Brandon Donnelly — Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly. — Page 169

In August 2023, when Waymo first launched its self-driving vehicles in San Francisco, the market shares of Uber and Lyft were 66% and 34%, respectively.

By the end of last year , these market shares had dropped to 55% and 22%, respectively, with Waymo on equal footing with Lyft. (These numbers specifically refer to rides that start and end within the boundaries of where Waymo operates and do not, for example, include rides to the airport.)

So the result was low double-digit losses in market share for both companies. This is not all that surprising given that autonomous vehicles are a novel thing and that Waymo's cars seem to be nicer than most Ubers and Lyfts. But it also shows that there maybe isn't a great deal of customer loyalty between the various platforms, that is, as long as the wait times are reasonable.

I think the more difficult questions remain: What does the ride-hailing space look like as AVs become more ubiquitous across our cities? Who is going to own what? And will individual car ownership fall?

We've spoken before about the peak load problem that Waymo faces as a result of owning its own cars. It's expensive to manage a fleet like this, especially relative to Uber's variable supply model. So one scenario remains a close partnership between Waymo and Uber , where Uber handles any above-base spikes in demand with actual humans.

But another scenario might be a hybrid approach where some of the AVs are owned by a ride-hailing company and some are owned by individuals who just contribute them to the network when they don't need them. This is what Tesla has been promising and, who knows, maybe it'll actually happen someday. Reilly Brennan recently wrote about this over here .

Personally, I would love to not own a car. It's also hard to imagine being able to make much money off a car that only goes to work during peak times, when the other robots are too busy. So I'm not convinced of this model. But I can see why Waymo is gaining market share. Privacy and a nicer cleaner vehicle are desirable features.

Cover photo by gibblesmash asdf on Unsplash

Eleven years ago, Danish homeware company Vipp opened its very first guesthouse in Sweden. Called Vipp Shelter , the house is a 55 m2 prefabricated steel pod that, today, can be rented starting from EUR 1,500 for two nights. Since then, Vipp has gone on to build and open 10 other guesthouses around the world and they have all been widely celebrated for their designs.

Now, if you look on their website, you'll see that they describe their guesthouses in the following way: "Not a hotel. Not a showroom. Not like any place you've ever stayed." This is mostly true, but they are also like showrooms for the company. And I've always found this to be a clever strategy, because what better way to experience a brand then to live with it for a few days in some beautiful locale.

Their latest guesthouse is called Vipp Tunnel (pictured above) and it's located in the Tasmanian bush. In case you're interested, it opened this week for bookings.

Photos via Vipp

In the 9th century , France enacted into law a way to buy and sell property through something known as une vente en viager . My understanding is that there are other European countries that also allow this, but that it's most popular in France, even if it still forms a relatively small portion of the market.

Here's how it typically works. You're an older person (or older couple) and you want to use your home to generate some cash, but you also want to stay living in your home until the very end. So you offer it up for sale en viager occupé . (This is the most popular option, but there's also le viager libre , where the seller moves out immediately.)

Whoever buys it will usually pay you, the seller, in two ways. They will pay you an upfront lump sum (called le bouquet ) and a recurring payment (called la rente viagère ) up until the day you die (or both of you die). Once this happens, the buyer then gets full enjoyment of the property. The transaction is complete.

So why would either party want to sell and buy in this way?

Well, if you're the seller, the obvious benefits are that (1) you get to continue living in your home and (2) you get some money now and for the rest of your life. This can be useful if you, say, run out of cash during retirement. It's a means to financial independence.

For buyers, it's the opportunity to maybe acquire a property below its current market price. Because if you don't have access to the home until some undetermined date in the future, well then a discount will obviously need to be applied. The initial lump sum payment is often around 30% of the current value . The other attractive feature is that it's a form of financing for buyers who may not have all the money they need today.

In the end, this is a bet on life expectancy. Because if the seller ends up living for a really long time, then they get the benefit of more annuity payments. However, if they end up living fewer years than expected, then the buyer benefits from having to pay less in annuity payments. They got to buy below market.

It's a fascinating pricing and time-value-of-money exercise, but it's also a potentially morbid way to buy real estate. On the one hand, you could be helping someone live a dignified retirement. On the other hand, you stand to benefit if they die sooner than expected.

Cover photo by Zach Dyson on Unsplash