Daily insights for city builders, delivered every morning at 6 AM ET. I’m Brandon Donnelly — a Toronto-based real estate developer and founder of Globizen. I’ve been writing here since 2013.
If you end up taking the time to read the articles, you’ll be reminded of a couple of things about the way cities work. One, the way we use buildings changes over time. Two, the kind of architecture we pursue is always a reflection of the socioeconomic milieu at that particular moment in time. And three, the way we perceive buildings also changes over time.
In the case of Amsterdam’s canal houses, their original function was live/work. They were residences, but they were also warehouses. Amsterdam’s maritime dominance meant that it was more profitable to store things, instead of just house people. (Sometimes as much as half of the house was dedicated to storage.) Trade patterns had moved from the Mediterranean up to the North Atlantic, and that worked out pretty well for the Dutch in the 17th century.
In the case of Berlin, their typical mid-rise “rental barracks” went from reviled to coveted as the buildings aged, elevators made the penthouses desirable, and people started to appreciate some of their idiosyncrasies. It’s an example of what I was getting at when I spoke to the CBC for this article about Toronto’s skyscraper boom. Some things, including buildings, take time. They need to settle in.
Candace Taylor published an article today in the WSJ about the late Zaha Hadid’s One Thousand Museum tower in downtown Miami. The title: “Zaha Hadid’s Miami Tower Is an Architectural Feat. Is It Designed to Sell?”
It’s an interesting case study, particularly for those of us in the industry. With only 84 units across 62 storeys, it is certainly “ultraluxury.” There’s also a helipad on the roof. Here is an excerpt from the article to give you a sense of the unit sizes:
Louis Birdman, one of the project’s developers, said prices, which range from just under $5 million to $25 million, are negotiable. Each floor has only one or two units, ranging in size from about 4,600 square feet to 10,400 square feet and each has at least four bedrooms. “Given what’s going on in the market now, I think all of us developers are competing for a similar buyer, so there’s obviously flexibility on price,” he said.
As you can probably glean from the above, the ultraluxury market has softened in Miami. But Candace is right: One Thousand Museum is an architectural masterpiece. If you’re in the market for a new four bedroom home in downtown Miami, now may be right time.
At the beginning of this year, a16z announced that they co-led a $175 million investment in the real estate company Loft. Based in São Paulo, Loft is doing in Brazil what Opendoor is doing in the US. They are bringing more liquidity to the residential real estate marketplace, and it turns out that the need for this is even greater in Brazil. That has apparently made Loft one of the fastest growing real estate companies in the world today. Here are some interesting facts about residential real estate in São Paulo. And here is a talk by Alex Rampell (general partner at a16z) on how software is going to eat the real estate world.
Benedict Evan’s latest post on Microsoft, IBM, and anti-trust is excellent. In it he argues (reminds us) that market power during one generation of tech, doesn’t necessarily guarantee market power in the next. And that anti-trust intervention isn’t actually responsible for Microsoft missing out on, among other things, mobile. The rules of engagement simply changed. The PC is now a smartphone accessory.
Here is an excerpt:
The tech industry loves to talk about ‘moats’ around a business – some mechanic of the product or market that forms a fundamental structural barrier to competition, so that just having a better product isn‘t enough to break in. But there are several ways that a moat can stop working. Sometimes the King orders you to fill in the moat and knock down the walls. This is the deus ex machina of state intervention – of anti-trust investigations and trials. But sometimes the river changes course, or the harbour silts up, or someone opens a new pass over the mountains, or the trade routes move, and the castle is still there and still impregnable but slowly stops being important. This is what happened to IBM and Microsoft. The competition isn’t another mainframe company or another PC operating system – it’s something that solves the same underlying user needs in very different ways, or creates new ones that matter more. The web didn’t bridge Microsoft’s moat – it went around, and made it irrelevant. Of course, this isn’t limited to tech – railway and ocean liner companies didn’t make the jump into airlines either. But those companies had a run of a century – IBM and Microsoft each only got 20 years.
A few weeks ago, I tweeted that I was creating a simple email newsletter that would notify you of new planning/development applications (and updates) near where you live (in Toronto). About 100 people subscribed following that tweet and we then spent the following few weeks getting the service ready.
The first email was sent out today and, if you haven’t already, you can subscribe for free, here. The way it works is pretty simple. You enter your postal code. We draw a 1000m radius around that postal code (we’ll monitor this number going forward to see if it continues to make sense). And we then send you any new applications/updates that fall within that radius.
So depending on where you live, the first email you receive could contain a long list of projects. They’re all assumed to be new initially. But going forward, the list will become much shorter and you’ll only receive an email if/when there’s something new to report.
The ultimate goal is to come up with a better way to engage people around new development projects. This is a first step. Regardless, our guts tell us that many people would appreciate a quick way to see what is happening around them. If you have any initial thoughts, please leave a comment below or send me an email.
You can email subscribe for free by visiting unlyst.com.
Happy New Year from Miami. (This post is bring written on my phone.)
A number of people have asked me if I will be making any resolutions this year. I’m not really a fan of making resolutions, per se. If you really want to do something — such as, oh I don’t know, go to the gym more often — I think you should just go and do it and not kid yourself that January 1 is the appropriate day in which to start.
That said, this time of year can be useful for annual planning. It’s easy to get preoccupied with executing throughout the year. Execution is everything. But it’s also valuable to use this “idle time” to think about your own personal and professional roadmap. What have I been doing? Where do I want to go? And should I make tweaks to the former to optimize for the latter?
I have been doing exactly that over this last week and I have made a number of changes to where I plan to invest my time, energy, and money in 2020. So I am excited for the year (and decade) ahead. Maybe some of you have been doing the same and feel similarly.
As always, thank you for reading over the last year. Next year will be year seven of this daily blog. It’s hard to imagine that it’s been that long already. I made a decision to start writing publicly and it clearly stuck. For what it’s worth, that decision didn’t happen on the first of January.
I just finished reading a few articles (here’s one and here’s another by Cory Doctorow) on something called “adversarial interoperability.” This is relevant because it is being put forward as the thing that’s needed to solve big tech — as opposed to, say, just trying to break up big tech into small tech, which is what some policy makers think we should do.
Interoperability is, quite simply, the ability for different products and/or services to work together. It’s the USB charger in your hotel room nightstand that empowers you to charge your phone. (Relevant post: Project connected home.) But, of course, there are different types of interoperability, ranging from cooperative to adversarial.
Adversarial interoperability is when two products and/or services work together to the extreme chagrin of one of the companies. Usually that company is blatantly trying to stop it from happening so as to further strengthen their market dominance.
The argument being put forward is that this adversarial relationship is fundamental to tech and fundamental to innovation. It allows new ideas to emerge. And so the real problem at hand is that big tech has gotten so big that it has managed to largely quash this varietal of interoperability. The result is less innovation and the persistence of big tech.
For a proper reading list on this topic, click here.
Elon Musk recently posted this Twitter survey asking if we, the people, would like “super safe, Earthquake-proof tunnels under [our] cities to solve traffic.” It was leading in that the “no” response was, “No, I like traffic.” And it was initially vague in that it wasn’t clear how these tunnels would be used. Though, most of us could probably guess. Elon later added in the thread that these road tunnels would be for zero emission vehicles only and they would be limited to EVs (from all auto companies, not just Tesla). Finally, Elon stated that these tunnels are not intended to replace other solutions, such as light rail, rather to supplement them.
At the time of writing this post, nearly 1.5 million people had responded to the survey and about 67% of them said “definitely” to Earthquake-proof tunnels. Elon’s reaction: “Stop whining, subway Stalinists, the people have spoken.” Notwithstanding the majority, this is a divisive topic and the reactions are mixed. City planner Brent Toderian responded by saying that this “solution” would merely result in more cars, more driving, and more emissions. Steve Jurvetson, on the other hand, argued that this would be the cheapest way to add lanes and prepare for the inevitable EV-only future. (Steve sits on Tesla’s board and recently launched a venture fund that, among other things, invests in sustainable mobility.)
The crux of this divide is a view about how cities should work. And it often becomes like dogma. Is it optimal for us to all be driving around in individual vehicles — EV or not? Will autonomous vehicles actually help solve the traffic problem? Or is building on the backbone of mass transit the only way to properly design a big and efficient city? Whether it’s lip service or not, Elon seems to acknowledge that both cars and transit are important, and that both can work together to supplement each other.
What is clear to me is that cities, at the scale of say Tokyo, wouldn’t function nearly as efficiently if it weren’t for their extensive fixed rail networks. At the same time, there are many cities (or portions of cities) that do not have the prerequisite population and employment densities to support this same level of transit investment. And that has created a strong pull away from transit (and active transport such as cycling) toward private vehicles. Sprawling cities signal to people that they should probably be driving. This is one of the reasons why land use should never be separated from mobility discussions.
How autonomous vehicles change all of this remains to be seen. Though I do think it will make cars less private and more public transit-like. Studies show that most of us are pretty good at coming up with incremental improvements to the things we already know and understand. i.e. This is how I would make this car better. But we’re far worse at coming up with and predicting tectonic shifts in the landscape. And autonomy is probably one of those shifts. But as long as our built form remains heterogeneous, I am inclined to believe that a mixture of mobility solutions will be needed. Maybe that means car tunnels. Or maybe it doesn’t.
This past fall, Goldman Sachs published an important report about “making cities resilient to climate change.” In it, they remind us that the scientific consensus is that the world has already warmed from the pre-industrial era (and will likely continue to do so) and that a great many of us live near water (and will likely be impacted going forward).
About 40% of the world’s population lives within 100 kilometers of a coast, and about 10% of the world’s population lives in a coastal settlement that is less than 10m above sea level. Above is a list of some of those cities, along with their average elevation in meters. The cities with single digit elevations include Bangkok, Miami, Alexandria, and Amsterdam.
Goldman’s prediction is that this need for “urban adaption” could lead to one of the largest infrastructure build-outs in history. And that cities all around the world should already be thinking about how they will finance and equitably execute on greater resilience (assuming they aren’t already).
Click here to download a full copy of the report. The diagrams showing the average change in global mean surface temperatures against the pre-industrial period are something you should all look at it. The 2015-2019 change is pictured above.
Last week, SHARE NOW — which was previously known as Car2Go — announced that it will be exiting the North American market entirely come February 29, 2020, and that it will also cease operations in London, Brussels, and Florence. A couple of reasons were cited, including the “volatile state of the global mobility landscape,” but that really translates into low adoption:
Further, despite our best efforts and investments in Brussels, London and Florence over the years, we are unable to continue operations in a manner that’s sustainable for our business due to low adoption rates.
Moving forward, SHARE NOW will focus on the remaining 18 European cities. We, along with our shareholders, believe these markets show the clearest potential for profitable growth and mobility innovation.
There was a period of time when I used to use Car2Go here in Toronto. My network did as well. But that quickly stopped with the rise of Uber and Lyft. I mean, why bother finding a Car2Go and then parking it, when there’s a much lower friction option? I would imagine that’s how most people feel. (Maybe there’s a care share advantage for longer trips.)
At the same time, companies such as Uber and Lyft have, as you know, not performed well as public companies. The market is nervous about their path to profitability. In my view, they’re largely an undifferentiated offering right now, and it’s pretty easy to switch across them. So yeah, I guess the global mobility landscape is pretty volatile.
