Though it’s sometimes common to downplay “this for that” startups (that is, derivative startups that try and borrow a model and use it in another market), Storefront–which can be described as Airbnb for retail spaces–has just raised a $7.3 million Series A round.

Storefront is a marketplace for short term retail space (think pop-up shops). People with space simply create a listing and decide how much they would like to charge per day, per week or per month. In doing so, Storefront “helps all sorts of brands, sellers, and merchants to create their first brick and mortar retail experience.”

What I find interesting about Storefront, and other startups like Airbnb, is that they’re really rewriting the way real estate marketplaces work. Instead of large retail landlords (Storefront) and multinational hotel operators (Airbnb), technology is allowing individuals to now participate in these marketplaces. Supply is being decentralized and anyone with extra space can participate.

You could argue that these sorts of informal and short term rentals are nothing new, but I don’t think there’s ever been the possibility of scaling up like there is today. I mean, just look at how much attention Airbnb has been getting in New York. These startups are having an impact on the way the larger market functions.

Change is coming. And I think we’ll see a lot more of it in the real estate space.

I was planning to write about something else today, but then I saw Fred Wilson’s post on revitalizing urban cores and I had to switch topics, because I think he makes a great point about turning around declining cities:

I’ve been asked by civic leaders from places like Newark, Cleveland, Buffalo, and a number of other upstate NYC cities that have suffered a similar fate how they can do the same thing. They all talk about tax incentives, connecting with local research universities, and providing startup capital. And I tell them that they are focusing on the wrong thing.

You have to lead with lifestyle. If you can’t make your city a place where the young mobile talent leaving college or grad school wants to go to start their career, meet someone, and build a life, all that other stuff doesn’t matter.

It’s exactly the same point I made in my post entrepreneurship as economic development strategy. You can throw as much money as you’d like at startups, but if young people don’t want to live in your city then you have a serious problem.

Fred goes on to talk about Tony Hsieh’s (founder of Zappos) initiatives in downtown Las Vegas:

When Tony moved Zappos from the suburbs to the former City Hall in downtown Vegas a few years ago, he decided to invest $350mm in a massive urban revitalization project. He set aside $200mm to purchase land at bargain prices and the other $150mm to invest in three areas, arts and culture, small businesses (restaurants, cafes, bars, markets, boutiques, etc), and tech startups. $50mm is going into each area.

It’s an example of leading with lifestyle, urbanism and city building, rather than purely economics. And I think it’s the way to go. But to be clear, I’m not suggesting that the focus should be on large capital projects, such as stadiums and infrastructure. I’m not convinced those are the most effective catalysts. There’s no silver bullet here.

Instead, I think the answer is in building, from the ground up, a real sense of community and place. People need to love your city. That’s easier said than done though.

Fred Wilson (New York VC) wrote a post on his blog this morning called The Bubble Question. In it, he talks about how everyone asks him whether or not there’s a tech bubble, which he has been asked for the past 4 years now. It reminded me of the debates that are also happening in the real estate community (particularly in Canada).

The thesis of his post is this:

I learned in business school that the multiple of earnings one should pay for a business is roughly the inverse of interest rates.

In other words, as interest rates drop, people are willing to pay more for the business or asset in question. And it’s because they can’t find the yields anywhere else.

The same phenomenon, you could argue, is also happening in the real estate space. Typically, income producing real estate assets are assessed using capitalization rates (or cap rates), which is defined by the Net Operating Income (NOI) of the property (revenue - expenses, but excluding financing costs), divided by the price of the property.

The real estate equivalent of what Fred is talking about is cap rate compression. When cap rates drop it means you’re paying more for the same amount of yield (or NOI). One of the reasons that might happen is because people are anticipating that the asset will appreciate. But it could also be because interest rates are so low that investors will take whatever returns they can get. 

So you could argue that the market is just responding to the macro economy. And since the feds are probably waiting for global growth to pickup (before raising rates), one could argue that the status quo is just going to continue. Ideally, it’ll continue until robust economic growth is able to take the place of cheap money.