Tag: tech

• Lists, disciplines, and AI

  I have a bit of an obsession with my calendar, lists, and goals. On the home screen of my phone I have Wunderlist, Evernote, Google Drive, and 2 calendar apps (more on that in a second).

  This obsession is probably one of the reasons I write this blog. I like writing, drawing, and documenting things. It helps me sort through my thoughts. I have everything from a list of cities I want to visit to a list of billion dollar business ideas (yes it’s really called that).

  But the other reason I like to keep lists is because – as I said in this post – I’m trying to be cognizant about overcommitment. And when I write things down, it serves as a reminder of what I’m doing and what I’m allowed to focus on.

  One of the ways I do that is through repeatable goals (or disciplines). These are non-negotiable things that I’ve committed myself to and that I just have to grind out – such as writing on this blog every day. I can tell you that some blog posts come out a lot easier than others. But I’m a firm believer that there are few substitutes for just showing up every day and putting in the work.

  On that note, let me tell you why I have 2 calendar apps on my phone. I’ve been testing out the latest version of Google Calendar because of a new feature they rolled out this month called Goals.

  What it does is automatically schedule repeatable goals. So for instance, you could tell it that you want to work out 3 times a week for 1.5 hours each time and that you prefer to work out in the evenings. It will then go and find 3 times for you to do it every week for all of eternity. 

  If a conflict arises, that’s no problem. As soon as you enter another appointment, the app will automatically reshuffle your calendar goals to make sure that you still get your 3 workouts in. It’ll even learn your preferences as you make changes to these appointments over time. 

  So far I’ve been finding this feature really useful. I used to do this for myself manually, but now I have a computer that does it for me. Even better.

  It’s also a glimpse into the future that Sundar Pichai, CEO of Google, was talking about on a recent earnings call:

  “We’ve been investing in machine learning and AI [artificial intelligence] for years, but I think we’re at an exceptionally interesting tipping point where these technologies are really taking off,” he said. “That is very, very applicable to businesses as well. So thoughtfully doing that externally we view as a big differentiator we have over others.”
  

  “In the long run, I think we will evolve in computing from a mobile-first to an AI-first world,” Pichai said in closing. “And I do think we’re at the forefront of developments.”

  For the past 5 years, it’s been all about mobile. But now much of the tech community – including the CEO of a pretty big company – is saying that artificial intelligence is next. What do you think this will mean for cities?

  2016.04.26

• BARF is fighting for more housing in San Francisco

  A new YIMBY activist group is starting to gain meaningful traction in San Francisco. They were recently featured in the New York Times and they have managed to secure the financial backing of people like Jeremy Stoppelman – co-founder and CEO of Yelp. 

  (All excerpts in this post were taken from the NY Times.)

  

  The group is called SF BARF, which stands for SF Bay Area Renters’ Federation. The group, however, supports new development of all kinds. So I think the name is more driven by the fact that the founder, Sonja Trauss, wanted the acronym to be BARF. It speaks to their shit disturbing approach:

  “Her group consists of a 500-person mailing list and a few dozen hard-core members — most of them young professionals who work in the technology industry — who speak out at government meetings and protest against the protesters who fight new development. While only two years old, Ms. Trauss’s Renters’ Federation has blazed onto the political scene with youth and bombast and by employing guerrilla tactics that others are too polite to try. In January, for instance, she hired a lawyer to go around suing suburbs for not building enough.”

  The impetus for all of this, of course, is San Francisco’s lack of affordability and severe housing shortage. Housing supply is decades behind the city’s population and job growth. 

  Most people are directing the blame at the tech community for bidding up housing. But there’s clearly growing recognition that housing supply matters.

  As a real estate developer, my industry obviously benefits from fewer barriers to building. So let’s get that out there:

  “Ms. Trauss’s cause, more or less, is to make life easier for real estate developers by rolling back zoning regulations and environmental rules. Her opponents are a generally older group of progressives who worry that an influx of corporate techies is turning a city that nurtured the Beat Generation into a gilded resort for the rich.”

  But let’s also be clear that I don’t believe we should be developing roughshod over our cities. New development should respond to what’s already there and give back. 

  At the same time, housing supply matters a great deal. A big part of the reason that cities like San Francisco, New York and Vancouver are so expensive is that they’re naturally supply-constrained markets. Geographically, they are either peninsulas or islands.

  When you overlay tight land use restrictions, fierce community opposition and/or foreign investment on top of this geography, it should come as no surprise to anyone that demand is outstripping supply. 

  New supply won’t solve every problem, but I do agree that it is an important part of the solution.

  2016.04.16

• How much market share are New York’s yellow cabs losing to Uber?

  Todd W. Schneider recently mined data from the New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission to create a chart summarizing yellow taxi, Uber, and Lyft usage. 

  The data only runs up until January 2016, but here’s what he found:

  “…yellow taxis provided 60,000 fewer trips per day in January 2016 compared to one year earlier, while Uber provided 70,000 more trips per day over the same time horizon.”

  The Uber data only begins in 2015, but you can still see how quickly it is growing and how yellow taxis are losing market share. Five years ago, yellow taxis were reaching over 500,000 trips per day (a pretty amazing number) and in January of this year they were at about 350,000 trips per day. 

  It also appears that Lyft is struggling to gain traction.

  

  What’s also great about Todd’s blog post is that he has set it up so that his chart will automatically update as new data becomes available. So if you’re interested in this topic, you should bookmark his post.

  2016.04.10

• How Premise is crowdsourcing economic data in developing countries

  I have to tell you all about a company that I just discovered called Premise. I think it’s incredible what they’re doing and a perfect example of mobile (smartphones) eating the world.

  The problem that Premise is solving is that of developing-world economic data being both not timely enough and not all that accurate/granular. This is important, because lots of big organizations – ranging from governments to private companies – are making funding and investment decisions based on this inadequate information.

  So here’s what Premise did:

  They put smartphones into the hands of the people who are on the ground in these places. They paid them meaningful amounts of money (relative to local wages). And they developed a technology platform that could index and analyze the millions of local observations being sent in. So far they have paid out over $3 million to their contributors located across 34 countries.

  As an example: Premise has developed food price indices. And the data comes directly from locals physically going to the market on a regular basis (which most would do anyways) and snapping photos of the food + prices. This allows Premise to provide basically realtime pricing data. (There are checks and balances to ensure data integrity.)

  Why does this matter? 

  Because it allows Premise, for instance, to figure out exactly what happens to food staple pricing when something like an Ebola epidemic hits:

  “Premise started tracking food prices in Monrovia on September 8, and throughout the month we observed upward pressure on prices (our Liberia indices and data are freely available at data.premise.com). The price of rice, Liberia’s primary food staple, increased 12% during September. Moreover, we saw significant price differences across the city. Prices in neighborhoods with the most exposure to Ebola were 8-12% higher on average than relatively unaffected neighborhoods. As the disease tore through the city, market sellers avoided the worst-hit areas and trade declined.”

  This is powerful information and just one example of what Premise is doing. Obviously this data is also of use to for-profit companies, which is how the company has managed to raise over $66 million in VC funding. But I think there will also be big benefits for these developing countries. As the saying goes, you make what you measure.

  2016.04.07

• Moving to the big city

  When I was 18 years old, I
  moved from the suburbs of Toronto to Waterloo, Ontario, which is about an hour
  west of the city.

  I largely did this for two reasons.

  Firstly, I had started
  visiting friends at both Wilfrid Laurier University and the University of
  Waterloo while I was in high school, and I thought that I wanted
  that kind of University town experience.

  Secondly,
  I started University as a Computer Science student and I figured that Waterloo
  was a pretty good place to study that. Research In Motion (later renamed to
  Blackberry) was an important company at the time and interesting things were happening.

  Though
  to be clear, I was a student at Laurier and not at the University of Waterloo – the better of the two schools for Computer Science – because I didn’t have
  the grades for the latter.

  But a
  funny thing ended up happening. I hated living in Waterloo. I felt so out of
  place. So much so that I spent every weekend back in Toronto visiting my
  friends who had instead decided to go to the University of Toronto.

  And I
  remember vividly how I felt during those weekends. I would stand in my friend’s
  apartments – most of which had dens and solariums that were hacked into
  bedrooms so that they could afford to live there – and I would look across the skyline and
  think to myself: why the hell do I not live here?

  So I
  transferred to the University of Toronto. And that solved that.

  The
  reason I bring up this story today is that I was reminded of it while reading a recent CityLab article by Richard Florida called, The
  Self-Confident City.

  The three
  main arguments in the article are:

  (1) Where
  we choose to live has a massive impact on our life outcomes.

  (2) Self-confident
  people – according to a recent study – seem to be drawn to big cities.

  (3)
  Self-confidence can also be a self-fulfilling prophecy
  for people in big cities.

  Now,
  I don’t know if it was really self-confidence and youthful hubris that told me I needed to live in a bigger city than Waterloo. (It was probably part of it.) All I know is that I
  wanted to live in a super dynamic place that felt bigger than me. I wanted to
  feel like I was a small fish in a big pond trying to make some sort of
  meaningful dent.

  That
  was true for me when I was 18. And it remains true for me today at 32.

  2016.03.31

• The Death and Life of Great Italian Cities

  

  I am sure that a lot of you know where the title of this post comes from. It’s a riff on one of the most important and influential books in the world of city planning: The Death and Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs (1961).

  But when Jane Jacobs first wrote this book, there was no such thing as smartphones and nobody was “checking-in” to hipster dive bars on Foursquare. 

  So instead of leveraging big data, her analyses and arguments were based on observation. She walked the streets of New York and Toronto and figured out what made cities thrive and what made cities die. That was her brilliance.

  Today, however, we have data – lots of it. And so recently, a group of researchers set out to test Jane Jacob’s theories using mobile phone data. The study was called, The Death and Life of Great Italian Cities:
  A Mobile Phone Data Perspective.

  More specifically, they set out to test the following 4 essential conditions:

  “She [Jane Jacobs] argued that, to promote urban life in large cities, the physical environment should be characterized by diversity at both the district and street level. Diversity, in turn, requires four essential conditions: (i) mixed land uses, that is, districts should serve more than two primary functions, and that would attract people who have different purposes; (ii) small blocks, which promote contact opportunities among people; (iii) buildings diverse in terms of age and form, which make it possible to mix high-rent and low-rent tenants; and (iv) sufficient dense concentration of people and buildings.”

  To accomplish this, the team assembled and studied data from the following sources:

  • Mobile phone activity (specifically internet activity)
  • OpenStreetsMap Data
  • Census Data
  • Land Use Information
  • Infrastructure Data
  • Foursquare Data (Venues API)

  Ultimately, they determined that Jane Jacobs knew what she was talking about. The above conditions are essential to urban vibrancy and they apply to Italian cities, just as they did and do to American cities. But this test was valuable, because the more that we can measure and quantify cities, the better I think we’ll get at creating and promoting urban vitality. 

  Now imagine if you overlaid the findings of their report with residential and commercial rents. I bet you’d also find that there’s a strong business case for urban vitality.

  I’ve heard a number of people say that, eventually, every company will be a software/technology company. And I don’t think we’re far off from that reality. To me, this study feels like an early example of what that might look like for city building.

  On a side note, the picture at the top of this post is of the Spanish Steps in Rome. I took it on a weekend trip in 2007. I was living in Dublin at the time.

  2016.03.30

• Everything you ever wanted to know about automated vehicles

  Last fall, David Ticoll (who is a research fellow at the Munk School of Global Affairs at the University of Toronto) published a thorough discussion paper called Driving Changes: Automated Vehicles in Toronto. 

  If you’re interested in driverless cars, and I know that a lot of you are, then it’s definitely worth a weekend read. It’s fairly long. He gets into the various automation levels, the transition period, the implications for policy makers, the benefits, and so on.

  Here’s a quick snippet on the topic of benefits:

  “This report provides bottom-up analysis based on Toronto-specific data. The result is a conservative estimate that were AVs to be at a 90% adoption rate in Toronto today, the result would be annual savings of $6 billion, or 4% of the City’s $150 billion gross
  domestic product. This includes $1.2 billion from reduced collisions, $2.7 billion out of congestion costs, $1.6 billion from insurance, and $0.5 billion from parking fees and fines. AVs will provide other quantifiable social and economic benefits that range from fewer deaths and hospitalizations thanks to lower particle emissions, to productivity gains in many business sectors.”

  But of course there’s the question of: when will this happen? Below is a chart from the paper that was assembled using various consultant/analyst predictions. Based on this, we’re still over a decade away from the consumer adoption of automated vehicles.

  

  However, these are just estimates and history has shown us that the adoption rate for new technologies has been increasing over time. Below is a chart by Michael Felton, which is also from the paper, that shows this phenomenon. Take a look at the telephone in comparison to the internet.

  

  Maybe I’m being overly optimistic (it wouldn’t be the first time), but consumer-facing driverless cars, at least to me, feel pretty close to the horizon.

  2016.03.22

• Technology x Business x Design

  John Maeda – Design Partner at venture capital firm KPCB – recently
  published the second and 2016 edition of his #DesignInTech
  Report. I shared his first one almost exactly a year ago.

  His core thesis is that we are heading towards a world where technology,
  business, and design become closely integrated – in school, in business, and so
  on. Throughout the report he looks at the increasing impact that design and
  designers are having within the startup ecosystem.

  Here are a few verbatim bullet points:

  – Design isn’t just about beauty; it’s about market relevance and meaningful
  results.

  – 36% of the top 25 funded startups are co-founded by
  designers, up from 20% in 2015.

  – The general word “design” will come to mean less as we
  will start to qualify the specific kind of design we mean.

  – Currently design education lags the technology industry’s
  needs for data-oriented, coding enabled graduates with business acumen.

  – We must consciously invest in education to develop a
  more hybrid perspective on creativity in the 21^st century:
  Technology x Business x Design.

  – President Obama’s signing of ESSA (Every Student
  Succeeds Act) into law in 2015 is a positive sign: by turning STEM into STEAM (adding Art) in K-12 education as a US priority.

  As somebody who studied design (architecture), business,
  and computer science (briefly, before switching to architecture), I probably
  have a bit of a biased view here. But to the extent that I can be objective, I
  really see this as the future. I am a big supporter of the transformation from STEM to STEAM.

  Below is a quote that Maeda uses to end his report, which I will also use to end this post:

  “Engineers are efficient problem solvers. Business people think short term. Designer want things to be elegant and beautiful. All three need to create collaboration and harmony, and honor the value each other brings. There needs to be a new kind of ‘multi-dimensional’ approach to design that is yet to be invented.” –Linda Holliday

  2016.03.21

• Getting distribution and how that is changing

  Aaron M. Renn recently published an article in The Washington Post talking about carless cities and driverless cars. It’s an interesting read, but I’m not going to talk about those topics today. So if that’s what you’re looking for, you’ll have to read his piece.

  I do, however, want to focus on one particular aspect of it. 

  In it, he talks about how Tesla is shifting the “locus of power in the auto industry” from Detroit to Silicon Valley and, at the same time, changing the way cars are sold. Tesla sells direct to consumers through its corporate stores, whereas franchise laws in almost every U.S. state mandate that new cars need to be sold through dealers.

  I’m not sure how these laws came to be, but it’s interesting to note yet another example of technology and the internet sparking disintermediation. That is, the removal of middle people, distributors, brokers, and so on. It’s the same thing that is happening as a result of companies like Uber and technologies like Bitcoin.

  I would imagine that lot of these legacy distribution models exist today because it was previously the most efficient option. If you were a car company based in Detroit, a network of local franchisees all across the country working to sell your cars was probably a great thing. But now there are other options, as is the case with many other industries.

  So what’s next? 

  Wikipedia calls out the following industries as still being in the midst of disintermediation:

  

  I bet you all know which one I’m watching closely.

  2016.03.08

• #BuildHereNow — Crowdsourced city building

  

  This week Strong Towns has been running a great social media campaign called #BuildHereNow. 

  The way it works is very simple. They asked people to get outside and take photos of vacant and/or underutilized properties in their town or city and post them to Twitter or Instagram using the hashtag #BuildHereNow. The goal was to start to identify properties that could “use a little love" and to encourage city builders who might need a little push to develop a particular property.

  I’m a big fan of crowdsourcing information and I love the idea of digitally annotating buildings and spaces. In this case, it’s about pulling together the desires of the community,

  Hashtags are a great way to quickly make something like this happen, but I would love to see a purpose-built tech platform do this in a more permanent way. Of course, it doesn’t just have to be about developing. Buildings are rich in information; hopefully so rich that a platform like this could survive.

  If you think about it, property titles are already a form of annotating real property. So this isn’t really a new idea. 

  But now technology allows us to harvest all kinds of other information – such as what people would like to see built. Imagine the possibilities if we became more effective at collecting, organizing, and leveraging this data at scale.

  2016.02.26