Brandon Donnelly — Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly. — Page 1307

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

Earlier today the comment section of an old post I wrote about UberX was revived with a discussion around technology and what it means for human capital.

The concern expressed was that technology and machines are going to put us all out of a job. And it stemmed from a discussion around driverless cars. Clearly we are headed in that direction and so eventually we will no longer need to drive or have people drive us around. This means that something that was once a job will no longer exist.

But I am not yet convinced that it will be as dire as some believe it will be – though it could very well necessitate some significant structural changes in the economy.

Here are two things to consider:

Marc Andreessen has written and tweeted a lot about the topic of “ robots eat all jobs ” and his argument is that this line of thinking often revolves around something called a lump-of-labor fallacy . This is the idea that there is a fixed amount of work to be done. And so when technology replaces humans, we are just making the labor pie smaller.

But the reality appears much different. Human wants and desires increase and we find new ways to put people to work. One of the examples I’ve heard Marc give, that I really like, has to do with buildings. In the past, there used to be a guy whose only job was to shovel coal into a furnace. He physically heated the building. But eventually technology did away with that requirement and that job. Is that not progress? Or should we go back to that in order to put people to work?

All this said, unemployment and job displacement are still serious issues for cities and countries. Which is why some people – including many capitalists – believe that minimum wages will not be enough going forward. We will also need to look at things like a “ basic income guarantee ” to redistribute wealth and ensure that, no matter what, everyone has a certain amount of money to live.

At first blush, this doesn’t feel right. But I think it’s important to remain open minded and engage in discussion. Hopefully we can do a bit of that today in the comments below.

Tonight I attended and gave a short talk at a city building themed PechaKucha night here in Toronto. If you aren’t familiar with the PechaKucha 20x20 presentation format, click here .

The first PechaKucha night was held in Tokyo, but it has since expanded to over 800 cities around the world. Each city has a local organizer who acts as a steward and here in Toronto it is Amy Bath . She did a fantastic job this evening.

Tonight’s event was all about non-traditional forms of city building. It was not so much about how architects and developers are shaping the built environment – thought there was some of that. It was more about how interdisciplinary artists, graphic designers, bloggers, and others, are having an impact on cities. So in my case, I was speaking as a blogger, rather than as a real estate developer, which was a bit unique for me.

What excited me about tonight is the amount of talent and passion that we have in this city, and how so much of it is being harnessed to make cities better.

Jay Wall of Studio Jaywall is doing incredible work at the intersection of graphic design and city building. My friend Mackenzie Keast of Distl and NXT City Prize is organizing public space competitions and then working with the city to get them built. And my friend Justin Broadbent , who is an interdisciplinary artist, is just killing it and putting Toronto on the map. I don’t know how else to say it.

And this is just naming a few of the people in attendance.

I have so much respect for people who love the city they call home and actively try to make it a better place. That’s a lot harder to do than just complain about why your city isn’t (insert other allegedly better city here). But it’s also a lot more productive.

I really like this post by Daniel Hertz talking about the inherent tension in American housing policy.

Here’s his conclusion:

We are, in conclusion, profoundly conflicted as a nation when it comes to housing: we want it to be affordable, but we also want its prices to rise fast enough to be valuable as a financial investment. That’s a contradiction we need to acknowledge if our housing policy debate—and, ultimately, our housing policy—is going to be coherent and constructive.

Of course, this situation isn’t unique to the US. Though the US does have homeownership subsidies – such as the mortgage interest tax deduction – that other similar countries, like Canada, do not have.

Still, I feel a similar kind of contradiction here. We worry about excess supply and housing bubbles when the reality is that both of these things are desirable outcomes if, and only if,   the primary objective is to maintain housing affordability.

But I don’t think that is the primary objective in practice. At least in this part of the world, I think we worry first and foremost about making sure that home prices continue to go up and that wealth is being built. Then, we worry about providing affordable housing for those that are unable to participate.

I’m not making a judgement call on whether or not that’s a good or bad thing. It just strikes me that this tension, and there certainly is a tension, is not an equal one.