Brandon Donnelly — Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly. — Page 1517

The tech community has been receiving a lot of backslash in San Francisco as of late. And Peter Shih’s infamous 10 things I hate about San Francisco post certainly didn’t help. But I think there’s a bigger issue than just rich tech people driving up the price of real estate.

I was reading Quartz this morning and I think they nailed it: 

"But the blame shouldn’t go to the tech companies or their employees moving to San Francisco, however despicable some might be. Blame San Francisco for being pleasant, and its policymakers for being foolish: When a lot of people are moving to your city—San Francisco the city gained 50,000 new residents between 2000 and 2012, including some 25,000 between 2010-2012 and likely more since—home prices are going to increase unless you build a lot more housing."

I’ve talked about this idea before . But I wanted to break it down a bit more precisely.

If San Francisco, the city, gained 25,000 people between 2010-2012, let’s say that the city gained roughly 8,300 people per year. I just divided by 3. However, if you look at the rate of new housing supply, you get a 10-year average of 2,350 housing units a year (from the Quartz article) and an even lower amount according to Atlantic Cities .

Regardless, what you end up with is a pretty simple phenomenon: More people are moving to the city than new housing is being provided and that’s driving up the price of real estate. In fact, San Francisco allegedly only created 269 housing units in 2011 ! That’s the equivalent of only  one fairly typical Toronto condo building going up (and we have hundreds under construction). No wonder there’s upward pressure on prices.

So rather than just blame the tech community for the city’s housing problems, I think there needs to be a broader look at housing policy. If you really want to help affordability, here’s one simple solution: start building.

Yesterday I came across an incredibly fascinating chart from Eurostat, analyzing housing tenure (in 2011) across Europe. Here it is:

And here’s what I found interesting.

Working from left to right, there seems to be a clear difference between Eastern and Western Europe in terms of the amount of leverage they use to buy homes. If you look at Romania, not only does over 90% of the population own a home, but they also don’t seem to have any outstanding mortgage or housing loan. That means they’re buying their homes in cash.

By the time you get to the United Kingdom, you start to see numbers that are comparable to Canada and the United States. The percentage of owner occupied homes is sitting at or below 70% and the majority of them have a mortgage or loan.

But as a whole, Western Europe seems much more likely to rent than Eastern Europe. And in the case of Switzerland, more people rent than own. Why is that? This seems odd given its economic strength. But the same could be said for Germany and Austria, which also show relatively low ownership rates. Here’s one possible explanation .

Finally, I found it interesting that in Denmark, the Netherlands, and Sweden, there’s virtually no such thing as subsidized rental housing. If you rent, you’re paying market rate (at least according to this chart). I wonder if this has something to do with there being less income inequality.

If anyone has any insights on some of these points, I’d love to hear from you in the comment section below.

Last night before bed I decided to buy a book on my Kindle (iPad app) that I’ve been meaning to read for awhile. It’s called Poke the Box and it’s by Seth Godin. It’s a short read and it’s meant to be that way. You could easily read it in one sitting.

The book is about taking initiative. Taking action. And drawing your own map. It’s about not being scared of failure and realizing that failures are how you learn. It’s about poking the box, which is a computer programming reference. Programmers learn by poking the box (computer) and seeing what works and what doesn’t work.

As I read through the book I’m reminded of something that venture capitalist Ben Horowitz wrote a few months ago on his blog :

"Every employee in a company depends on the CEO to make fast, high quality decisions. Often any decision, even the wrong decision, is better than no decision."

Both Godin and Horowitz are, in a way, talking about the same thing: You have to keep moving. Make decisions. Start stuff. And stop worrying so much about being wrong, because it’s virtually impossible to know how things will eventually play out in the future.

A perfect example of this is Starbucks.

The first Starbucks in Seattle didn’t sell brewed coffee. It sold beans. And had it continued along this path, it certainly wouldn’t have become the brand that it is today. In fact, it may have failed completely. It wasn’t until Howard Schultz saw what they had started and combined it with what he had learned in Italy, that the Starbucks experience of today was born.

The important thing is that somebody (Jerry Baldwin, Zev Siegl and Gordon Bowker) took the initiative to start and build a Starbucks. It didn’t matter that they got the recipe wrong, they poked the box and it ultimately lead to something magical.

The same reluctance to poke the box can also be found in city building.

Here in Toronto we spend a significant amount of time debating and vacillating around transit decisions (as well as many other things). Should we build LRT? Or should we build subway? What should we replace the Scarborough Rapid Transit line with?

But we’ve fallen into analysis paralysis.

The original Transit City Plan was announced on March 16th, 2007. It’s now 2014. And transit still sucks. Imagine if we started and finished, say, 2 kilometers of rapid transit each and every year. Forget worrying if it’s LRT, subway or a horse drawn space ship. We just kept moving.

Something tells me that we’d be better off, even if we did make a few mistakes along the way.