Tag: business

• Tools of the trade and productivity hacks

  Like a lot of people, I am always on the lookout for productivity tools and hacks. This is an old post, but I love the idea of getting rid of voicemail (I hate checking it) and of 3×5 cards where you focus yourself on 3-5 important tasks each day.

  So today I thought I would share some of the tools, apps, and hacks that I use on a regular basis. Then if you feel like it, you can share your tools and approaches in the comments so we come up with a good running list.

  I’ll start with software and then move to actions.

  Google Drive: I have my Google Drive mapped to my computer and I store everything on it. That way I can access any file I need from my phone while I’m away from my desk. There’s also Dropbox and Box for moving around large files.

  Evernote: I am trying to go paperless. Right now I photo scan almost all of my documents into Evernote (including business cards). I really should invest in an actual scanner. If you know of a good one for this purpose, let me know. Again, the advantage of this approach is that all of my documents are accessible on mobile.

  Asana: I have used Asana off and on over the years for managing team projects. (We used it for Dirt.) Everyone needs to be committed to it though. And we all know how sticky email is for communication/assigning tasks. But if you can get in the habit of listing and assigning action items during or right after meetings, I think it can be a great way to keep projects moving. 

  Slack: I have a tendency to always want to keep everyone on a team informed about what is going on. That way nobody is left out and people can speak up if they see something concerning. I got in the habit of this when I was at Morguard. That was the way we did things in development and I think it’s a sound approach. Today, we have Slack to help do that.

  Buffer: I use Buffer to schedule and share all of my social posts. Some people swear by Hootsuite, but I love the simplicity of Buffer. It couldn’t be easier to add posts to your queues across multiple platforms.

  Pocket: This is my save-it-and-read-it-later tool. I use Pocket to keep a running list of articles and links I find interesting so that when I sit down every morning to write this blog, I have material to refer to.

  Now let’s switch gears to actions…

  Notifications Off: I have all notifications off on my phone during the day (except for phone calls). The temptation to check my phone when it goes off is too great, so I keep it completely silent. It doesn’t even vibrate. Going even further, I also have notifications off for most non-essential apps.

  Directing Messages: I am trying to keep messages directed to Twitter, text, and email. That means I am generally terrible at responding to messages on Facebook, LinkedIn, and so on. But I’m okay with that. There are simply too many channels to stay on top of.

  Routines: When I first started writing this daily blog, people would ask me why I don’t take the weekends off. But I actually think it would be harder to stay disciplined if I did that. By doing it every day it has become a non-negotiable routine. I try to think of productivity in terms of regular actions.

  Today’s Tasks: I am starting to do this more and more. It’s easy to end up with an overwhelmingly long list of things to do. So it can be incredibly valuable to ask yourself: What are the most important things for me to complete today? Then go and do those things.

  Gym: For me, lifting weights is one of the best ways to stay productive. It’s a natural energy booster and I find that it gives me a mental clarity that I just don’t get from anything else. I am not the same person when I fall behind in my workouts.

  What do you use and do to get shit done?

  2016.08.26

• BARED: David Wex, Urban Capital Property Group

  

  David Wex started his career working for one of the big Seven Sister law firms in Toronto. But right from the outset, it was clear that he wasn’t in it for the long run.

  In fact, only a few days after he started, David had the clever idea of turning his desk around so that it faced the window, instead of the hall. That way, he could avoid eye contact with partners as they walked by his office, and reduce his chances of being assigned a file.

  Of course he couldn’t avoid being tracked down all the time. But whenever someone would try to assign him work, he would simply say: “I’m sorry, but I’m really busy working on something right now.” His nickname quickly became “One File Wex” and it was clear that he was headed towards the departure lounge and not a corner office.

  But already, David had his mind set on doing something related to cities. So while still working as a lawyer he decided to complete his Graduate Record Examination (GRE) in preparation for going to planning school. Ultimately, he decided not to go back to school, but instead leave the firm and just figure things out. He left in 1992.

  After leaving, he did in his words, “nothing” for a few years. He lived off his savings, spent some time working with a bunch of guys cleaning up the Don River, and tried to figure out a way to put together a development project.

  Eventually he met a friend of the Goodman family and this led to an introduction to the Dundee Corporation.

  It was the early 90’s and nothing was happening by way of development in Toronto. The real estate industry was in a deep recession. Ask anyone who was “active” during this time. It was a painful time to be in the business. But the Goodmans told David that he if could find a suitable site to develop, they would invest. Lesson: Developers are constantly leveraging other people’s money.

  So David went out and found a site on a sleepy street named Camden in Toronto’s Fashion District. This is not the Camden Street of today, which has an Ace Hotel currently in the works. It was a dead zone. By this point we are in 1995 and few people believed that anyone would want to live on a downtown street like Camden.

  Given the perceived undesirability of the site and the continued lull in the market, David tied up 29 Camden for C$700,000 with a 2 year option. What this means is that he had 2 years to figure out if he actually wanted to close on it. He could put very little money down and get the project going before having to worry about carrying the land. It wasn’t until midway through sales that he actually went firm.

  It’s hard to imagine being able to do this in today’s competitive real estate market, but that was the market at the time.

  Of course, the flip side to all of this is that it also took him 2 years to sell about 20 condominium units (out of a total of 55), at an average price per square foot of $195. Today you could sell those units in 2 hours at $800 psf.

  Brad Lamb – who was just starting out at the time – was the broker on the project. And activity at the sales office was so scant that everyone would get excited even when a car would drive down Camden Street. That’s how dead it was in the Fashion District.

  Eventually Dundee got impatient. Sales were slow. A lot of money had been spent on marketing. And the partners didn’t believe that “the bump and grind of Queen Street” (original marketing pitch) was the right way to position the product. David was also in the midst of rebranding his company from Red Rocket (named after our transit commission) to Scrappy Dog Real Estate Investments. By that point Dundee came in and said: “You’ve fucked up this project. You’re out.”

  David had felt like he had made it and become a developer with Camden Lofts. But just like that – before construction had even started – he was off the project.

  The deal that David struck with his partners was that he didn’t want any money out of the project (it didn’t end up making much money anyways). But he wanted to stay involved and be able to call Camden Lofts his project. And so to this day, Camden Lofts remains the first development project of his very successful real estate career.

  But Camden Lofts didn’t solidify David as a real estate developer. After the fumble, David took on the role of managing a loft conversion for what turned out to be some pretty dodgy landowners. The total management fee was a princely $5,000, but David wanted to complete his own project from beginning to end. And so he did just that with Century Lofts at 365 Dundas Street East. He also spent a great deal of time learning Illustrator, Photoshop, and other design tools so that he could do all of the marketing himself. This is an experience that would later manifest itself in his company’s business model.

  After tuning his craft for a couple of years, David met his current business partner, Mark Reeve. Mark was a corporate real estate developer and planner, and they talked about doing something together. So they did, and the result was Urban Capital Property Group. Mark was also able to planning consult on the side and that helped fund their fledgling business as they worked on breaking into the development game.

  The first project to come out of this relationship was The Sylvia, which was also on Camden Street (#50). However, you won’t find this project on their website because it was done in partnership with developer Intracorp. The relationship ended up not being a productive one and both David and Mark vowed never again to be involved in a project that they weren’t actively managing themselves. That vow continues to this day.

  The first project that Urban Capital did on their own was the 66-unit Charlotte Lofts. It’s the first project they completed from A to Z. They sourced the site, secured the financing, worked on the design, marketed it, and constructed it. It was a success.

  The partners did well but the learning curve remained so steep that neither felt that they had really “made it” with this project. Indeed, my interviews have uncovered that this is a common experience amongst new developers. It can take a few projects before they really hit their stride and, in some cases, even make any money.

  But who ever remembers the stumbles?

  Today, Urban Capital has completed over 4,000 urban condominiums and has another 2,500 in the works. They have developed over $2 billion worth of real estate to become one of Canada’s most influential urban infill developers.

  Unlike other Toronto-based condo developers, they have branched out beyond Toronto: east to Montreal, Ottawa and Halifax; and west to Winnipeg and Saskatoon, with other cities on the horizon. Their mission is to act as an urban regenerator by bringing high design urban living to new markets across the country.

  They have come a long way since the days of Scrappy Dog Real Estate Investments. Clearly David is the furthest thing from “One File Wex.”

  You can follow Urban Capital on Twitter and on Facebook.

  Image: River City 2, Toronto

  ———————————————————

  This is the first post in my new blog series called BARED (Becoming A Real Estate Developer). More posts to come in the following weeks. Subscribe to stay in the loop.

  2016.08.15

• Manager vs. maker

  

  I am a big believer in making things. 

  That could be writing a blog post, recording a podcast, coding an app, designing a building, making something tangible, or whatever. It is the act of creating something. And it’s one of the reasons I love what I do. At the end of the day, I have had a hand in (hopefully) creating something awesome that didn’t exist before.

  I don’t think everyone feels this way but, for me, when I don’t block time to “make things” I can sometimes feel antsy. I need time to do creative things. It makes me feel like I’m being productive. It makes me feel like I’m producing output, as opposed to just sitting in meetings and making sure everything is on track. Maybe that’s the architect in me.

  Paul Graham describes these two mindsets as that of a manager and that of a maker. And in a great essay published in 2009, he talks about how different these two people’s schedules can be. Below is a longish excerpt that I think you’ll find valuable for life and business.

  “There are two types of schedule, which I’ll call the manager’s schedule and the maker’s schedule. The manager’s schedule is for bosses. It’s embodied in the traditional appointment book, with each day cut into one hour intervals. You can block off several hours for a single task if you need to, but by default you change what you’re doing every hour.

  When you use time that way, it’s merely a practical problem to meet with someone. Find an open slot in your schedule, book them, and you’re done.

  Most powerful people are on the manager’s schedule. It’s the schedule of command. But there’s another way of using time that’s common among people who make things, like programmers and writers. They generally prefer to use time in units of half a day at least. You can’t write or program well in units of an hour. That’s barely enough time to get started.

  When you’re operating on the maker’s schedule, meetings are a disaster. A single meeting can blow a whole afternoon, by breaking it into two pieces each too small to do anything hard in. Plus you have to remember to go to the meeting. That’s no problem for someone on the manager’s schedule. There’s always something coming on the next hour; the only question is what. But when someone on the maker’s schedule has a meeting, they have to think about it.

  I find one meeting can sometimes affect a whole day. A meeting commonly blows at least half a day, by breaking up a morning or afternoon. But in addition there’s sometimes a cascading effect. If I know the afternoon is going to be broken up, I’m slightly less likely to start something ambitious in the morning. I know this may sound oversensitive, but if you’re a maker, think of your own case. Don’t your spirits rise at the thought of having an entire day free to work, with no appointments at all? Well, that means your spirits are correspondingly depressed when you don’t. And ambitious projects are by definition close to the limits of your capacity. A small decrease in morale is enough to kill them off.”

  This really resonates with me. It’s a great reminder, regardless of which schedule you’re currently on. Because even if you’re firmly ensconced in one of the two camps, chances are you work with people in the other one. And understanding where they’re coming from is important.

  Paul then goes on to talk about speculative business meetings in his essay. These are the “let’s grab coffee” meetings. They’re costly if you’re on the maker’s schedule, but they’re expected if you’re on the manager’s schedule. I have learned to cap these throughout the week. They can easily overwhelm a calendar.

  The big takeaway for me after reading Paul’s essay is that – if you make things – you have to be draconian about blocking time for that. I completely agree that even one meeting can derail an ambitious make session. So I am going to work harder at doing just that.

  Would you consider yourself to be a manager, maker, or both? I aspire to be both.

  2016.08.11

• Business model innovation

  Fred Wilson has a great post up on his blog today about open protocols. By open protocols he is referring to things like TCP/IP (transmission control protocol and internet protocol), HTTP (hypertext transfer protocol), and SMTP (simple mail transfer protocol). Whether you realize it or not, you rely on these protocols every single day if you go on the internet, browse the web, and write emails.

  If you’re interested in these sorts of nerdy things, I recommend you read his post. I’m not going to write about open protocols today – though I do find them fascinating. Instead, I would like to talk about the last paragraph of his post. 

  Here it is:

  “I believe that business model innovation is more disruptive that technological innovation. Incumbents can adapt to and adopt new technological changes (web to mobile) way easier than they can adapt to and adopt new business models (selling software to free ad-supported software). So this new protocol-based business model feels like one of these “changes of venue” as my partner Brad likes to call them. And that smells like a big investable macro trend to me.”

  This is interesting to me for 2 reasons.

  First, business model innovation is incredibly powerful. Once a company has built itself up around an existing model, it can be painfully difficult to change. Imagine you have a 200 person sales team that would become unnecessary should you pivot your business model. Are you going to fire them and make the switch?

  This is also one of the reasons why some tech companies can exist for so long before they make any money. Sometimes – but not always – it’s because the investors believe that if the company has users, attention or whatever it may be, that they will figure out a way to monetize them/it. And maybe, just maybe, it’ll be a business model that no one has ever thought of before.

  Second, look how he is publicly sharing his investment thesis. Why would he do that? Shouldn’t he just go off and do it and not tell anyone? Clearly, he too believes that there’s greater value in being open and transparent.

  2016.07.31

• Real estate company? No, a lifestyle brand.

  This past weekend a rooftop restaurant, pool, and entertainment venue called LAVELLE opened upon atop 629 King Street West here in Toronto. It’s on the rooftop of a condo by Freed Developments, that for some reason is no longer called the Thompson Residences.

  Here’s a sampling of their Instagram to paint you a picture:

  

  I mention this not because I went, but because I think it’s interesting to see how Peter Freed is evolving his company and brand. He is best known as a real estate developer. But what he wants to do and what he is doing is turning Freed Developments into a “vertically and horizontally integrated progressive lifestyle company.”

  According to this recent press release, LAVELLE is the first venture of Trademark Hospitality Inc., which itself is “a branch of Freed Hospitality.” This is him selling not just selling a place to live, but selling a particular lifestyle and a certain community – and then taking an active and ongoing role in the programming of it.

  The other example that comes to mind is that of Equinox Fitness. I’m sure you all know this company, but what you may not know is that it’s owned by a real estate development firm called Related. The New York-based company acquired them in 2005 (closed in 2006) for about half a billion dollars. 

  Here’s why they did it (excerpt from this press release):

  Related and Equinox have historically shared similar visions. Both companies are known for their commitment to lifestyle, service, innovation and design, and have a passionate following amongst dedicated upscale consumers. The companies’ respective customers have similar demographic and psychographic profiles and both foster fiercely loyal clientele who are passionate about their brands.

  Related has redefined the residential marketplace, created the benchmark for sophisticated urban living and has been committed to quality fitness facilities in its buildings since the mid-eighties. Since its inception 15 years ago, Equinox has been widely recognized for being an industry innovator and for delivering an unparalleled fitness experience.

  Both companies will enjoy a number of key strategic opportunities from the partnership. Related will secure a well known brand as a quality anchor tenant for key current and future developments. This will also help Related to enhance the quality of its amenities and facilities available to residents.

  So this is not a new thing. In both of these cases, the goal is to create a brand and identity centered around a precise lifestyle. I mean, Related even mentions “psychographic profiles” in their news release. They know who their audience is, just as Freed does.

  Another way of looking at this is how it ties into what I see as a broader shift away from just development to more city building. It’s not just about throwing up a building and then moving on. It’s about trying to foster a certain kind of community and lifestyle. We may not all agree on what that community should be, but overall I think it’s an exciting direction for cities.

  If you’re taking a similar approach in your business (or even if you’re not), I would love to hear from you in the comments below.

  2016.07.10

• On leadership

  Venture capitalist Mark Suster has a great post on his blog called: Lead, Follow or Get the Fuck Out of the Way. It’s a relevant read no matter what kind of organization you happen to be a part of. I think the lessons are universally applicable.

  Here are two paragraphs on leadership that I really liked:

  The problem with hard decisions is that you can never make everybody happy. There is always somebody impacted or somebody who thought “plan B” was better. Leadership is about listening to multiple opinions but in the end trusting your instincts and deciding. Leadership is about not worrying about how people will think about you for hard calls. It is about being willing to be wrong.
  

  Leaders have well-formed opinions that go against the grain, the temerity to sell their vision to skeptics, the tenacity to stick to their ideas when they are inevitably criticized, the resiliency to wake every day when they’re being kicked by everybody for their beliefs but also the willingness to look at data and re-chart their course when they got it wrong.

  In business school they teach you to privilege decisiveness over inaction. They teach you that no decision is actually a decision and that you shouldn’t wait around for the perfect solution. It’s rare to have all of the information. So make a decision and go. Sometimes, of course, this can cause problems. Mistakes will happen. But I generally subscribe to this approach. 

  One of the ways I am trying to develop these skills – which may not be obvious to some of you – is by writing on this blog every day. I’m not always happy with result. Sometimes it really pains me to hit “Post now” when I’ve run out of time and I have to get to the office. But in the grand scheme of things, that’s okay. It’s more about the discipline of putting myself out there every single day.

  Hopefully this approach creates as much value for you as it does for me.

  2016.05.23

• Empire and ego

  This morning I stumbled upon an old New York Times article from August 7, 1983 called: The Empire and Ego of Donald Trump.

  Here’s an excerpt you might find interesting:

  The essence of entrepreneurial capitalism, real estate is a business with a tradition of high-rolling megalomania, of master builders striving to erect monuments to their visions. It is also typically dynastic, with businesses being transmitted from fathers to sons and grandsons, and carried on by siblings. In New York, the names of Tishman, Lefrak, Rudin, Fisher, Zeckendorf come to mind.

  And now there is Trump, a name that has in the last few years become an internationally recognized symbol of New York City as mecca for the world’s super rich.

  “Not many sons have been able to escape their fathers,” said Donald Trump, the president of the Trump Organization, by way of interpreting his accomplishments. Three of them, built since 1976, stand out amidst the crowded midtown landscape: the 68- story Trump Tower, with its six-story Atrium housing some of the world’s most elegant stores; the 1,400- room Grand Hyatt Hotel, and Trump Plaza, a $125 million cooperative apartment. And more is on the way.

  “At 37, no one has done more than I in the last seven years,” Mr. Trump asserted.

  As I read this, 3 things came to mind.

  1) One could argue that, as real estate development institutionalizes, the megalomanic and dynastic nature of the business is being somewhat muted.

  2) I hope we are well beyond the point where a “dynasty” has to be transmitted only through men. We are, right?

  3) Trump sounded the same at 37.

  2016.05.21

• Trust & attention

  Over the weekend I received a marketing email from a real estate company advertising their new mobile app. I didn’t download it.

  Nowadays, every company and brand seems to have a mobile app. If you don’t already have one for your organization, I bet many of you have thought about creating one. This is natural given how profound the shift to mobile has been.

  But I can’t help but feel like we are overestimating the kind of attention that many of these apps will receive. App usage is highly concentrated. We’ll spend hours on Instagram, but almost every other app in existence gets ignored.

  I love how marketer Seth Godin puts it: “the two scarce elements of our economy are trust and attention.” Attention is not scalable. Each of us have a finite amount of attention to give. And there’s lots of competition for it.

  At the same time – to borrow Godin’s thought process – a lot of people will sacrifice trust for the sake of attention. We overpromise because we become desperate. I mean, if you think about it, every company or organization is trying to figure out how to get you to pay attention to them.

  But I’d like to think that trust can also help you garner attention. Once I trust someone or some organization, I’m more likely to give them the time of day. They’ve earned it. And I feel like that’s where things are headed in today’s information economy.

  Trust and attention. Think about it. They’re pretty powerful things, no matter how you spend your days.

  2016.05.18

• What is this a building for ants?

  One of the things you’ll often hear people deride at cocktail parties is the trend toward smaller urban dwellings. They get called “shoeboxes” and “cubby holes in the sky.” So let’s unpack that a bit today and try and better understand the economics behind it all.

  When a new building is being developed, pretty much everything gets normalized to a per square foot (or square meter) number. 

  This is important because saying that building X cost $50 million to build and building Y cost $100 million to build doesn’t tell you much if the buildings are completely different. 

  However, saying that building X cost $500 per square foot to build and building Y cost $475 per square foot to build, tells you that building Y, despite being more expensive in absolute terms, was actually cheaper and/or more efficient.

  The same is true on the revenue side. And typically, developers are looking (struggling) to meet a certain per square foot number in order to make the project financially feasible. 

  For instance, let’s say you’re building a 100,000 sf condo building. Once you subtract the non revenue generating spaces, you might determine that you need 85,000 sf x $600 per square foot in revenue in order to make the project feasible.

  But there’s a back and forth game that needs to be played here. You have to ask yourself: for the product that I’m hoping to build, does $600 psf translate into something that people can actually afford?

  You might think: everyone keeps telling me at cocktail parties that condos in this city are too small. So I’m going to build a bunch of 1,800 sf, 3 bedroom condos. Based on the above, these homes would be priced at around $1.08 million (1,800 sf x $600 psf). Your on-site signage would read: “Condos coming soon. From the low $1 millions.”

  But wait a minute, how many families can afford a condo north of $1 million? Some could, but definitely not the majority. So then you determine through rigorous market analysis that $600,000 would be a better number. That is something that is within reach of more families.

  But then you look at the math and realize that if you build that same 1,800 sf home, your per square foot revenue number now drops to $333 psf ($600,000 / 1,800 sf). 

  Given that you bought the land for $100 psf buildable (market price in the area) and that your construction costs alone are going to be $250 psf, you realize that you’re now underwater ($100 + $250 psf > $333 psf) without even adding in any soft costs (consultant fees, city fees, and so on). If you showed this to your investors on the project, they would throw you out of the room.

  So instead of building that 3 bedroom condo at 1,800 sf, you say to yourself: what if I made it 1,000 sf? You’re confident that your architect could lay out a terrific condo at that size and it now magically gets your per square foot revenue number back up to $600 psf. 

  This solves two problems: it returns the project to positive feasibility and it keeps the total sale price within reach of more people. It promotes greater affordability. So you go ahead and do it. Boom – shrinking urban dwelling.

  All of this is not to say that this is fair or unfair, good or bad. It is simply to say that this is the way it often is.

  2016.04.24

• The value of saying no

  

  If you’re somebody who has a lot of ideas, it can be pretty easy to get overwhelmed and/or distracted by all of the possibilities. It’s also worse when you’re an optimist and you believe it can all be done. I am definitely guilty of this. It is one of my weaknesses.

  We all have a finite amount of time to work with and so saying no to the stuff that isn’t core is critical. I believe I am getting better at this, but every now and then I find myself having to do some pruning. And once I do that, boy does it feel great.

  Seth Godin has a fantastic blog post on this topic that I love called, No is essential. Here it is in its entirety (it’s a short post):

  “If you believe that you must keep your promises, overdeliver and treat every commitment as though it’s an opportunity for a transformation, the only way you can do this is to turn down most opportunities.

  No I can’t meet with you, no I can’t sell it to you at this price, no I can’t do this job justice, no I can’t come to your party, no I can’t help you. I’m sorry, but no, I can’t. Not if I want to do the very things that people value my work for.

  No is the foundation that we can build our yes on.”

  To drive the point home even further, let’s shift gears and talk about wine. (For all of you fellow wine drinkers.)

  In viticulture, overall yield – usually measured in hectoliters per hectare of vineyard – is often seen as an important indicator of quality. The idea being that low yields produce better wines because the flavors get concentrated over fewer grapes. 

  Part of what drives this is the leaf to fruit ratio. Too much fruit and not enough leaves, means the grapes won’t ripen properly.

  The parallel to this conversation is that leaves are much like time. There’s only so much of it. And while many of us are constantly trying to maximum yield – I know I am – there are limits to the kind and quality of grapes we can produce when we do that. 

  I know this in principle. And more and more, I know this in practice. I am learning to say no.

  Image from Flickr

  2016.04.13