Tag: tech

• AMYGDALA — An installation that converts social media sentiment into audiovisual art

  It’s becoming harder and harder to think of tech as a distinct silo. Tech is embedding itself into so many traditional industries that, one day, every company will probably be a software/technology company in some regards. 

  It’s for this reason that I often think and write about tech and its impacts on the built environment.

  An interesting example of this phenomenon is a recent art installation by fuse* called AMYGDALA. What it does is translate collective social media sentiment (specifically from Twitter) into an audiovisual art installation housed within an urban space.

  Here’s how they describe the project:

  “The news and thoughts of users spread across social networks in real time. And so an event with worldwide implications immediately involves millions of people sharing their own opinions and emotions: happiness, anger, sadness, disgust, amazement or fear. Thus, imagining Internet as a living organism, we might think that its emotional state may be given by the overall emotions shared by users at any given time. AMYGDALA listens to shared thoughts, interprets states of mind and translates the data gathered into an audiovisual installation capable of representing the collective emotional state of the net and its changes on the basis of events that take place around the world.”

  And here’s a video of it in action (click here if you can’t see it below):

  [vimeo 154049756 w=500 h=281]

  What I like about the project is how it takes something digital and ephemeral and then both aggregates and translates it into something physical within the urban environment. It’s a perfect visual representation of how technology and networks are – for better or for worse – seeping into our daily lives.

  2016.02.10

• [Video] Gang of Four

  Scott Galloway, professor of Marketing and Brand Strategy at NYU Stern, recently delivered a presentation on the Gang of Four: Apple, Amazon, Facebook, and Google. These dominant companies are also often referred to as the “Four Horsemen.”

  The video is about 16 minutes long and I would highly recommend that you give it a watch.

  It’ll be like drinking from a firehose, but there are so many fascinating takeaways. You’ll also quickly discover how far reaching the societal impacts of these companies have been and will likely be in the future.

  If you can’t see the video below, click here.

  [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfjg0kGQFBY?rel=0&w=560&h=315]

  2016.02.06

• The Business Blockchain Series

  I just backed this project on Kickstarter.

  https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/wmougayar/the-business-blockchain-books/widget/card.html?v=2

  I haven’t backed a lot of projects on Kickstarter, but I definitely enjoy the process of discovering a project that I’m interested in and then providing a small, seemingly insignificant, sum of money to help make it a reality.

  In this case, it’s a collection of two books by William Mougayar about Bitcoin, blockchains, cryptocurrency, and decentralization.

  These are all topics that I’ve touched on before on this blog, albeit with much less rigor than what I’m sure William will be applying to his books. I wrote this post about 2 years ago, when I first started wrapping my head around Bitcoin. And more recently, I wrote posts about how the blockchain could transform home buying and how Honduras is building a decentralized land registry system using the blockchain technology.

  So while at first glance it may seem like these books having nothing at all to do with city building and real estate, I am betting that they will over the long term, which is why I am doing my homework today.

  Here’s a snippet from William’s Kickstarter page:

  “The fundamental characteristics of blockchains are puzzling to consumers, corporations, governments, policy makers and regulators, because their implementation challenges centrally orchestrated trust, and enables a new kind of trust: one that is distributed, decentralized, from peer to peer, and not centrally managed by any single entity. Take any service, and add “without previous center-based authority”, and replace by “peer to peer, trust-based network”, and you will start to imagine the possibilities.”

  If all of this isn’t enough to pique your interest, then you should also know that William is from Toronto. Great things come out of this city 🙂

  2016.01.27

• Bringing public transit into the 21st century

  

  https://500px.com/embed.js

  I think we’ve hit peak millennial.

  Last Friday the Governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo, and the Metropolitan Transit Authority, announced that 30 subway stations will be redesigned and that “millennial-friendly amenities” would be added throughout the system. 

  As you might guess, this includes adding phone chargers in train cars and buses and wifi throughout all the stations (by the end 2016). They will also be replacing the MetroCard with an all digital fare system that will include mobile payments.

  But the reality is that this isn’t about being millennial-friendly. This is about joining the 21st century.

  Here in Toronto, we finally have our PRESTO card working on all streetcars and in almost 40% of the city’s subway stations. This is a huge improvement over our laughable and antiquated token system, but it’s not enough. I really hope the next rollout is a mobile app that will allow everyone to pay with just their phone.

  We also have wifi in about 30% of our subway stations, but again this is not enough. By the time you get authenticated (do you need to have Twitter now?), your train is usually arriving and then you enter a tunnel where no wifi exists. We need to be looking at the entire tunnel network. (Related topic: LinkNYC) 

  I say all this because I am a big supporter of public transit. Despite all the positive things I write about Uber, ridesharing, and driverless cars, I do not believe that they will eradicate the need for a strong transit backbone. This is fundamental to our city building efforts. 

  So let’s do our best to delight people when they take transit.

  2016.01.10

• Should you buy a car or just take Uber?

  

  https://500px.com/embed.js

  My friend Evgeny published a great blog post today called, On Car Ownership And The Future Of Transportation. 

  And in it he made the argument that instead of buying a car and an expensive downtown Toronto parking spot (average price: $40,000 – 60,000), most of us urbanites would be better of just taking a taxi or Uber.

  This got me thinking: At what point does it really make sense to completely forgo owning a car? (Full disclosure: I own both a car and a downtown parking spot.) So I decided to dig into the numbers a bit more and compare 4 mobility options:

  • Owning a car ($25,000 upfront) + downtown parking spot ($40,000 upfront) and driving yourself everywhere
  • Taking a regular taxi exclusively ($3.25 base + $1.75 per km)
  • Taking an UberX exclusively ($2.50 base + $1 per km)
  • Or, taking a futuristic driverless car everywhere (here I assumed $1.50 base + $0.25 per km)

  With the above numbers, I then assumed 15,000 km traveled per year and an average trip length of 15 km (so 1,000 trips per year). The trip length and number of trips per year matter because of the “base fare” that is charged when you take a taxi or Uber.

  I also assumed that the cost of owning a car is $0.60 per km (estimated from this Globe and Mail article) and that there is an opportunity cost to NOT renting out your downtown parking spot ($200/month). That is, every month that you spend driving yourself around and parking your car, you are forfeiting parking revenue.

  Finally, I looked at a 10 year time horizon and then “discounted” all the costs back to today’s dollars so that I could compare each mobility option.

  So what did I find?

  

  What this says is that if you’re driving 15,000 km per year (average trip length 15km), then you’re better off taking UberX everywhere, as opposed to going out, buying a car and parking spot, and driving yourself around.

  But does this hold true at different travel distances?

  Based on my model, once you hit around 18,000 km per year, then you’re better of with option 1 (owning a car). That’s because the per km savings associated with driving yourself around are enough to offset the upfront costs of the car and parking spot.

  On the flip side, when you drop below 7,500 km traveled per year, even a regular taxi starts to make sense. That’s because you’re simply not traveling enough to reap the benefits of owning a car/parking spot. Again, high upfront costs; lower per km operating costs.

  Of course, there are a number of things I didn’t consider in my model. For one, most people finance their car and parking spot (it is bundled into their home mortgage). So I’m sure there are ways that you could change the above outcomes using leverage.

  At the same time, I didn’t account for the fact that when you’re being driven around (as opposed to driving around) you have the flexibility of doing work, responding to emails, and so on. If you want to attach a value to your time, then the scale would tip back in favor of taxis and Uber.

  But all of this was really just to make one point: look how cheap it could be to ride around in a driverless car. When that becomes the reality in our cities, which it will, it’s going to completely transform our current beliefs around cars, parking, and many other things.

  I guess that’s why General Motors just invested $500 million in the peer-to-peer ridesharing company, Lyft. They know the shit is coming.

  2016.01.05

• More than just a coffee shop

  

  Today’s blog post is coming to you live from Quantum Coffee at the corner of King and Spadina in Toronto.

  I’m sitting by the window (where I keep running into friends) in a beautiful space that used to be an ugly youth hostel. Nice work Reflect Architecture and MAAST. 

  It’s my first time at Quantum, but I am so intrigued by all that is happening here that I feel compelled to share.

  So Quantum is a coffee shop. The americano I had this morning was quite good. I hope to have another one sometime in the future. But there’s more to this story. 

  Quantum is actually just one leg of something bigger. Attached to it – literally upstairs – is something called BrainStation. And across the street from it is something called The Konrad Group.

  The Konrad Group is a digital agency that does everything from brand strategy to mobile development. BrainStation teaches those same skills to other people via in-person courses in this recently renewed heritage space. And Quantum is the stimulant that helps fuel it all.

  The connective tissue between these 3 businesses, which are all basically owned by the same poeple, is something that I find super fascinating.

  It also feels like the intersection of design, technology, and space (real estate). And as many of you know, that’s what I’m all about.

  2015.12.28

• The benefits of sharing — what real estate could learn from tech

  One of the reasons I decided to start blogging was because I saw how open the tech community had become – with respect to sharing their ideas and experiences – and I thought that the same thing could and should be done in real estate, as well as in city building more broadly.

  But in many ways, the real estate industry is the antithesis of the tech industry. We are slow moving and secretive of our ideas. Now, some of this is driven by fundamental differences in terms of how these two sectors operate. It’s a lot easier to test and iterate on your ideas in tech than it is with actual bricks-and-mortar. But I still think about ways in which we, in real estate, could be pushing the envelope.

  As one example of what I’m talking about, take Union Square Ventures in New York. They call themselves a “thesis-driven venture capital firm”, which means they come up with a framework and core set of ideas, and then use those to drive their investment decisions.

  You would think that these frameworks and ideas would be pretty sensitive. I mean, they are the core drivers of their business. But their entire website is actually set up around sharing and collaborating – with the public – on these ideas. Here’s a screenshot:

  

  Each topic is something they are “thinking about” and something they want to make an investment in (or already have). Fascinating.

  Many of you, I’m sure, would argue that there are risks to doing this. But there are also benefits, some of which are driven by collective intelligence. By sharing their ideas and hypotheses with the public, it helps to evolve their thinking. After all, their investment thesis is not a static thing. It grows over time.

  But in addition to this, it also makes it abundantly clear to their customers (entrepreneurs) what they believe in and what they look for. And I am sure this helps them with deal flow. More and more customers aren’t just “buying” a product, they are also “buying” a philosophical underpinning and belief system.

  Can you imagine a real estate firm doing something like this? I can. But it’s not happening yet, as far as I know.

  2015.12.22

• Coworking, coliving, and an old architecture school project

  Coworking spaces are big business.

  One of the biggest of those companies is WeWork. As of last month (November 2015), the company had raised close to a billion dollars from investors like JPMorgan Chase, Harvard Management, and Benchmark Capital, and was valued at $10 billion. (Remember though, this is in the private not public markets.)

  If you’re unfamiliar with coworking spaces, check out this post from The Spaces. It’s a great demonstration of how beautiful these spaces can be.

  All of this is interesting because it speaks to the changing nature of work. There are a lot of people freelancing, participating in the “online gig economy” and working on new ideas. And in many of these cases, they don’t want or need traditional office space and/or they want the community that many of these coworking spaces afford – both offline and online.

  But it’s not just the office that is changing. It’s also potentially living spaces. Since 2014, WeWork has been talking about their new coliving concept, WeLive. The idea here is to combine smaller living spaces with larger common areas and create an overall live-work community. And they are not the only ones thinking about this.

  Below is a building section of what this might look. It’s from a Vornado Realty presentation. They are working with WeWork to deliver their new WeLive concept in Crystal City, Virginia.

  

  It’s so interesting to see this concept come to fruition. Back in 2008 when I was in architecture school, I worked with a classmate of mine and designed a modular coliving apartment building. It was called the Philly Flex Dwelling and it worked like this:

  

  The idea here was to start with standard floor plates and use a structural exoskeleton to minimize interior columns. This way you could insert whatever prefabricated modules you wanted and also re-purpose the structure should you want to change the building’s use in the future. 

  This is not that dissimilar from what was originally proposed for One Bloor West here in Toronto. Though the goal there was column-free retail spaces. 

  The yellow spaces are the shared common areas and the remaining spaces are the residential living “pods.” We also designed a “solar skin” that was perfectly tuned to the building’s orientation and location in Philadelphia. The idea here was to maximize winter sun (for heating) and minimize summer sun (to keep the building cool).

  That was a fun project to work on.

  2015.12.21

• 16 mobile theses and how tech might change the built environment

  

  https://500px.com/embed.js

  One of the things that I try and do here on this blog is examine the intersection of design, real estate, and technology. I didn’t explicitly set out to do that, but more and more I find myself thinking that way when I’m writing and when I’m giving talks.

  Part of that is because of my passions, but part of it is because there is a big and important overlap. One example of that is autonomous, self-driving cars. The tech community is enamoured with driverless cars, but everyone involved in the built environment should also be thinking about their impacts. Because it’ll be significant.

  Benedict Evans – who is a venture capitalist with Andreessen Horowitz in the Valley – recently published a post called, 16 mobile theses. It’s a look at 16 topics, trends, and shifts that are happening in the tech space. (There’s also a related podcast discussion.)

  If you’re involved in internet products, you absolutely need to give it a read. But I also think it’s interesting to read it through the lens of a designer or real estate person. Productivity is changing. Notions around the living room are changing. And yes, autonomous vehicles are going to have a profound impact on the urban landscape of our cities – just as cars did initially.

  Below are 3 excerpts from Benedict’s post that I really enjoyed.

  The first is about mobile and just how massive it is:

  “The mobile ecosystem, now, is heading towards perhaps 10x the scale of the PC industry, and mobile is not just a new thing or a big thing, but that new generation, whose scale makes it the new centre of gravity of the tech industry. Almost everything else will orbit around it.”

  The second is about how “networked” is quickly becoming a given:

  “Our grandparents could have told you how many electric motors they owned – there was one in the car, one in the fridge and so on, and they owned maybe a dozen. In the same way, we know roughly how many devices we own with a network connection, and, again, our children won’t. Many of those uses cases will seem silly to us, just as our grandparents would laugh at the idea of a button to lower a car window, but the sheer range and cheapness of sensors and components, mostly coming out of the smartphone supply chain, will make them ubiquitous and invisible – we’ll forget about them just as we’ve forgotten about electric motors.”

  And the third is about those self-driving cars:

  “The move to electric and the move (if and when) to autonomous, self-driving cars fundamentally change what a car is, but also what the whole automotive system might look like. Electricity changes the mechanical complexity of cars and hence changes who might build them and what they might look like. Autonomy and on-demand services change who buys them, meaning the buying criteria will be different. But they could also change the urban landscape just as much as cars themselves did – what do mass-market retail or restaurants look like if no-one needs to park?”

  Can you think of other ways in which tech will impact cities and the spaces we occupy?

  2015.12.20

• The independent worker

  There’s a lot of discussion about what the “online gig economy” will mean for traditional forms of employment. And seeing how we’re on the topic of Uber right now, I thought it would make for an interesting discussion.

  Should Uber drivers, to use one example, be classified as independent contractors or should they be classified as traditional employees? There are arguments for both sides.

  Seth Harris and Alan Krueger recently published a discussion paper where they argue for a solution somewhere in between the two. They call it “the independent worker.”

  Here’s a snippet that illustrates the tension that currently exists for people working in this new emerging grey area:

  “Independent workers typically work with intermediaries who match workers to customers. The independent worker and the intermediary have some elements of the arms-length independent business relationships that characterize “independent contractor” status, and some elements of a traditional employee-employer relationship. On the one hand, independent workers have the ability to choose when to work, and whether to work at all. They may work with multiple intermediaries simultaneously, or conduct personal tasks while they are working with an intermediary. It is thus impossible in many circumstances to attribute independent workers’ work hours to any employer. In this critical respect, independent workers are similar to independent businesses. On the other hand, the intermediary retains some control over the way independent workers perform their work, such as by setting their fees or fee caps, and they may “fire” workers by prohibiting them from using their service. In these respects, independent workers are similar to traditional employees.”

  I haven’t read the full paper, but I like the idea of remaining adaptable in the face of innovation.

  2015.12.11