Tag: tech

• Do you know where you spend your time?

  Yesterday my friend Sachin Monga published a really great article on Medium called, 2014: My Year in Review. It was broken down into a few sections that included everything from his favorite blog posts of the year to all of the images he posted on Instagram. He called it “a stream of personal observations, data, and highlights for the year.”

  And it put my end of the year blog post to shame.

  One section that really stood out for me though was Places & Transit. Using a mobile app called Moves, Sachin extracted an incredible data set for where he physically spent his time and how he got around in 2014. I can’t believe I haven’t heard of this app yet – it’s totally in my wheelhouse. But I’m clearly late to the party. Facebook bought them in the first half of last year.

  The data set included how many hours he spent at home and at work. His top 3 most visited coffee shops. His top 5 most visited friends. How many nights he stayed in a hotel. His average daily commute time. And his total distance walked and cycled, among many other things. It was fascinating. I love data – especially when it was previously impossible or difficult to collect it.

  He was also able to translate his data into a set of beautiful maps, showing where he spent his time and how he got around. Here is his personal map for Toronto. The larger the circle, the more often he was there. Blue lines are cycling. And green lines are walking.

  

  And here’s San Francisco (where he now lives):

  

  After reading his post, I immediately downloaded Moves. And I can’t wait to see how my personal map of Toronto will look like in a few weeks and months. Once I have enough data points, I’ll be sure to share it with you all here.

  In the interim, do you have any ideas for what this kind of data might be used for? I can certainly think of many. Let us know in the comment section below.

  2015.01.02

• Why Bitcoin might still be a big deal

  Welcome to 2015!

  To start off the year, I thought I would talk about something pretty geeky, but very forward looking: Bitcoin.

  I wrote about Bitcoin just over a year ago when I was first starting to wrap my head around it, but a lot has happened since then. Many of you might know that 2014 was a terrible year for Bitcoin and that its price has declined significantly (chart from Coinbase):

  

  But does that mean Bitcoin is a flop, or that the hype has just died down a bit?

  If you follow what’s being discussed within the tech community, you’ll know that there are still lots of people who are bullish on Bitcoin. But more precisely, they are bullish on the underlying architecture behind Bitcoin and something that is called the Blockchain.

  I’m not going to get too technical in this post (if you want that, go here), but I do want to talk about three things (that I’ve mostly learned from the folks over at Union Square Ventures): the Blockchain, why it matters, and what it could mean for specific industries such as transportation and real estate. I promise to make it relevant at the end.

  The way to think about all of this is in layers.

  The Blockchain is the foundation or base of Bitcoin. It’s essentially a decentralized public ledger that keeps track of all the Bitcoin transactions. Decentralized means that not one single person or company owns the database. It’s free for anyone and everyone to see. This structure is important because it enables peer-to-peer transactions across the internet, as opposed to going through a bank or other intermediary.

  But the key takeaway is that Bitcoin is simply one example of a “protocol” built on top of the Blockchain. And there are many others in the works, including a protocol for realtime ride sharing (Lazooz) and a protocol for a decentralized peer-to-peer marketplace (OpenBazaar). And so the real innovation is the Blockchain, not Bitcoin itself.

  Why does this matter?

  It matters because these protocols are, again, not owned by a single entity, which is remarkably different than the way most things work today. Take for example the residential real estate industry. In the Greater Toronto Area, the data that emerges from home listings and sales is owned by the Toronto Real Estate Board.

  And since this data is privately owned, a lot of it remains only accessible to “members” or real estate agents. The Competition Bureau has been fighting for more openness, but the Toronto Real Estate Board obviously wants to keep as much of this data as it can to itself. Who can blame them.

  But what if somebody came along and created a new protocol for a decentralized peer-to-peer home marketplace? In that case no one would own the data, which means everyone would have access to it. And that would completely change the landscape. I’m fuzzy on what this protocol would even look like, but it seems entirely possible given what else is in the works.

  And if this Bitcoin Blockchain revolution does actually take place, it wouldn’t be restricted to only non-tech legacy industries. Joel Monegro of Union Square Ventures believes that “decentralized protocols” such as Lazooz and OpenBazaar (mentioned above) could even have a big impact on companies such as Uber and eBay, respectively.

  I’m still trying to wrap my head around all of this, but I want to understand it and I thought you all might as well. Because even though it seems very tech right now, the implications would also be very non-tech if it turns out to be true.

  2015.01.02

• That’s a wrap

  

  Today is the last day of 2014.

  It felt like a frenetic year for me, and so I have to say that I’ve been really enjoying this holiday break. I needed the downtime. I needed the time to think and strategize. And I got all of that this holiday. (The only thing that would make this break even better would be some more snow on the mountains.)

  I’m super excited for the new year and what’s ahead, but before getting into that, I thought it would be worthwhile to look back at what happened in 2014.

  I was initially going to list out some of my thoughts, but then I figured that a better way would be to simply list out the most read Architect This City posts. That way it’s my (daily) thoughts, but curated according to what readers cared about most this past year.

  Click here for the top 15 most read Architect This City posts of 2014. I’ve listed them on a “topics” page that I plan to update every year.

  If you’re looking for some other 2014 themed reading material, I recommend also checking out the best #cityreads of 2014 by CityLab; the best articles of 2014 from ArchDaily; and what just happened? by venture capitalist Fred Wilson.

  Happy new year everyone! Thanks for reading. See you in 2015.

  Image: Family and friends lunch at Pizzeria Libretto, University

  2014.12.31

• My identity crisis

  If you’re a regular reader of Architect This City, there are many things that you might know about me. 

  You might know that I was initially trained as an architect, but that I immediately transitioned into real estate development after grad school (where I studied both architecture and real estate).

  After becoming a real estate developer, you might know that I completed an MBA with a focus on innovation and entrepreneurship (which happened by default as a result of the electives I ended up being interested in).

  And finally, you might know, given the content of this blog and my startup history, that I have a significant interest in technology. More specifically though, you might know that my interest is in figuring out how technology will continue to infiltrate and impact “non-tech” industries such as real estate.

  But what you might not know is how I even ended up in architecture and real estate in the first place. Unlike a lot of people who seem to have grown up wanting to be an architect – perhaps because they had a relative who was one – I didn’t decide to study architecture until a bit later on.

  Growing up my primary interests were: art and computers.

  During high school, my art teachers used to tell my parents that I was going to be an artist. And my computer teachers used to tell my parents that I was going to be a computer geek – or maybe they said computer scientist.

  Maybe it had to do with timing and the emergence of the commercial internet in the 1990s, but computers sort of won out during that point in my life. I spent a lot of time building them from scratch, playing with software, and asking my mom not to pick up the phone because I was literally dialed-in to the internet.

  So when it came time to enrol in university, I fairly effortlessly decided on computer science. It just seemed to make sense. But after about a year I realized that it wasn’t for me. I didn’t love programming like my classmates did and the thought of doing it for a living scared me.

  At the same time, I felt like I needed to feed the artist in me. I wanted something both artistic and technical. So I decided to drop out of computer science and give architecture a try. It just seemed like the perfect marriage of my interests.

  I immediately fell in love with architecture. And I spent the next 7 years studying it across 2 degrees.

  But during that time, two things hit me. First, I came to the realization that real estate developers are the ones who really have the most say in terms of how our cities are built. And second, that technology was having a massive impact on business and life.

  This told me that design alone wasn’t going to be enough. I also needed to engross myself in real estate, finance, business, and technology. So that’s what I set out to do. And I really enjoyed it. On the technology side, it felt like I was coming full circle in a way.

  But today, I feel a bit like a 3 legged stool. There’s the design leg. The real estate/business leg. And the technology leg. And oftentimes I feel like life would be a lot simpler if I could just balance on one of those legs – instead of trying to stand on all three. But that’s simply not me.

  These are my passions and I need all of them to stand-up.

  2014.12.24

• Pushing and pulling

  

  Venture capitalist Chris Dixon recently published an interesting post called, Two eras of the internet: pull and push. In it, he describes two patterns that have emerged within the internet over the past decade and a half.

  Pull (2000s):

  Pull is when you are seeking information, usually an answer to a question. You want to know the closing time of a restaurant, the description of a hotel where you are thinking about staying, the details of an historical event you heard about, etc. You go to your computer and pull the information. The killer app for pulling information was Google.

  Push (2010s):

  Push is when you are using the internet in a more passive way and content comes to you. The killer app for push is social networks, the most popular being Facebook. Information is pushed from user to user via likes, shares, tweets, etc. People tend to push things they find funny, interesting, moving, outrageous, etc.

  Now let’s think about this for a second, because it’s a pretty significant change.

  Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information. And they have certainly made it easier for us to get the information we want. Instead of physically searching for something, you just type in a few keywords and it pops up. But, it still involves us deciding we want something and then pulling the information.

  What’s fascinating to me about push is the idea that content and information comes to you. And it’s one of the reasons that I’ve always found Foursquare more interesting than Yelp – even though Yelp is far more popular as a tool to help you find somewhere to eat, drink and so on.

  When I walk into a restaurant or bar now, oftentimes I’ll see a Foursquare notification popup on my phone showing me a tip that somebody has left: “Try the meatballs – they’re to die for”. I didn’t search for that. I didn’t ask for a recommendation. But Foursquare knew where I was and presented me with that information.

  Now, there are obviously potential downsides to constant interruption, but let’s focus here on the opportunities. How could these same principles to be applied to other industries such as, say, real estate?

  I think there’s a pull and push parallel.

  Today MLS operates in a way like a search engine for homes. You decide you might be interested in buying a home and so you go online and start pulling listings.

  Of course, the vast majority of people also work with a real estate agent. And in a way they’re kind of like your push. They get to know you, they figure out what you’re looking for, and then they push relevant listings and information to you.

  And maybe that’s why nobody has killed off real estate agents – despite the numerous attempts. Everybody has been focusing on new pull platforms (listing platforms) as opposed to a new push platform.

  Who knows.

  But I think it would be naive to think that these emerging push platforms won’t reach far beyond social media.

  2014.12.22

• Are startups causing inequality?

  Earlier this week Richard Florida published on article on CityLab talking about the relationship between tech innovation (in cities) and inequality. Specifically, the article deals with the correlation between venture capital investment and a variety of factors, such as monthly housing costs, wage and income inequality, and so on.

  The intent of the piece was to address the growing backlash against tech workers – in places like San Francisco – who have become the symbol for the growing gap between the rich and poor.

  The strongest correlation appears to exist between venture capital investment and housing costs. As the amount of venture capital goes up, so do housing costs – which probably shouldn’t surprise you. The rich start outbidding the poor for housing. Note: The two outlying dots at the top right, in the graph below, are Silicon Valley and San Francisco.

  

  But when it comes to inequality, the relationship isn’t so clear. For wage inequality, there seems to be a relationship. But for the broader income inequality measure, the relationship is fairly weak. Here’s the graph:

  

  So this is not as black and white as it might seem. Regardless, Florida ends the piece with the following statement (that I think is spot on):

  It’s time to stop pointing fingers and get on with the far more important task of harnessing the urban tech revolution to create a new urban middle class and a more inclusive urbanism—one in which many more workers and residents can participate, and one from which many more can benefit.

  The answer is not to stop innovating. That would be counterproductive. We should be be encouraging innovation, but at the same time figuring out how best to harness it for society as a whole.

  Tomorrow, I’ll touch a bit more on how we might go about doing that. I have a post planned that I think will tie in really nicely to this discussion. So stay tuned.

  2014.12.11

• Opendoor.com launches in Phoenix

  Yesterday Opendoor.com finally launched their product in Phoenix. If you’re a regular reader of Architect This City, you might remember that back in July of this year I wrote about how they had just raised $10M of funding to make selling your home as easy as a few clicks.

  Well, since then, I’ve been following them like a hawk. I had all the founders on Twitter notification (so I got notified every time they tweeted) and I was eagerly anticipating their launch.

  Now that they’ve launched, we have a much better idea of how their business model is going to work. I say “better idea” only because there’s still portions of it that are a question mark for me.

  In any event, Opendoor basically provides instant liquidity to homeowners. You go on, tell them about your home, and they then make you an offer to buy, which looks like this and lasts for 3 days. The offer they make you is calculated using comparable sales and adjustments based on your home’s unique characteristics.

  Upon accepting their offer, they then schedule a home inspection (at their cost) to confirm your home’s condition. Once this is done, you just select your move out date and Opendoor handles the rest. The fee for all this is 5.5%, which the company claims is less than the 6% that realtors typically charge (this would be high for Toronto).

  After buying your home, Opendoor plans to turn around and resell it.

  What this reminds me of is a “bought deal.” In the world of investment banking, a bought deal is when the bank itself agrees to buy the entire offering of a particular security, as opposed to going out to the market and trying to raise the money. The advantage to the company (offering the securities) is that there’s no financing risk. They know they’re going to get their money. But it usually means the company gets a lower price.

  So what I wonder, is if this is what’s going to happen here. Since Opendoor is effectively taking on the selling risk, does that mean their offers will be lower? Or are all their costs built into that 5.5% and that’s truly their core business model? I’m sure some of this will surface in the coming weeks.

  I do, however, think they are smart to be focusing on the supply-side of the marketplace and offering virtually perfect liquidity to homeowners. Real estate is a unique asset in that it’s difficult to bring supply to the market. And so if control the supply-side, I think you have a pretty good shot at controlling the market as a whole.

  2014.12.10

• Panel: What is Smart Now?

  

  This Tuesday evening at 630pm, WORKSHOP – which is a design studio, gallery, and retail shop located in Yorkville, Toronto – will be hosting a panel discussion titled: What is Smart Now?

  On the panel will be a building scientist, a computer scientist, and two architects. The moderator will be Larry Wayne Richards, who is Creative Director of WORKSHOP and the former dean of the Faculty of Architecture, Landscape, and Design at the University of Toronto. He was dean when I was completing my undergraduate degree and is one of my favorite people in the world of Toronto architecture.

  Here’s a bit more on the panel:

  For more than half a century, visionaries and companies such as Monsanto, Hewlett-Packard, Microsoft, and Samsung have promoted the concept of technologically smart homes with highly integrated, interactive systems.  However few of these homes have actually been realized, leaving us to wonder why.

  Meanwhile, architects, builders, and home owners have become aware of the advantages of being smart in terms of energy efficiency and sustainability, from using common sense to selectively employing high-tech.  

  But now, with the digital realm and software advancing rapidly, will sophisticated smart home systems merge with recent advances in high performance materials and energy-efficient construction, making “totally smart” (and affordable) homes commonplace? Will we finally be living in the magical future that was imagined 50 years ago?  And what are the implications for architects and architectural education?

  And here are the panelists:

  • PAUL DOWSETT, Architect and Founding Principal, Sustainable TO
  • SRINIVASAN KESHAV, Professor of Computer Science, University of Waterloo
  • TED KESIK, Professor of Building Science, University of Toronto
  • JANNA LEVITT, Founding Partner, LGA Architects, Toronto
  • LARRY WAYNE RICHARDS (Moderator), Creative Director, WORKSHOP

  Given the current “Internet of Things” trend and the fact that software is creeping into so many non-tech fields, such as housing, I think this is a really timely discussion to be having. I also think it’s critical for these kinds of conversations to be cross-disciplinary. There are infinite opportunities in the housing market for people who are able to think in that way.

  If you’d like to attend, click here to sign up. It’s free and open to the public. WORKSHOP is located in the lower concourse level of 80 Bloor Street West.

  Image: WORKSHOP

  2014.12.07

• The Tesla Easter egg

  I was rushing to get to a real estate forum dinner last night and so instead of walking — which is normally what I would have done — I decided to grab an UberX. As some of you might be aware, I like UberX. It’s convenient to use. And the fares are cheaper than regular taxis. So why wouldn’t I use it?

  But last night I got an extra treat. A guy named Mike picked me up in his Tesla Model S:

  I snagged the @TeslaMotors Easter egg on @Uber_TOR 🙂 #uberx pic.twitter.com/JFrN47hdB4

  — Brandon G. Donnelly (@donnelly_b)

  December 3, 2014

  //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  According to Mike there are two of these “Easter eggs“ in the UberX Toronto fleet, which I was also told is now up to hundreds of cars. So it’s not everyday that you’ll get picked up in a Tesla.

  If you’ve never been in a Tesla, the first thing you’ll likely notice is the absolutely epic screen that sits in the dash. Most people’s laptops don’t have a screen this big. It’s gorgeous.

  But there are a bunch of small details that also standout. For example, the door handles sit flush with the door until they’re needed. Here’s a video of how they work:

  [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxavZ2QxuLY]

  But the real question that is probably on your mind is: Why is some guy with a Tesla driving around Toronto offering rides via UberX? That was certainly one of the first questions I asked him after I got in the car.

  And the answer is that he does it for fun.

  He actually owns a medical clinic in Markham, but comes downtown on the evenings and weekends to drive around and meet new people. In fact, he called it the “best networking tool on the planet.” Because as soon as he picks people up in his Tesla, they immediately take him seriously and want to have a conversation. That has translated into business relationships and even invites to parties. As in, he drives a group to a party and they ask him to come in — which he said he often does.

  If he really took it seriously and did it full-time, he figures he could make around $40,000 – 50,000 a year driving for UberX. And I believe that’s close to what a regular taxi driver would make. But again, that’s not why he’s doing it. Isn’t it interesting how things change?

  2014.12.04

• Toronto seeks injunction to stop Uber

  

  One evening this past spring I was leaving a Rotman School event at Liberty Grand on the west side of Toronto. There aren’t a lot of taxis coming through this part of the city, so I figured I was going to have to wait while I hailed one from my phone. But as luck would have it, one happened to be pulling up just as I walked out of the hall.

  As he drove up and rolled down the window, I told him that I was going to the St. Lawrence Market area and that I needed to pay by credit card (I was trying to be a nice guy and avoid the inevitable fight when he was dropping me off). He responded by saying, “My machine is broken. Can’t you pay with cash?” I told him, “No, unfortunately I don’t have any cash on me. I need to pay with credit card.” He then rolled up his window and drove up closer to the entrance of the hall.

  Faced with this scenario, I did what most people would probably do nowadays: I pulled out my phone so that I could hail either an Uber or a Hailo cab (I’m sad that Hailo has since left the North American market). I decided on Hailo (it was cheaper until UberX came along) and ordered a car.

  But within a few minutes, the same taxi with the broken credit card machine circled back around, rolled down his window, and told me that his machine was now working and he would take me to the St. Lawrence Market. Knowing exactly what had happened, I said to him, “Wooooow, that’s funny that within the span of a few minutes your machine has magically started working again.” He wasn’t happy with that response.

  Now, we all know why he didn’t want to take my credit card. He didn’t want to pay the fees and he wanted the cold hard cash. And who can really blame him for wanting to maximize his profits. But for the end user, this experience sucks. When it’s 2 in the morning and all you want to do is go home to bed, you don’t care about the few dollars he’s trying to save. You just, want, to go, home.

  And that’s one of the reasons why Uber (and previously Hailo) is having such a huge impact on the market. Even before UberX arrived (the cheaper alternative), lots of people were more than willing to pay the Uber premium. And they continue to pay their controversial surge prices. But that’s because the experience is so much better than what’s offered today.

  We all know that Uber is under a lot of fire for what they do, but Toronto mayor Tory is 100% right in saying that ridesharing and peer-to-peer taxis are here to stay. Toronto may be seeking a court injunction to stop the service in this city, but I would agree that it’s likely going to be a big waste of money. The cat is already out of the bag.

  What’s happening here is no dissimilar to what happened with Napster. A court order may have forced the company to shut down, but it didn’t maintain the status quo for the music industry. That industry went, and continues to go through, a lot of change. So a better option, would be for everyone to sit down together and figure out what the future of the taxi industry is going to look like. Because I can guarantee you that it’ll continue to change.

  Image: Anti-Uber protest in London (Flickr)

  2014.11.20