

Could you imagine a real estate developer failing and then releasing all of its financials? This is what we paid for the land. This is how many units we sold. And this is why we failed. It doesn’t happen (or at least I’ve never seen it).

Sure you might be able to get some of this information with a publicly traded real estate company, but that’s because they have to be more transparent. Everpix was 7 employees working out of a co-working space. They didn’t have to do this. But they did it because they wanted to help the larger startup community. They didn’t want to let a good failure go to waste.

But at the same time, I actually don’t think that transparency is all about being altruistic. Transparency can also drive the bottom line. Every company wants to stand out from the competition and engage with its customers on a deeper level. But in order to do that, I think you need to give your customers something to engage with. You have to put yourself out there.

One way to do that is to be more open and transparent. Be genuine and tell your customers who you are, what you believe in and, perhaps most importantly, why you’re doing the things that you’re doing. I like Simon Sinek’s philosophy that “customers don’t buy what you do, they buy why you do it.”