Brandon Donnelly — Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly. — Page 755

Like many of you, I have been watching The Last Dance . It is a powerful reminder of just how competitive, disciplined, and emotional Michael Jordan was, and still is, about winning at the game of basketball. But the most powerful moment so far has easily been his monologue on leadership at the end of episode 7. Here is that scene. If you can't see it below, click here .

https://twitter.com/ZekeHealy/status/1259884600769331205?s=20

Watching this brought tears to my eyes. Over the years, I have had teachers, professors, and bosses who have subscribed to this philosophy of leadership. I'm sure many of you have as well. It's never fun at the time. In fact, it sucks. But usually in hindsight it becomes clearer what that person was trying to accomplish. And you realize how they pushed you to grow.

My own view is that there are ways to win without resorting to emotional bullying. But then it begs the question, if you're not being extreme, does that reduce performance? Would it have been better for Jordan to be a bit nicer to his teammates, if it meant winning fewer championships? Depends on who you ask.

When you're determined to move a mountain, win a championship, or create something that has never been done before, it can be incredibly frustrating when you feel as if the team isn't on the same level or that they don't care as much as you. So you push. And that's what Michael did. Winning has a price.

We all need to be challenged. Some people, like Michael, are good at pushing themselves to be the best that they can be. Others need more external help. How best to do that is the great debate. But as Fred Wilson said on his blog earlier this week: "Leadership is not being liked. Leadership is being respected and followed."

If you're trying to figure out how to make housing more affordable, it should be fairly obvious that it's probably a good idea to actually understand the costs associated with building new housing. That is, more or less, the title of this recent series by Brookings about innovation in design and construction. The four-part series is based on the findings of a report that was written by Hannah Hoyt and published by Harvard's Joint Center of Housing Studies and NeighborWorks America .

Now, costs vary by geography. Each city has its own nuances when it comes to development. And this should not be construed as a silver bullet. But what they are trying to do is identify design and construction savings to help the overall equation. Part of their argument is that building typology matters. Build smaller -- hopefully out of wood -- and you can bring your hard costs down. The problem with this thinking is that the trend lines are moving in the opposite direction.

Here is a chart from the same Brookings article:

In 2000, about 23%, or almost a quarter, of all multifamily units completed in the US were in a building with fewer than 10 units. As of 2018, that number had dropped to somewhere around 5%. At the same time, the number of completed units in buildings with 50 or more units has gone from 14% in 2000 to about 61% in 2018. Things got a little wonky after the global financial crisis, but generally the trend lines are pretty clear.

Some of this likely has to do with our "return to cities." But I think the bigger part of this story is that development cost structures are pushing the market in this direction. For more on this topic, check out: Demystifying the development pro forma .

There's an argument out that there this pandemic isn't necessarily going to precipitate new changes, it's simply going to accelerate changes that were already underway. Benedict Evans begins to illustrate this point in a recent blog post called, COVID and cascading collapses .

In it, he starts by looking at US print advertising revenue. In the first decade or so of the consumer internet, newspapers and magazines actually managed to hold their own. It's not until after 2008 that they really start to fall off and lose significant market share to internet advertising (most of which belongs to Google and Facebook).

Intuitively this makes sense. During a crisis, budgets invariably get cut. And then when the market comes back, as it always does, you have people actually thinking about where those dollars should be spent: "Hey, maybe we should put some more money toward that Facebook thing." It's a reset moment.

The other interesting thing about the decline of print advertising is that if look at a longer time horizon -- say 85 years, as Benedict did -- you can see that its share has been declining for a very long time thanks to television. Of course, now television is changing. US consumers are "cord-cutting" faster than they're moving to buy things online.

Cascading collapses, as he calls it.