Brandon Donnelly — Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly. — Page 422

The current electric vehicle plan in the US is to build a national network of 500,000 chargers and have EVs make up at least 50% of new car sales by 2030. ( Here's where we are today with adoption.) To this end, a big announcement was made today that included lots of public funding, a Made-in-America agenda, and lots of other goodies. But perhaps the two most important points are that (1) Tesla has, for the first time, agreed to open a portion of its charging network to non-Tesla EVs (so that it can gain access to the new $7.5 billion EV charging initiative) and (2) there is a requirement for all of the station connectors to use the " combined charging system " (CCS). I'm not a connector expert but, in my mind, this is both exciting and directionally right. To fully transition to electric vehicles, we need universality.

Last week, the Centre Pompidou -- which is Europe's largest modern art museum -- announced that it has acquired its very first NFTs (18 pieces by 13 artists) and that it will be exhibiting the collection this spring. This makes them the first museum in France to own NFT art and, I'm guessing, one of the first in the world. (The Los Angeles County Museum of Art recently got some as well .)

This is fun for a few reasons. The obviously fun reason is that it's good for NFT collectors and people who generally support this space. Big institutions bring legitimacy. It's one thing to say that these JPEGs are stupid while sitting at home on your computer, but it's an entirely different thing to travel to Paris, visit the Centre Pompidou, look at its white gallery walls, and then say that these JPEGs are stupid!

The other fun thing about this is that it shows a continued openness to new ideas and new technologies. Here are some words from the Pompidou (that have been translated, by Google, from French):

The idea was not to be the first, but to bring together a relevant collection, which could testify to a creative and critical appropriation of a new technology by artists, and how this disrupts and displaces the art ecosystem. From its creation, the Center Pompidou has relied on the idea that contemporary technological creation and creativity should be at the heart of the institution. From 1974-1975, therefore even before the opening of the Center, the National Museum of Modern Art acquired major works and installations by  Dan Graham  and  Bruce Naumann . Video installations using real time, and it was the very first institution to do so.

This wasn't always the case in France. One of my favorite art history classes from university was one that covered Impressionism. Partly because I thought their work was cool, but mostly because Impressionist painters were, in a way, early modernists. They rejected the academic approaches to painting and instead decided to make up their own rules.

At the time, in the 19th century, this was seen as entirely radical. And it meant harsh criticism from the established art world and an inability to meaningfully exhibit at the Salon (which was everything at the time). But history has a way of showing us that if something is inherently a good idea, you can only remain stubborn for so long.

The Impressionist painters began hosting their own exhibitions starting in 1874 and, by 1881, the government had withdrawn its official sponsorship of the annual Salon. The jurors wanted to cling to only traditional painting styles and the world wanted to move on. And here it is doing that again, today.

The Prohibition on the Purchase of Residential Property by Non-Canadians Act -- which came into effect in January of this year and bans foreigners from buying residential real estate in the country for two years -- is weird.

We can debate whether banning foreigners from buying residential real estate is really helpful for housing affordability and if it's the most impactful place to focus our attention (and we have talked about this many times before), but the part that is particularly odd is this feature here :

...the law’s definition of residential property includes land that is zoned for residential use or mixed use, which covers huge swaths of commercial land across the country. As well, an entity is deemed foreign if a non-Canadian owns a minimum of 3 per cent of the entity.

What this means is that the following scenario is now technically a problem (not actual legal advice!):

• You own a commercial property with zero homes

• You have long-term commercial leases in place that also generally preclude you from building new homes in the foreseeable future

• The zoning of your property allows for residential uses (which you like having in your back pocket)

• And your cousin from Italy owns 3% of the entity that owns the real estate

This is a scenario where residential homes do not exist and they are unlikely to exist any time soon. It seems clear cut, but I suppose one could argue that it's exceedingly onerous to try and figure out which sites are soft sites and could actually be developed with new residential. And so if you have the potential to build and then own residential, you should be regulated as if you might ultimately own some of it one day.

But even here, I don't know why we would want to restrict the supply side of the housing equation. If you're a developer in Canada where housing is known to be kind of expensive and you want to build more of it for Canadians, isn't that a good thing? And isn't it also a good thing if we can get some non-Canadians to help pay for these new homes?