Brandon Donnelly — Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly. — Page 506

So here's the thing. The whole reason we are all talking about how to build more sustainably is that there isn't often a quantifiable ROI for doing so. If building a net-zero building cost less than building a regular building, everybody would be building one. But that is not the case, which is why our industry, and others, are grappling with how to justify the added costs, even though we all know it's absolutely the right thing to do.

The questions we are asking ourselves look something like this: If I spend X% more on this build, what kind of rent premium could I command? And in some cases this premium is quantifiable and in some cases it matters a great deal. For instance, in the case of a new office building, you might need to spend the extra money so that you can attract the right tenants. While in other cases/asset classes, you might feel as if there's no rent premium and nobody will ever pay more.

But I like how Seth Godin thinks about it in this recent post : people never pay extra. If you're paying more for an electric car, for example, you aren't actually paying extra. What you are paying is a price that you feel is fair for what you are receiving. And what is it that you're receiving? Well, in this case, you're getting an electric car, but you're also buying in Seth's words, "sustainability, community awareness, cachet, status, safety, quiet, and the feeling of being an early adopter."

These things have value to some people. And as long as you can deliver on your promises, extra isn't extra at all. But perhaps more importantly, this early adoption can help encourage change. Electric cars are becoming cheaper and cheaper, and I think it's pretty clear that they will soon replace combustion engine vehicles. This model of starting at the top of the market and then moving down seems to have worked.

Now, the auto industry isn't perfectly comparable to the building industry. They have been good at improving productivity and bringing down costs, and we have been awful at it . Depending on how you measure it, construction productivity growth over the last half century is sitting somewhere between flat to some negative number. But I don't think this dubious achievement changes Seth's message. Think about what you're offering. Maybe extra isn't extra.

Connor Dougherty published this thoughtful piece about NIMBYs over the weekend in the New York Times. And it has been making the rounds online ever since.

It is thoughtful in that Connor tries to understand what makes NIMBYs tick. And he does this by interviewing people like Susan Kirsch, a resident of Marin County, California who generally opposes all of the things that California is doing to try and address its housing shortage and who has been fighting a townhouse project in her neighborhood for the last 18 years.

The developer, who is now 86, started the project in his 60s. In the article he is quoted saying that he's either going to succeed or he's going to die. It's one or the other.

What is clear is that we all see things differently. While some people might see new housing as serving an important need. Others see new development as running counter to environmentalism and good stewardship. Indeed, for some, there is no shortage of housing (even in cities that are growing in population). It's simply a problem of too many investors buying and creating rental homes or too many Airbnbs or some other red herring.

Whatever the case may be, it's hard not to pay attention to quotes like this one:

“From my backyard I see the hillside,” Ms. Kirsch wrote from her Hotmail account. “Explain how my property value is not deflated if open space is replace(d) with view-blocking, dense, unsightly buildings.”

Look, we all get this. Nobody wants their views obstructed. Nobody wants more cars parked in their neighborhood. And nobody wants more dog shit in their local park, among many other things. But implicit in this statement is a view that certain people's needs and desires are more important than those of others. I was here first. Too bad for you .

Apple has been working on new virtual reality and/or augmented reality headsets for at least 6 years. This has been widely reported . But in typical Apple fashion, nobody knows anything about them, even though something is set to be revealed as early as this fall . I also don't know anything about them, but I already want one. I am sure Tim Cook will get up on stage at some point and convince me that I need it immediately, so I'm trying to get ahead of that moment.

VR/AR headsets are, of course, not new. Google tried and failed. Nobody wanted to wear them besides nerds. I had a pair of Focals by North but they were far too cumbersome to use and about as comfortable as having a smartphone duct-taped to your face. Meta's headsets currently control the market. They have about 78% market share . But the overall market remains small. It's mostly gamers. But the same could have been said about tablets before Apple did its thing.

The promise is that these AR headsets might replace our phones as the dominant personal device. AR > VR. And that feels to me like a reasonable assumption once the requisite tech arrives. But even before that, there are a ton of great use cases for highly-functioning AR -- everything from online shopping and digital fashion to finally fulfilling the dream of walking around a construction site and visualizing the design and coordination clashes.

Technically these things are already possible, but the technology remains fairly niche. I hope Apple changes that.

Full disclosure: I am long Apple.