Brandon Donnelly — Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly. — Page 641

Here is an interesting interview discussion about NFTs ( non-fungible tokens ) and the world of luxury brands. It's a conversation between Benoit Pagotto, cofounder of the NFT brand RTFKT Studios , and Ian Rogers, who is Chief Experience Officer at the blockchain startup Ledger (he was previously the Chief Digital Officer at LVMH). Below is an excerpt that stood out to me. It starts to speak to the potential of NFTs for fashion/luxury brands. Rogers also makes an interesting comparison to the music industry in that things are playing out very differently today compared to what happened back in the late 90s.

Benoit is proving that he can basically sell a $4,900 digital good alongside a $100 physical good. Now imagine when the lightbulb goes off in Adidas’s head, that the item on adidas.com comes with a digital collectible and the item at “retailer dot com” does not. It fits with their focus way more than the internet did. The internet didn’t fit in any incumbent’s focus. It was the opposite. It was like, “Oh my God, this threatens our monopoly in some way,” right? For the music business, it was, “Wait a minute, we want to sell a $17 compact disc, not a $1 digital file.” They got dragged into that world. 

On a related note, it was recently announced that model Emily Ratajkowski has made an NFT containing a photograph of herself standing in front of a Richard Prince print that had previously appropriated one of her photos. (Richard Prince's artwork is known for appropriation .) So this is an exceptionally neat idea. Here she is using an NFT to try and take back some control. Basically: You took my photo and then profited from it. So now I'm going to stand in front of that image, take a new photo, and then reclaim some ownership using the blockchain. Is this the future?

According some recent data from the US Census Bureau and USPS (via this CityLab article ), the number of Americans who registered (between March 2020 and February 2021) that they were making a permanent move somewhere else, only increased by about 3%. And the vast majority of people that did move tended to simply spread out and move within the same metro area -- about 84%. About 7.5% moved within the same state. And about 6% moved to some other top 50 metro area in the US.

Some are of the opinion that these moves to the outskirts of cities would have happened regardless. The pandemic simply sped things up. Perhaps. But whatever the case may be, CityLab and others have argued that an "urban exodus" is likely the wrong way to describe what is happening. Despite reports that everybody seems to be moving to Texas and Florida (yes, Miami saw a spike), most people are simply spreading out in geographies where they already happened to live.

The notable exceptions are the Bay Area and New York. San Francisco and San Jose -- both of which usually register as being two of the most expensive housing markets in the US -- saw permanent moves increase by 23% and 17%, respectively. Compared to other metro areas in the US, these figures stand out. (I assume this data is collected after somebody goes to the post office and says that they want to change their address forever.)

But we are already seeing net outflows from San Jose and San Francisco start to taper off (see above). It's also important to keep in mind that these cities were losing people well before the pandemic started. They are expensive places. And the fastest growing cities tend to be ones that sprawl, have a more elastic housing supply, and are consequently more affordable. That said, I suspect we'll see this tapering off continue. The "urban exodus" isn't going to be what it's cracked up to be.

Images: CityLab

Prior to COVID, many projections had the world's population plateauing sometime in the second half of the 21st century. This is expected to happen because about half of the world's population now lives in a country where the fertility rate is less than the replacement rate of 2.1 children for every woman. See above chart from The Economist .

At the start of the pandemic, there was talk of a possible COVID baby boom. People were/are stuck at home and so that would surely translate into more sex among partners. But that doesn't appear to have been the case for many countries. According to The Economist, births fell by 15% in China last year. The same drop was recorded in the United States last year between February and November.

Because of this trend, the above projections are now being adjusted and pulled forward, with some predicting that the world's population could plateau as early as the 2050s. That's only about 30 years from now, which means that quite a few of us could end up living in a world with a declining population. This is likely to have both positive and negative consequences.

There are nearly 8 billion people in the world today with China and India being the countries with the greatest numbers. But it's interesting to consider how recent this figure really is (compounding takes time to gain momentum).

The world didn't hit a billion people until the 19th century, and the second billion was only reached by the 1920s, which in the grand scheme of things, isn't that long ago. Since then the global population has exploded with about 6 billion people being added in only the last 100 years. That's pretty wild when you think about it.

P.S. I recently discovered a site called outline.com . It allows you to read, highlight, and annotate articles that you find online. But it also seems to allow you to read articles behind paywalls. Perhaps some of you will find that useful.

Chart: The Economist