Brandon Donnelly — Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly. — Page 504

I just finished reading this article by Nellie Bowles about how San Francisco became a failed city . Here's an excerpt that relates to housing supply:

Consider the story of the flower farm at 770 Woolsey Street. It slopes down 2.2 acres in the sunny southern end of the city and is filled with run-down greenhouses, the glass long shattered—a chaos of birds and wild roses. For five years, advocates fought  a developer  who was trying to put 63 units on that bucolic space. They wanted to sell flowers there and grow vegetables for the neighborhood—a kind of banjo-and-beehives utopian fantasy. The thing they didn’t want—at least not there, not on that pretty hill—was a big housing development. Who wants to argue against them? In San Francisco the word developer is basically a slur, close to calling someone a Republican. What kind of monster wants to bulldoze wild roses?

Decades of progressive governance in San Francisco yielded a thicket of regulations—safety reviews, environmental reviews, historical reviews, sunlight-obstruction reviews—that empower residents to essentially paralyze development. It costs only  $682  to file for a discretionary review that can hold up a construction project for years, and if you’re an established club that’s been around for at least two years, it’s free. Plans for one 19-unit-development geared toward the middle class were halted this year because, among other issues raised by the neighbors, the building would have increased overall shadow coverage on Dolores Park by 0.001 percent.

These are just two examples of San Francisco's exclusionary zoning problem, but of course, the city has other unfortunate things going as well. For the full article, click here .

I have heard a number of people describe this blog as covering all that is new. That wasn't my explicit goal when I started writing it. My goal was simply to focus on cities and all the wonderful things that shape them. But it turns that new ideas form a big part of that and that I am very interested in new ideas. Change is what moves the world forward.

Of course, there is no shortage of new ideas. We all have brilliant ideas. Maybe you're looking at Toronto's public garbage bins right now and thinking to yourself, "You know what, I have some terrific ideas for how these could be greatly improved." And chances are, your ideas are good ones. The problem, however, is that ideas are fleeting. The real challenge is bringing them to fruition before they die.

So here are a few thoughts that came to mind this morning:

• There is a difference between incremental improvements and directional/fundamental change. Generally speaking, we tend to be naturally better at ideas related to the former than the latter. When we look at a Toronto garbage bin on the street and see it overflowing with rubbish and see all its side panels swung open, we intuitively see the problems. But it is less common to think about, oh I don't know, subterranean garbage networks for moving refuse around or networked robots that come out at night and tidy our streets with purple brooms. This is also why when we come up with something new like a horseless carriage or an iPhone, we often name them after the thing we already know and are familiar with, even though it probably undersells how meaningful the change is. It helps our minds make the leap.

• Many organizations have separate decision making processes that depend on the above. Amazon, for example , likes to ensure that incremental improvements have "multiple paths to yes" within the company. Again, these are the more intuitive kind of changes and so you don't want some brilliant, yet fragile, idea to get killed by some naysayer along the way. You want as many of them being implemented as possible. On the other hand, ideas that might change the direction of the company are typically slowed down and carefully deliberated. This is a common split. "Major decisions" go up to some greater governance body; whereas all other day-to-day decisions just get made on the fly by those "in the field". This is one way to keep things moving quickly.

• On a related note, venture capitalist Fred Wilson wrote today about the virtues of small and flat partnerships when it comes to early-stage investing (but I don't think the lesson only applies to this sector). In his view, the biggest venture winners -- at least when it comes to early-stage companies -- often come from the most "controversial and out there" ideas. And to make these sorts of bets it is helpful to have a small and flat team with a lot of trust. I found this particular insight really interesting because it implies that when you have the opposite -- big and hierarchical organizations -- you naturally start to lose your ability to experiment with non-consensus ideas. And so what you're likely left with is just the intuitive and incremental stuff.

• Recently, we also spoke about the argument that generations view change differently. Young people are often more open to new ideas, at least partially because they view it as a way for them to make their mark on the world. Older generations, on the other hand, often view change as a threat to their current position in the world. None of this is universally true, but think about how this often plays out with new housing. Young people view housing supply as a way for them to buy or rent something new and form their own household. Whereas already established households can view it as a threat to their community and their existing way of life .

These are a broad set of thoughts. But if there are any lessons to extract from these bullet points it is perhaps these: One, consider the kind of decision that needs to be made. Is it something incremental and intuitive? Is it an obviously sound infill housing project? Because if so, you want multiple paths to a quick yes. And two, consider who gets a say and who controls the decision. Because the wrong group dynamic can kill even the best new ideas.

It's easy to forget stuff like this :

In the first decade of the 20th century there were no stop signs, warning signs, traffic lights, traffic cops, driver's education, lane lines, street lighting, brake lights, driver's licenses or posted speed limits. Our current method of making a left turn was not known, and drinking-and-driving was not considered a serious crime.

There was little understanding of speed. A driver training bulletin called "Sportsmanlike Driving" had to explain velocity and centrifugal force and why when drivers took corners at high speed their cars skidded or sometimes "turned turtle" (flipped over).

The transition from horses and buggies to horseless carriages, as they were first called, was one of the most impactful things to ever happen to our cities. Cars were more dangerous. Some, or perhaps many, were opposed to them initially (and didn't see the need to move away from horse-drawn wagons). And we had to invent a myriad of traffic systems in order to try and make them remotely safe for people.

One could easily argue that we are still grappling with these same safety problems. See yesterday's post about traffic-related fatalities . But is the answer to have never invented horseless carriages or is the answer that we need to be much better about managing and controlling them within our built environments and around humans? I would say it's the latter.

And I would also argue that there are parallels here with how some people feel about electric scooters today. What is clear is that both urban clutter and safety are valid concerns. When electric scooters first started becoming popular, they were being left all over the place . But I think that has been largely solved through geofencing and by forcing people to take a photo of their parked scooter at the end of their rides.

Progress is also happening around safety. E-scooter company Superpedestrian , for example, has designed larger and more stable scooters, and also has something called Pedestrian Defence, which uses fancy AI to block people from riding on sidewalks, from going the wrong way on a one-way street, and from generally doing dumb and unsafe things.

Does this solve all of our problems? I don't know. But I think innovation in the e-scooter space is a positive thing and I hope that cities like Toronto will one day become more openminded around these sorts of micro-mobility solutions. It's not like our horseless carriages have an immaculate safety record.