This morning I was reading about an anti-development activist group in Vancouver that’s trying to fight the Bjarke Ingels designed Beach and Howe Tower.

Here’s a “rendering” of the project that the group is using to galvanize the community:

And here’s an official rendering of the project:

I’ve seen this tactic used before here in Toronto for the Minto Midtown towers at Yonge & Eglinton. These were highly controversial towers and someone in the community created a depiction showing 2 large monolithic black towers (meant to represent the TD Towers downtown).

Now, I’ll be the first to say that renderings are abused from both sides of the table. Developers obviously want to represent their projects in the best possible light and upset communities try and do the exact opposite. But where I do become concerned is when communities start to form opinions and make decisions based on rumours and rhetoric, rather than fact. 

We should be having intelligent conversations about the future of our neighbourhoods and communities. And I think the best way to do that—as well as to counteract potentially unnecessary NIBYMism—is to ensure that the correct information is out there and that it’s widely accessible. Transparency is king. This often scares developers, but I believe that the benefits of openness greatly outweigh the negatives. 

Full disclosure: I’m a big fan of architect Bjarke Ingels. I’m openly jealous that Vancouver could be getting one of his designs before Toronto does.

One of the things I’ve always found funny about San Francisco is that, despite being a bastion of liberalism, it’s a city that’s incredibly anti-development. From the outside, it seems like a city filled with NIMBYs. Doesn’t that seem odd given its reputation as one of the most progressive cities in America?

Of course, many would argue that part of the reason so many people love San Francisco is because it’s done such a great job of preserving its history. And don’t get me wrong, I think that’s important. But as I’ve argued before, development should be about a balance. We should be looking to the future, while not forgetting the past.

Let’s put some numbers to this discussion.

According to Atlantic Cities, San Francisco has produced on average 1,500 new housing units each year over the past decade. Seattle does about 3,000. And in the Greater Toronto Area, we’re probably around 30,000. I’m not sure if the Atlantic Cities numbers represent only the city proper but, either way, the spread seems massive. Even still, market analysts, such as George Carras of RealNet, have argued time and time again that the Toronto region needs 40,000 new housing units a year just to keep pace with demand!

So what happens when supply doesn’t keep up with demand and you have a robust economy that continually draws in people from around the world? You get San Francisco. And you get expensive real estate and high rents that relatively few people can afford. San Francisco regularly tops the list of most expensive real estate markets in the US.

This is a phenomenon that I don’t think many people appreciate: When you fight development you restrict supply and when you restrict supply you hurt housing affordability. This is the argument that economist Edward Glaeser makes in his book, the Triumph of the City, when he talks about why housing is so affordable in Houston.

Now, if you think about it for a second, this actually means that it’s entirely contradictory to be a NIMBY and, at the same time, an advocate for affordable housing. The two are at odds with each other. Do you want an exclusive city with only enough housing for rich tech moguls? Or do you want an inclusive city with enough new housing supply for the middle class?

When asked, I’m sure many liberals would choose the latter of those 2 scenarios. But in practice, at least in San Francisco, it would appear that many are opting for the former. And it’s happening because residents want their perfect community to remain unchanged. However, in the process, the values that supposedly underpin that community are being threatened.

Which makes me wonder: Is San Francisco so liberal that it’s actually conservative?

Ted Serbinski is a Partner at Detroit Venture Partners. He works with billionaire Dan Gilbert. And obviously lives in Detroit. 

On Monday of this week he wrote a post called, 24 Business Insights I’ve Learned from Billionaire Dan Gilbert. It was clearly inspired by a blog post Gilbert did last year called 27 Things I’ve Learned in 27 Years. They’re both great reads.

But in particular I liked Ted’s 22nd point called “balance the hardware with software.” It goes like this:

“Another interesting insight is Dan’s approach to rebuilding Detroit. You need to balance what buildings you own (e.g., the hardware), with what companies lease them (e.g., the software), along with properly connecting building to building via placemaking (e.g., more software), to create a truly vibrant area.”

It’s an interesting analogy and I think it’s incredibly relevant to Detroit. The City of Detroit has great hardware. As I said before, the city is filled with gorgeous historic buildings. The bones are there. But hardware is useless without the right software.