Brandon Donnelly — Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly. — Page 1515

Yesterday when I was researching for this post on Lean Urbanism , I came across a really interesting way of describing and classifying the groups typically involved in the emergence of a new neighborhood.

It came from New Urbanist Andres Duany, who explained the process, here , using 3 groups of people: those that are  risk-oblivious ; those that are  risk-aware ; and those that are  risk-adverse . 

Risk-oblivious  are people like the artist, who go into a crappy neighborhood and magically make it hip. They’re the ones that give the neighborhood its character. They’re the first catalyst.

Risk-aware  are people like real estate developers. They know risks exist, but they believe they can manage it, as well as profit from taking it on. They take the neighborhood to the next level.

And finally,  risk-adverse  are the boring people who only come to a neighborhood once it’s absolutely clear that it’s a safe investment. Duany typecasts this group as the “dentist from New Jersey.” There’s much less value creation at this stage.

Most of you have probably heard of this cycle of urban renewal, but I thought it was really interesting to frame it in terms of risk tolerance.

The term “lean” is well known in technology and startup circles. Thanks to people like Eric Ries and Steve Blank , it’s become all about starting up lean and not investing a lot of time and money before you’ve really tested your business assumptions in the marketplace.

But keeping it lean isn’t unique to just tech companies. Its origins are actually in manufacturing—mostly from Toyota’s celebrated production system. Lately though, it has been starting to make its way into cities with a new buzzword called “Lean Urbanism.”

Championed by New Urbanist Andres Duany —who is actually in the midst of writing a book on the topic—the methodology seems to be gaining awareness in cities spanning from Detroit to San Diego.  Here’s an article  that a friend of mine (currently working in San Diego) sent me yesterday on the topic.

At first, the article gave me the impression that the movement was all about building as-of-right. That is, build what’s allowed and stop asking for special discretionary permissions, which is often  how real estate development works .

But then I started to do a bit more research.

And it turns out that Lean Urbanism is about something much deeper. It’s about empowering incremental urban growth :

"Lean Urbanism…focuses on revitalizing cities by finding ways for people to participate in community-building — specifically, by enabling everyday people to get things done."

What Lean Urbanism hopes to do is create tools and techniques that will help local communities avoid and workaround overly onerous regulations. It’s about removing the barriers to entry—whether that be a business permit or a building permit—so that more people can participate in shaping their own community.

What I like about it is that it’s building upon the renewal cycle that has traditionally always powered cities. It hopes to empower the proverbial artist that moves into a neighborhood like New York’s Soho and magically makes it cool—then spurring an onslaught of investment.

And so while the buzzword might be new, it’s a renewal cycle we’ve seen before. But, if it works, maybe not with so much frequency.

It’s no secret that a lot of cities out there want to become the next Silicon Valley (or San Francisco, since a lot tech companies seem to be now setting up shop there instead). With the shift towards a knowledge/information/networked economy (pick your favorite name), cities around the world are betting that entrepreneurship is going to be the key to future economic growth.

As an example, I was reading yesterday about a Buffalo-based business plan competition called 43North . It’s allegedly one of the biggest business plan competitions, ever:

With $5 million in cash prizes, including a top award of $1 million, six $500,000 awards and four $250,000 awards, 43North is setting out to turn the best new business ideas from around the globe into reality.

In addition to cash, winners will receive mentoring and free office space for a year. But while the competition is open to anyone in the world, you have to relocate to Buffalo for a minimum of one year if you win. 

It’s a bold move. $5 million is a lot of money. But it strikes me as a step in the right direction to reinvent a city that was once the 8th largest in the US . I’m a big believer in the power of entrepreneurship.

But 2 considerations do come to mind.

The first is that this move can’t, or at least shouldn’t be, purely about business and economics. To create an entrepreneurial hub, I think you need to also ensure that you have a city that young people would love to live in.

I’m not saying that Buffalo isn’t one of those cities (I don’t know it well enough to comment), but I am saying that it should be part of any economic development strategy. Why do you think more and more startups are moving from Silicon Valley to San Francisco?

The second is that I worry we may end up with  too many cities trying to become the next Silicon Valley. The industrial economy allowed for the creation of a certain number of thriving metropolitan regions (see:  The Rust Belt ).

But I’m not so sure the networked economy will require as many. I could be wrong, but the data seems to suggest that we’re heading towards a spikier economic landscape—both within cities and across nations.

In any event, here’s my question for the community: Would you move to Buffalo?