“Francis is one of the most decisive people I know. He made a commitment to invest in our first venture capital fund in a five-minute cab we shared to work one morning.”

—Fred Wilson, Co-Founder, Venture Capitalist, and Blogger, Union Square Ventures

Francis Greenburger, who is founder and CEO of the real estate investment and development firm Time Equities, recently appeared on Barry Ritholtz’s Masters in Business Podcast.

They touch on a number of topics, including why development sometimes produces more bankruptcies than billionaires; why development margins are compressed in Toronto; and how Francis popularized the co-op in New York. 

Francis is also the author of Risk Game: Self Portrait of an Entrepreneur. So if you like the podcast – which is a great listen – there’s also a book for you. Click here for the podcast.

I just finished listening to this podcast about venture capital and consumer products. One of the underlying questions is whether we are currently in a “consumer downturn.” Rebecca Kaden of Union Square Ventures (USV) talks about the importance of “platform shifts” for venture returns. These are moments where a new technology hits the marketplace and there’s a corresponding mass consumer adoption. When and where will that next shift occur? Maybe it’ll be in real estate.

I like the discussions at 10:00 and 13:50. The first deals with the importance of non-paid customer acquisition strategies for consumer products. Rather than relying on bought attention, you really need organic growth strategies, which is often an indication that people are passionate about your product. This is arguably more important when you’re fundamentally reliant on massive growth/scale, but whether we’re talking about software or a home, I still believe it’s paramount. Create things people love.

The second point is about commerce, Amazon, and how USV avoids investing in companies that are unlikely to ever win against Bezos. Kaden’s position is that Amazon’s advantage is and has been more executional than structural. They are simply really good at doing things better. But Amazon wins at logistics, speed, and value. They are not as focused on experience, entertainment, and discovery. And people still want that.

I’ll stop there. If you can’t see the podcast below, click here.

[soundcloud url="https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/507691569" params="color=#ff5500&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&show_teaser=true&visual=true" width="100%" height="300" iframe="true" /]

Albert Wenger recently published a post on his blog about architecture and basic income. Albert is a venture capitalist and is currently working on a book called World After Capital, which I have mentioned before on this blog. He is also an advocate of basic income as a solution to the growing inequality that the modern economy seems to be producing.

In this latest post he wades into the world of architecture with two assertions that I would like to respond to today. The first is that with basic income the current trend of everyone piling up in large cities will end. We will decentralize in search of cheaper land on the outskirts of cities. And the second is that affordable housing could perhaps be produced with a more open source approach to architectural drawings and new construction.

In terms of his first point, I’m not entirely clear why someone earning a basic income would suddenly decentralize. In the comments there is some discussion about how retirees, on a fixed income, often move outward in search of more affordable housing. I understand that phenomenon, but I am not convinced in this scenario. 

There has been lots of talk about the demise of cities because of new technologies and other factors. But agglomeration economies have proved, again and again, to be a powerful centralizing force. Let’s also not forget about the environmental impacts of large scale decentralization, which would only be partially mitigated by the widespread adoption of electric vehicles. 

Secondly, you can build a house without an architect. The issue isn’t that good bathroom details are hard to come by. Some of the bigger issues are likely the availability of land (decentralization, I guess, is supposed to solve this); construction costs (it’s a highly inefficient process that generates copious amounts of waste); and the immense regulatory burdens imposed on new construction (process, time, and costs).

All of this stemmed from a visit that Albert did with a group of architecture students who are researching the relationship between architecture and basic income. I would be very curious to see what they produce.

What are your thoughts?

Photo by Mathyas Kurmann on Unsplash