Brandon Donnelly — Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly. — Page 650

Amazon is sometimes criticized for its private labels . The way this generally works is that Amazon uses the data that it collects from its platform to see what customers are buying. It then goes out and makes its own version of these products and sells them in competition with the other products in its marketplace. The reason why Amazon (and others) do this is because the margins are generally better on private labels, even though they are often positioned to the end customer as being a value-oriented alternative. That is, they're cheaper.

Some people think that Amazon shouldn't be doing this, particularly as its third party marketplace continues to grow. This side of its marketplace deals with inventory that Amazon doesn't own. It is the stuff of third party sellers who come to the platform to access Amazon's customer base and reach, and to possibly use its fulfillment services. This marketplace now makes up about 60% of Amazon's sales volume and so it has become a dominant part of its business. It's a way to grow without having to spend money on additional inventory.

Is it, then, acceptable for Amazon to mine this data, replicate products, and compete with its own customers? The truth is that this isn't all that new. As Benedict Evans points out in this recent post , retailers have been doing this for more than a century. The above table taken from a 1932 report on "chain store private brands" shows that about 80% of stores in the US at this time were selling private label brands. Furthermore, it represented about a quarter of their overall sales. Is this time any different?

Table via Benedict Evans

These are two photos taken from the roof of our Capital Point project (office strata) in Burnaby, BC. They represent the views from about 19 storeys up. In the first photo you can see downtown Vancouver and the mountains that surround it. And in the second photo you can see the Metrotown town center (second largest in the region) and the SkyTrain station that services it. It’s certainly hard to beat British Columbia on a beautiful sunny day.

The urban-to-rural transect is a New Urbanist planning framework that prescribes a smooth continuum of settlements that go from least dense to most dense. The six zones are as follows: natural (T1), rural (T2), sub-urban (T3), general urban (T4), center (T5), and core (T6).

Part of this framework is about rejecting single-use Euclidean zoning. Instead of segregating uses, New Urbanism looks to return to a mix of uses within close proximity of each other. This is a good thing.

But the transect also advocates for a certain orderliness. There should be a smooth transition as you move outward from T6 toward T1. It is about placing things in their useful order and maintaining a certain kind of character.

Witold Rybczynski makes an interesting observation about this in a recent post called “urban discontinuities.” The point he makes is that some of the most remarkable urban moments are the result not of smoothness, but of “odd juxtapositions.”

Think:

- Mount Royal (T1) in the middle of downtown Montreal (T6).

- The North Shore Mountains (T1) that terminate views from within the building canyons of downtown Vancouver (T6)

- The walls of tall buildings (T6) that frame Central Park (T1) in Manhattan

- The wonderful ravines (T1) that cut through Toronto’s urban fabric (T6)

These are contrasting zones in the transect bumping up against each other. And it turns out that most of us really like these moments. But I think that the bigger point to be made here is that urban environments aren’t always neat and tidy, and that’s because they are a constantly evolving organism.

That’s not a bug. It’s actually a feature to be celebrated.