Brandon Donnelly — Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly. — Page 559

As I understand it, databases are pretty important to technology companies. Here is an excerpt from a recent post by Albert Wenger talking about why he and his company (Union Square Ventures) believe that web3/crypto is going to unlock new value for our society:

As a first approximation all the big powerful internet companies are really database providers. Facebook is a database of people’s profiles, their friend graphs and their status updates. Paypal is a database of people’s account balances. Amazon is a database of SKUs, payment credentials and purchase histories. Google is a database of web pages and query histories. Of course all of these companies have built a great deal more over time, but operating a database has stayed at the core of why they are powerful. Only they get to decide who has permission to read and write to this database and which parts of it they get access to.

So how will web3 be any better? Well blockchains, at least right now, are poorer performing databases in almost all dimensions, according to Albert. And this is one of the reasons why they're being so quickly dismissed by most people. But they do have one key advantage: permissionless data. No single entity controls a blockchain database. More from Albert:

It is difficult to overstate how big an innovation this is. We went from not being able to do something at all to having a first working version. Again to be clear, I am not saying this will solve all problems. Of course it won’t. And it will even create new problems of its own. Still, permissionless data was a crucial missing piece – its absence resulted in a vast power concentration. As such Web3 can, if properly developed and with the right kind of regulation, provide a meaningful shift in power back to individuals and communities.

All of this said, I do agree with Fred Wilson and others that the web3/crypto enthusiasts on Twitter these days are getting to be a bit much. For obvious reasons, everyone is trying to pump the crypto stuff that they own. And it can certainly feel like shills trying to sell snake oil . But as Fred pointed out today , this isn't the first time that we've been here:

It reminds me of the early days of web2 in 2001/2002/2003, when we started USV. That was also a time of great cynicism. We almost did not get our first fund raised. Nobody was buying the story we were telling. But of course, that story turned out to be true. And I am confident this one will too.

If/when this story does turn out to be true -- and I believe it's a when -- I think we will see it permeate through all sectors of the economy, including how we plan, build, and operate our cities . Of course, this will probably take decades and much of what will happen is unknowable right now. But it's pretty hard to ignore that this was a pivotal year for the crypto space.

"Change makes us uncomfortable. Sunk costs are hard to ignore. Possibility comes with agency, and agency comes with risk." --Seth Godin

This is a quote from a recent blog post by Seth Godin talking about choice vs. convenience. His overarching argument is that we tend to go with convenience over choice when making decisions, and that means forgoing many/most of the options that we actually have available to us. Life inertia is a thing, which is why we often require big and meaningful events to shake us out of the conveniences of complacency.

I think that is one of the reasons why you're hearing talk of a "great resignation." This pandemic has shocked many people into thinking about whether or not they're truly happy doing what they're doing. And for many people, that has translated into going out and starting their own business. Fred Wilson recently argued that what we're living through right now isn't actually a great resignation, it's a great formation .

I have never been a huge fan of new year's resolutions for the simple fact that I don't think you should wait until the new year to do something you allegedly want to do today. If you want it, do it now. But there is no denying that this week is probably the slowest week of the year. And this slowness has a way of freeing up cognitive capacity. Perhaps it's just enough breathing room to encourage more choice over convenience. Whatever the choice may be.

The Financial Times published an article this week talking about the record number of homes that Londoners bought outside of the boundaries of the city this past year. The total was about 112,780 homes worth some £54.9 billion -- again, it was a record in terms of total value.

The argument is that this pandemic continues to fuel decentralization, flexible working arrangements, and greater demand for larger spaces. Housing preferences have permanently changed. And the suggested takeaway is that this dynamic might have "serious consequences for the city's population and housing market."

But of course, I'm going to question whether this is really the case. The ~£55 billion number is clearly a new high according to the article. The previous record was £36.6 billion back in 2007. But that doesn't give you the full picture because homes cost a lot more today than they did back then.

If you look at the total number of homes purchased outside of the city by Londoners, the record still belongs to 2007 with approximately 113,640 homes. When I see this number it makes me pause.

Because here we are living through a global pandemic and the largest work from home experiment in modern history, and yet the total number of homes purchased outside of the city this past year is still comparable to that of the last housing cycle.

Did this moment in time really create an anomalous and irreversible shift in housing preferences?

Photo by Fineas Anton on Unsplash