I have heard a number of people describe this blog as covering all that is new. That wasn't my explicit goal when I started writing it. My goal was simply to focus on cities and all the wonderful things that shape them. But it turns that new ideas form a big part of that and that I am very interested in new ideas. Change is what moves the world forward.

Of course, there is no shortage of new ideas. We all have brilliant ideas. Maybe you're looking at Toronto's public garbage bins right now and thinking to yourself, "You know what, I have some terrific ideas for how these could be greatly improved." And chances are, your ideas are good ones. The problem, however, is that ideas are fleeting. The real challenge is bringing them to fruition before they die.

So here are a few thoughts that came to mind this morning:

• There is a difference between incremental improvements and directional/fundamental change. Generally speaking, we tend to be naturally better at ideas related to the former than the latter. When we look at a Toronto garbage bin on the street and see it overflowing with rubbish and see all its side panels swung open, we intuitively see the problems. But it is less common to think about, oh I don't know, subterranean garbage networks for moving refuse around or networked robots that come out at night and tidy our streets with purple brooms. This is also why when we come up with something new like a horseless carriage or an iPhone, we often name them after the thing we already know and are familiar with, even though it probably undersells how meaningful the change is. It helps our minds make the leap.

• Many organizations have separate decision making processes that depend on the above. Amazon, for example, likes to ensure that incremental improvements have "multiple paths to yes" within the company. Again, these are the more intuitive kind of changes and so you don't want some brilliant, yet fragile, idea to get killed by some naysayer along the way. You want as many of them being implemented as possible. On the other hand, ideas that might change the direction of the company are typically slowed down and carefully deliberated. This is a common split. "Major decisions" go up to some greater governance body; whereas all other day-to-day decisions just get made on the fly by those "in the field". This is one way to keep things moving quickly.

• On a related note, venture capitalist Fred Wilson wrote today about the virtues of small and flat partnerships when it comes to early-stage investing (but I don't think the lesson only applies to this sector). In his view, the biggest venture winners -- at least when it comes to early-stage companies -- often come from the most "controversial and out there" ideas. And to make these sorts of bets it is helpful to have a small and flat team with a lot of trust. I found this particular insight really interesting because it implies that when you have the opposite -- big and hierarchical organizations -- you naturally start to lose your ability to experiment with non-consensus ideas. And so what you're likely left with is just the intuitive and incremental stuff.

• Recently, we also spoke about the argument that generations view change differently. Young people are often more open to new ideas, at least partially because they view it as a way for them to make their mark on the world. Older generations, on the other hand, often view change as a threat to their current position in the world. None of this is universally true, but think about how this often plays out with new housing. Young people view housing supply as a way for them to buy or rent something new and form their own household. Whereas already established households can view it as a threat to their community and their existing way of life.

These are a broad set of thoughts. But if there are any lessons to extract from these bullet points it is perhaps these: One, consider the kind of decision that needs to be made. Is it something incremental and intuitive? Is it an obviously sound infill housing project? Because if so, you want multiple paths to a quick yes. And two, consider who gets a say and who controls the decision. Because the wrong group dynamic can kill even the best new ideas.

Earlier this week the Wall Street Journal published an article claiming that the celebrated venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz was lagging behind its elite peers in terms of returns.

The firm then responded with a well-written blog post explaining why this accusation is off the mark. Their response was simply that you can’t measure returns on “unrealized gains.” Until there is a liquidity event – that is, the company gets sold or goes public – it’s just paper returns. And what matters is cash. 

As the post clearly states: “I can’t spend unrealized gains.”

But beyond just a rebuttal, the blog post is a great primer on how the venture capital industry works. We talk a lot about the tech space on this blog, so I thought some of you might find it interesting. 

One of the reasons I like to follow the VC space is that there are many similarities to real estate development. Not only in the way that the funds are structured, but also in the way that the gestation periods are incredibly long.

The post talks about this as a “J curve.” In the early years of a fund, the returns are negative. Money is going out the door to invest in immature and risky startups. And it’s not until the harvesting period (7+ years later) that the realized gains start getting paid out to investors (LPs).

It’s also interesting to note that the exit timing for companies – at least according to Andreessen Horowitz – seems to be increasing (10+ years). This is yet another similarity to real estate development where it seems to be getting harder and harder to build and deliver new supply.

I have heard a number of people describe this blog as covering all that is new. That wasn't my explicit goal when I started writing it. My goal was simply to focus on cities and all the wonderful things that shape them. But it turns that new ideas form a big part of that and that I am very interested in new ideas. Change is what moves the world forward.

Of course, there is no shortage of new ideas. We all have brilliant ideas. Maybe you're looking at Toronto's public garbage bins right now and thinking to yourself, "You know what, I have some terrific ideas for how these could be greatly improved." And chances are, your ideas are good ones. The problem, however, is that ideas are fleeting. The real challenge is bringing them to fruition before they die.

So here are a few thoughts that came to mind this morning:

• There is a difference between incremental improvements and directional/fundamental change. Generally speaking, we tend to be naturally better at ideas related to the former than the latter. When we look at a Toronto garbage bin on the street and see it overflowing with rubbish and see all its side panels swung open, we intuitively see the problems. But it is less common to think about, oh I don't know, subterranean garbage networks for moving refuse around or networked robots that come out at night and tidy our streets with purple brooms. This is also why when we come up with something new like a horseless carriage or an iPhone, we often name them after the thing we already know and are familiar with, even though it probably undersells how meaningful the change is. It helps our minds make the leap.

• Many organizations have separate decision making processes that depend on the above. Amazon, for example, likes to ensure that incremental improvements have "multiple paths to yes" within the company. Again, these are the more intuitive kind of changes and so you don't want some brilliant, yet fragile, idea to get killed by some naysayer along the way. You want as many of them being implemented as possible. On the other hand, ideas that might change the direction of the company are typically slowed down and carefully deliberated. This is a common split. "Major decisions" go up to some greater governance body; whereas all other day-to-day decisions just get made on the fly by those "in the field". This is one way to keep things moving quickly.

• On a related note, venture capitalist Fred Wilson wrote today about the virtues of small and flat partnerships when it comes to early-stage investing (but I don't think the lesson only applies to this sector). In his view, the biggest venture winners -- at least when it comes to early-stage companies -- often come from the most "controversial and out there" ideas. And to make these sorts of bets it is helpful to have a small and flat team with a lot of trust. I found this particular insight really interesting because it implies that when you have the opposite -- big and hierarchical organizations -- you naturally start to lose your ability to experiment with non-consensus ideas. And so what you're likely left with is just the intuitive and incremental stuff.

• Recently, we also spoke about the argument that generations view change differently. Young people are often more open to new ideas, at least partially because they view it as a way for them to make their mark on the world. Older generations, on the other hand, often view change as a threat to their current position in the world. None of this is universally true, but think about how this often plays out with new housing. Young people view housing supply as a way for them to buy or rent something new and form their own household. Whereas already established households can view it as a threat to their community and their existing way of life.

These are a broad set of thoughts. But if there are any lessons to extract from these bullet points it is perhaps these: One, consider the kind of decision that needs to be made. Is it something incremental and intuitive? Is it an obviously sound infill housing project? Because if so, you want multiple paths to a quick yes. And two, consider who gets a say and who controls the decision. Because the wrong group dynamic can kill even the best new ideas.

Earlier this week the Wall Street Journal published an article claiming that the celebrated venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz was lagging behind its elite peers in terms of returns.

The firm then responded with a well-written blog post explaining why this accusation is off the mark. Their response was simply that you can’t measure returns on “unrealized gains.” Until there is a liquidity event – that is, the company gets sold or goes public – it’s just paper returns. And what matters is cash. 

As the post clearly states: “I can’t spend unrealized gains.”

But beyond just a rebuttal, the blog post is a great primer on how the venture capital industry works. We talk a lot about the tech space on this blog, so I thought some of you might find it interesting. 

One of the reasons I like to follow the VC space is that there are many similarities to real estate development. Not only in the way that the funds are structured, but also in the way that the gestation periods are incredibly long.

The post talks about this as a “J curve.” In the early years of a fund, the returns are negative. Money is going out the door to invest in immature and risky startups. And it’s not until the harvesting period (7+ years later) that the realized gains start getting paid out to investors (LPs).

It’s also interesting to note that the exit timing for companies – at least according to Andreessen Horowitz – seems to be increasing (10+ years). This is yet another similarity to real estate development where it seems to be getting harder and harder to build and deliver new supply.