Brandon Donnelly — Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly. — Page 527

https://twitter.com/mnolangray/status/1511098796364632067?s=20&t=tX0MTFB9wZyb6rKAGEFM7w

This is an interesting way of seeing rental housing rents (national scale). And there's a lot that you can glean from a mapping like this. But it's also interesting in that what you are seeing here is a visualization of some 11 million Craigslist rental housing listings ( taken from this study ). The authors refer to it as a "nontraditional source of volunteered geographic information", and they argue that it's probably more granular and real-time than what is typically available when it comes to rental housing. That sounds right to me.

https://youtu.be/OrnK90UI9lo

Peter Baugh tweeted this out on Monday. Essentially, he attended a community meeting for a new housing project in his neighborhood. He spoke in favor of the proposed development. And was then accused of being a developer shill. His comments were subsequently no longer allowed at this "public" meeting. I mean, how could anyone possibly be in favor of new urban housing? Surely he must be a developer "plant."

This is wrong, disappointing, and a whole host of other unsightly things. So today I thought I would share a recent City Beautiful video that asks: "Are NIMBYs selfish?" I have shared Dave Amos' videos before. He's an assistant professor of city planning at Cal Poly and a well known YouTuber. And I think this video does a great job explaining some of the tensions and trade-offs at play when it comes to development, particularly infill development.

But as Dave clearly explains in the video, he is not a neutral actor when it comes to this topic. His view is that, yes, NIMBYs are selfish.

If I had to pick only one social network to use, it would be Twitter. I, of course, also enjoy Instagram because I like taking photos. But if I had to pick one, it would be Twitter.

I just find that Instagram is more about passive consumption (like watching TV), whereas on Twitter I've found a way to actively engage in productive discussions around the topics that interest me -- everything from real estate and architecture to NFTs and photography.

The crypto community is also very centered around Twitter. I haven't looked at the numbers, but I would think that NFT activity has been, or at least should be, a boon for the company. That said, Twitter has never really been a great business and public company.

But maybe that changes now that Elon Musk has become its largest shareholder with a 9.2% stake in the company (currently valued at a few billion). The stock jumped over 27% today. Or maybe it doesn't change at all and this is just a fun side hustle for Elon.

Here is a typically funny explanation from Matt Levine introducing what just happened:

Look this all makes complete sense, obvious, intuitive, simple sense. If you are the richest person in the world, and annoying, and you constantly play a computer game, and you get a lot of enjoyment and a sense of identity from that game and are maybe a little addicted, then at some point you might have some suggestions for improvements in the game. So you might leave comments and email the company that makes the game saying “hey you should try my ideas.” And the company might ignore you (or respond politely but not move fast enough for your liking). It might occur to you: “Look, I am the richest person in the world; how much could this game company possibly cost? I should just buy it and change the game however I want.” Even if your complaints are quite minor, why shouldn’t you get to play exactly the game you want? Even if you have no complaints, why not own the game you love, just to make sure it continues to be exactly what you want? The game is Twitter, the richest person in the world is Elon Musk ...