A few weeks ago the WSJ published an article about Toronto's growing tech talent pool, arguing that its base now rivals the top US cities, but that it may not be an entirely good thing for the city's ecosystem. I wrote about it here.

This morning venture capitalist Fred Wilson published a post on his blog talking about the necessity of scaling tech companies in lower cost locations. It's a good follow-up to the above article/post.

Here's an excerpt from Fred:

Last week I heard some shocking numbers about salary levels for certain kinds of engineers in the bay area. I checked them out with a few of our bay area portfolio companies and they were more or less corroborated.

The tight technical labor markets in the bay area, NYC, and a number of other regions in the US are making it hard to scale software businesses without burning massive amounts of cash.

He goes on to argue that (startup) companies now need to think about scaling in other/remote locations sooner than they ever have before -- basically as soon as the company hits about 50 engineers (or 100-200 employees).

Many companies are now working with a distributed workforce. Supposedly 2/3 of the global workforce now spends at least one day of the week working remotely. I almost never work from home, but I do get how this is possible.

So what is happening is that engineering talent is spilling over into secondary markets out of necessity. There's an economic imperative to colonize. But I would imagine that, at least initially, most of the economic benefits accrue to the colonizer.

Photo by NASA on Unsplash

The Wall Street Journal's recent piece about "Silicon Valley invading Toronto" is, in my view, describing a generally positive outcome.

We are one of the largest cities in North America (the exact ranking depends on where you draw the urban boundaries).

We have more enlightened views around foreign and high-skilled workers (I was given a short window in which to leave the US after I finished my first graduate degree there).

And we have a large and highly educated pool of tech talent (the salary differential discussed in the article looks to be, at least partially, a result of the weaker Canadian dollar).

US companies are gobbling up office space in Toronto. And presumably, this is one of the reasons why 139 new flights were added between Toronto and Francisco over the last two years. (Source: WSJ)

However, I do agree with the remarks from people like Jim Balsillie (Blackberry) and Harley Finkelstein (Shopify) that a better outcome would be the creation of more massively successful Canadian tech companies.

As Finkelstein points out, there's a big difference between 100,000 square feet of space for the HQ of a new and growing Canadian tech company and 100,000 square feet for a new branch or satellite office.

The stats we read in the papers about the number of tech jobs being created in Toronto generally don't speak to composition. Where in the value chain do these people sit? Where is the value accruing?

The intellectual capital is here. And we should be doing everything we can to foster and finance new homegrown ideas and businesses.

Image: WSJ

Sidewalk Labs just released its draft Master Innovation and Development Plan ("MIDP") for Toronto's eastern waterfront. It's called Toronto Tomorrow: A New Approach for Inclusive Growth, and it's massive. Over 1,500 pages. It consists of an overview and 3 volumes, all of which can be downloaded here.

At a high-level, the objectives of the plan are twofold. They want to revitalize the eastern waterfront (it's currently appalling) and they want to test new urban ideas that could benefit the broader city, as well as the rest of the world. Deploying new technologies at a larger scale is one of the ways the company intends to make money.

I am still working my way through the plan (I may never finish), but here's a breakdown of the development program for the Quayside precinct:

If you're looking for a quick overview of the plan, here are five things to know about the Sidewalk Toronto project and here is an overview of the public-private partnership that they are proposing. Of course, there's also no shortage of criticism on Sidewalk's plans for the waterfront. Some links here, here, and here (paywall).

Sidewalk Labs is trying to assuage public concerns through some of its open commitments. They have said that they will not seek special tax subsidies, control urban data, sell personal info and/or use it for ads, or develop the entire eastern waterfront themselves. But the plan remains highly controversial.

I think part of the issue is that, because so much of what they are proposing hasn't been done before, there are a lot of unanswered questions and a great deal of uncertainty around the future. Many are interpreting this as the company hiding its true intentions. Maybe it is. Or maybe it isn't.

But let's not forget what Waterfront Toronto requested back in 2017 for these lands. It wanted an innovation and funding partner:

Waterfront Toronto is seeking a unique partner, one with invention ingrained in its culture, which can transform conventional business practices and help to establish a benchmark climate positive approach that will lead the world in city building practices.

There's no question that what Sidewalk Toronto has put forward is bold. As I scanned through the plans today, I found myself hard pressed to think of any "conventional" developer that would be willing to come forward with a proposal as ambitious as this one.

As you all know, Sidewalk Labs' parent company is called Alphabet. But I think it's worth mentioning that "alpha" is a finance term that refers to the excess return of a strategy beyond that of a benchmark index. Put differently: How much better are you than the status quo?

The whole point of Alphabet is that they're supposed to make "alpha bets" on ambitious projects. They are given the "resources, freedom, and focus" to try new things. Sometimes those projects will fail. But in other cases they will succeed in moving the world forward.

Every city today is trying to grow a thriving technology ecosystem. We want to be innovative. We want to transform conventional businesses practices. And we want to lead the world. Unfortunately, that rise to the top is almost never a smooth and linear one. There will be mistakes along the way.

How badly do we want to lead?

A few weeks ago the WSJ published an article about Toronto's growing tech talent pool, arguing that its base now rivals the top US cities, but that it may not be an entirely good thing for the city's ecosystem. I wrote about it here.

This morning venture capitalist Fred Wilson published a post on his blog talking about the necessity of scaling tech companies in lower cost locations. It's a good follow-up to the above article/post.

Here's an excerpt from Fred:

Last week I heard some shocking numbers about salary levels for certain kinds of engineers in the bay area. I checked them out with a few of our bay area portfolio companies and they were more or less corroborated.

The tight technical labor markets in the bay area, NYC, and a number of other regions in the US are making it hard to scale software businesses without burning massive amounts of cash.

He goes on to argue that (startup) companies now need to think about scaling in other/remote locations sooner than they ever have before -- basically as soon as the company hits about 50 engineers (or 100-200 employees).

Many companies are now working with a distributed workforce. Supposedly 2/3 of the global workforce now spends at least one day of the week working remotely. I almost never work from home, but I do get how this is possible.

So what is happening is that engineering talent is spilling over into secondary markets out of necessity. There's an economic imperative to colonize. But I would imagine that, at least initially, most of the economic benefits accrue to the colonizer.

Photo by NASA on Unsplash

The Wall Street Journal's recent piece about "Silicon Valley invading Toronto" is, in my view, describing a generally positive outcome.

We are one of the largest cities in North America (the exact ranking depends on where you draw the urban boundaries).

We have more enlightened views around foreign and high-skilled workers (I was given a short window in which to leave the US after I finished my first graduate degree there).

And we have a large and highly educated pool of tech talent (the salary differential discussed in the article looks to be, at least partially, a result of the weaker Canadian dollar).

US companies are gobbling up office space in Toronto. And presumably, this is one of the reasons why 139 new flights were added between Toronto and Francisco over the last two years. (Source: WSJ)

However, I do agree with the remarks from people like Jim Balsillie (Blackberry) and Harley Finkelstein (Shopify) that a better outcome would be the creation of more massively successful Canadian tech companies.

As Finkelstein points out, there's a big difference between 100,000 square feet of space for the HQ of a new and growing Canadian tech company and 100,000 square feet for a new branch or satellite office.

The stats we read in the papers about the number of tech jobs being created in Toronto generally don't speak to composition. Where in the value chain do these people sit? Where is the value accruing?

The intellectual capital is here. And we should be doing everything we can to foster and finance new homegrown ideas and businesses.

Image: WSJ

Sidewalk Labs just released its draft Master Innovation and Development Plan ("MIDP") for Toronto's eastern waterfront. It's called Toronto Tomorrow: A New Approach for Inclusive Growth, and it's massive. Over 1,500 pages. It consists of an overview and 3 volumes, all of which can be downloaded here.

At a high-level, the objectives of the plan are twofold. They want to revitalize the eastern waterfront (it's currently appalling) and they want to test new urban ideas that could benefit the broader city, as well as the rest of the world. Deploying new technologies at a larger scale is one of the ways the company intends to make money.

I am still working my way through the plan (I may never finish), but here's a breakdown of the development program for the Quayside precinct:

If you're looking for a quick overview of the plan, here are five things to know about the Sidewalk Toronto project and here is an overview of the public-private partnership that they are proposing. Of course, there's also no shortage of criticism on Sidewalk's plans for the waterfront. Some links here, here, and here (paywall).

Sidewalk Labs is trying to assuage public concerns through some of its open commitments. They have said that they will not seek special tax subsidies, control urban data, sell personal info and/or use it for ads, or develop the entire eastern waterfront themselves. But the plan remains highly controversial.

I think part of the issue is that, because so much of what they are proposing hasn't been done before, there are a lot of unanswered questions and a great deal of uncertainty around the future. Many are interpreting this as the company hiding its true intentions. Maybe it is. Or maybe it isn't.

But let's not forget what Waterfront Toronto requested back in 2017 for these lands. It wanted an innovation and funding partner:

Waterfront Toronto is seeking a unique partner, one with invention ingrained in its culture, which can transform conventional business practices and help to establish a benchmark climate positive approach that will lead the world in city building practices.

There's no question that what Sidewalk Toronto has put forward is bold. As I scanned through the plans today, I found myself hard pressed to think of any "conventional" developer that would be willing to come forward with a proposal as ambitious as this one.

As you all know, Sidewalk Labs' parent company is called Alphabet. But I think it's worth mentioning that "alpha" is a finance term that refers to the excess return of a strategy beyond that of a benchmark index. Put differently: How much better are you than the status quo?

The whole point of Alphabet is that they're supposed to make "alpha bets" on ambitious projects. They are given the "resources, freedom, and focus" to try new things. Sometimes those projects will fail. But in other cases they will succeed in moving the world forward.

Every city today is trying to grow a thriving technology ecosystem. We want to be innovative. We want to transform conventional businesses practices. And we want to lead the world. Unfortunately, that rise to the top is almost never a smooth and linear one. There will be mistakes along the way.

How badly do we want to lead?