Start typing to search this publication.
Brandon Donnelly logo Brandon Donnelly
Open menu
Brandon Donnelly logo

Subscribe to Brandon Donnelly

Get new posts delivered straight to your inbox.

Brandon Donnelly — Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly. — Page 1529

A culture of transparency

  • Everpix
  • Real-estate
  • San-francisco

One of the things I think the real estate industry is notoriously bad for is transparency. It’s getting better, but we’re nowhere near as transparent as some other industries, such as tech. In tech, you get companies like San Francisco-based  Everpix who fail and then release all of their private documents to the public , including revenue, subscribers, cap table and so on.

Could you imagine a real estate developer failing and then releasing all of its financials? This is what we paid for the land. This is how many units we sold. And this is why we failed. It doesn’t happen (or at least I’ve never seen it).

Sure you might be able to get some of this information with a publicly traded real estate company, but that’s because they have to be more transparent. Everpix was 7 employees working out of a co-working space. They didn’t have to do this. But they did it because they wanted to help the larger startup community. They didn’t want to let a good failure go to waste.

But at the same time, I actually don’t think that transparency is all about being altruistic. Transparency can also drive the bottom line. Every company wants to stand out from the competition and engage with its customers on a deeper level. But in order to do that, I think you need to give your customers something to engage with . You have to put yourself out there.

One way to do that is to be more open and transparent. Be genuine and tell your customers who you are, what you believe in and, perhaps most importantly, why you’re doing the things that you’re doing. I like Simon Sinek’s philosophy that “ customers don’t buy what you do, they buy why you do it.

Design your own beautiful maps

  • Dirt
  • Foursquare
  • Google-maps

If you love cities, then I’m willing to bet you probably also love maps.

I just stumbled across a neat tool called Map Stack . It was created by San Francisco-based Stamen Design —probably one of the leaders in beautiful maps. The tool is one part Photoshop and one part Mapbox, and it allows you to quickly create an endless array of cool looking maps. Like these:

I spent 2 minutes and made a watercolor version of Toronto’s financial district:

This tool aside, I also really like Mapbox . When we were designing and building Dirt , we ended up using them for our map underlay because we wanted something beautiful and we didn’t love Google Maps for that reason. Though we missed Google Streetview, we were happy with the decision. Other apps using Mapbox include Foursquare and Pinterest.

A new model for the architecture profession

  • Architect
  • Architect-as-developer
  • Architect-this-city

Last week I provided a few suggestions for how architects might be able to transition over to real estate development . And I ended by saying that I loved architecture school, but that it could use a few more business and entrepreneurship classes. Today, I’d liked to expand on that idea.

When I was doing my Master of Architecture at Penn, I spent a lot of time thinking about hybrid models for the architecture profession. I was trying to figure out a way to reconcile my love of design with my desire to be more of a building entrepreneur.

I was interested in what Jonathan Segal was doing down in San Diego with his “ architect as developer " approach. And I was really taken by a lecture that Joshua Prince-Ramus (formerly of  OMA , now REX ) gave where he talked about how architects have marginalized themselves (away from being the master builder) by shying away from liability.

Out of all the models, conflating architecture and development seems to me like a real possibility. I believe that good developers understand good design and that good architects understand what’s good for the market. So why not merge the two?

We know that the architecture profession is facing significant challenges; fewer and fewer architecture school grads are getting licensed and actually become a bona fide architect. Some think this calls for licensure reform, but I’m also interested in revisiting the model in its entirety.

Imagine if every architecture school taught students how to design a building and then go out and actually get it leased up and built. Is this too much to ask of one discipline?

I can see firms naturally splitting up roles between those who prefer the design side and those who prefer the selling and business side, but is there any reason why the same firm couldn’t be handling both?

Subscribe to Brandon Donnelly

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