Back in 2016, I wrote a post called "Manager vs. maker," where I cited an essay by Paul Graham that talks about these two modes of working. To quickly summarize, the manager's schedule is for bosses. It's a calendar broken down into units of an hour that gets filled with lots of calls and meetings. Things are said, and then the manager moves on to the next appointment.

Makers, on the other hand, can't operate in units of an hour. If you write, program, design buildings, create financial models, or do anything that requires uninterrupted focus, sporadic meetings are the most effective way to neutralize any sort of productivity. You need solid blocks of time. I was reminded of this post today because, as I said back in 2016, I like making things.

But it's even more than that. Deep work, reading, and strategic thought are, in my opinion, how you win. And to do these things you also need solid blocks of time. You need mental space. And the 12 minutes you have before your next call, isn't it. So I'm reviving my old post, and Graham's old essay from 2009, as a reminder to myself to be more ruthless about saying no and guarding my calendar.

Because:

Don’t your spirits rise at the thought of having an entire day free to work, with no appointments at all? Well, that means your spirits are correspondingly depressed when you don’t. And ambitious projects are by definition close to the limits of your capacity. A small decrease in morale is enough to kill them off.

Don't kill off ambitious projects. Block time for them.

When we closed on the development site for Project Bench at the end of 2023, our team went for dinner at Restaurant Pearl Morissette to celebrate. It's one of the top-rated restaurants in Canada, it's 8 minutes from the site, and so it was the sensible thing to do. Their architect — gh3 — is also our architect.

I still remember when chef Eric Robertson brought out the amuse-bouche to start us off. He explained what it was and then reassured us that we would not be needing Uber Eats after this fine dining experience. We would leave full, deeply satisfied, and with a new appreciation for the Niagara culinary scene.

He was, of course, right about everything.

So it's no surprise that the following year, the restaurant earned both a Michelin Star (the very first in the Niagara region) and a Green Star for sustainability (only the second ever awarded in Canada). After having eaten there, we all knew it was only a matter of time.

Fast forward to today and they have yet another reason to celebrate. Canada's 100 Best dropped their 2025 list of the best fine-dining restaurants in the country on Monday and #1 on the list was none other than Restaurant Pearl Morissette.

This is well deserved and an incredible accomplishment for the team. It's also a testament to the extraordinary food and wine that is today coming out of the Niagara Benchlands region. It's clearly some of the best in the country and the world, and it's only getting better. (RPM is also on France's La Liste.)

I obviously have a vested interest in the Bench region, but I also just love celebrating Canadian successes. I want us to be the best at everything we do, and that's what this team is shooting for. So if you're in the market for a truly exceptional culinary experience, I highly recommend you check out RPM.

One perverse way to think about development is that it is a tool to transfer costs away from people who don't want to pay for stuff to people who don't know they're paying for stuff. Two good examples of this are development levies and inclusionary zoning. Inclusionary zoning is a popular policy tool to create affordable housing because nobody feels like they're directly paying for the requisite subsidies (i.e. no public money) and it does, to varying degrees, result in affordable housing.

Cambridge, Massachusetts, for instance, enacted IZ policy in 1998 and, up until the market turned in 2022, it created just shy of 1,600 affordable homes. This only works out to ~66 units per year, but Cambridge doesn't build that many new homes. Starts over the last five years have hovered somewhere around 500 new homes per year. But now starts are falling and new projects simply aren't penciling (as is the case in many cities).

Here's a specific example from the Boston Globe:

The project at 2400 Mass. Ave. helps explain why. With 60 condominium units, North Cambridge Partners figured their project would generate about $108 million in sales if all the units were sold at market prices, said Tim Rowe, the developer’s lead investor, who is also the founder and CEO of the Cambridge Innovation Center. But with 12 of those units sold at far-lower “affordable” prices under the city’s inclusionary rule, that amount drops to about $90 million.

The developers figure they’ll sell the market rate units at somewhere around $1,500 per square foot, or perhaps a bit less. That’s a very steep figure, one that’s partially driven by high construction costs and the need to offset the discount on the affordable units. The price for affordable units, under the city’s rules, would come in closer to $275 per square foot.

Rowe estimates the six-story, 72,000-square-foot building would cost $85 million to build, leaving the developers with $5 million in profit. But to come up with that $85 million to begin with, they’d need to find an equity investor willing to put up about 35 percent of the money — $30 million — and then borrow the rest. The investors the developers have talked with about financing the project are seeking such a high rate of return that the project would need to net roughly $16 million, Rowe said, $11 million more than what the developers currently project to make.

I'm impressed the developer shared this much about their economics.

What is clear is that the affordable units don't come close to covering the close to $1,200 psf it would cost to build the building. And so somebody has to cover this shortfall. Nobody wants to spend public money on this and so it gets passed onto the market-rate buyers who don't exactly know what they're paying for, but frankly don't have a choice either way if they need a new home.

When the market is robust, this can clearly work. But when the market softens, it can shut off development. Today, there's debate in Cambridge about whether the 20% requirement should be lowered to spur more supply. This would certainly help but it gets at the real conundrum of inclusionary zoning. Lowering the burden will create more market-rate housing. And so what is the most equitable and ideal percentage of affordable housing that should be mandated in IZ policies?

In other words, exactly how much cost should we transfer from the people who don't want to pay for stuff to the people who don't know they're paying for stuff? In my view, it shouldn't just be new homebuyers who pay to subsidize the creation of new affordable housing. Why only them? If there's collective agreement that more affordable housing is a good thing for our cities, then there should be a more broad-based solution.

Cover photo by Henry Dixon on Unsplash

Over the weekend, Warren Buffett and his team hosted some 40,000 people in Omaha for Berkshire Hathaway's annual shareholder meeting. And during the event the 94-year-old announced that he would be retiring at the end of the year. This is after 55 years as CEO, which makes him the longest-serving chief executive of an S&P 500 company.

What a run. Thanks for all the wisdom that you have shared over the years, Warren. In honor of this milestone, I decided to go back and reread his last shareholder letter (which was published back in February). His comments on the insurance industry are particularly interesting, and naturally relevant to real estate.

Over the decades, Warren has talked a lot about the benefits of owning insurance companies, namely the "money-up-front, loss-payments-later" model. It creates a "float" of cash that can be invested in the interim. But the flip side of this benefit is that it can sometimes conceal a shitty business.

As a business, if you have to pay your costs up front before you sell your products or services, then it's pretty easy to determine if you're not making any money. But in insurance, there's a long-tail of liabilities that can be far more insidious and that may not appear for many years, or even decades according to Warren.

There's also climate change bringing more uncertainty:

In general, property-casualty (“P/C”) insurance pricing strengthened during 2024, reflecting a major increase in damage from convective storms. Climate change may have been announcing its arrival. However, no “monster” event occurred during 2024. Someday, any day, a truly staggering insurance loss will occur – and there is no guarantee that there will be only one per annum.

Think back only 135 years when the world had no autos, trucks or airplanes. Now there are 300 million vehicles in the U.S. alone, a massive fleet causing huge damage daily. Property damage arising from hurricanes, tornadoes and wildfires is massive, growing and increasingly unpredictable in their patterns and eventual costs.

In a perverse way, all of this is good for the insurance business. More economic risk means higher premiums and a greater overall need for insurance products. But you have to accurately underwrite this risk:

Properly pricing P/C insurance is part art, part science and is definitely not a business for optimists. Mike Goldberg, the Berkshire executive who recruited Ajit, said it best: “We want our underwriters to daily come to work nervous, but not paralyzed.”

This reminds me. I was speaking with one of our insurance advisors a few years ago and he made a comment that he was going to be "on risk for the project." I responded by half-jokingly saying "it's funny, you see only risk, and I see an opportunity to create something special for the city." Both of us then laughed, but there's obviously some truth to these two perspectives.

I guess I chose the right profession.

Cover photo by Chris Nguyen on Unsplash

Andermatt is a small mountain village in the Swiss Alps. It's a few hours from Zurich, it's known for its skiing and snowboarding, and it's surely really beautiful. But right now it has two other important things going for it: one, it does not restrict property purchases by foreign nationals and, two, it does not limit the construction of second homes to 20% of the village's housing stock, which is a rule in other places. This is expected to come into force in Andermatt in 2040.

Because of these features, Andermatt is being viewed as a barometer for foreign demand and, over the last six weeks in particular, local developers and agencies are reporting "hockey stick growth" in terms of sales volume and inquiries (according to FT). As of April 10, new development projects in the village reported selling SFr14.2mn worth of apartments, which is nearly 2x the amount of transactions for all of 2024. And nearly a third of these deals were signed by "nervous Americans" following April 2.

Here's one buyer testimonial:

One Andermatt buyer, a New York-based tech entrepreneur in his early fifties who asked to remain anonymous, said Trump was one of the “main factors” in his decision to buy. He and his partner purchased a two-bedroom unit for SFr2.2mn in November. Switzerland, he said, was stable and secure at a time when the US was less so under Trump. “It is not only financial uncertainty — it is not liking what [the US] is turning into and what it has become,” he said.

It is not uncommon for people to say, "if X happens, then I'm going to leave and move to Y." That doesn't always, or even oftentimes, materialize. But wealthy people have the means to make it happen, if they want, and we're seeing signs of it all across Europe. In some cases, putting down a deposit on a new Swiss apartment might just be an option, should things get worse. And in other cases it may be a firm commitment to relocate.

But either way, it's a strong indicator and a demonstration of people voting with their feet.

I am deeply skeptical of our federal government getting into the real estate development business, and I think a lot of the industry shares this sentiment. However, there are aspects of Carney's housing platform that do make sense. Here's a recent article by Frances Bula in Storeys citing industry reactions:

❌ Do not create a federal housing developer, empower the private sector to do its thing

✅ Multi-Unit Residential Building (MURB) program (which previously existed from 1974 to 1981 and spurred a lot of new rental housing)

✅ Capital gain deferral on funds immediately re-invested back into housing (something akin to the 1031 exchange in the US)

✅ Remove the federal ban on foreign investors

✅ Dramatically reduce / eliminate municipal development charges (though, there's the important question of how exactly this gets done)

✅ Expand the no HST on new housing (Carney's current plan is to only eliminate it for new homebuyers and for new homes under $1 million)

✅ Tax credits for investors in affordable housing (This is not currently proposed, but I like it too. The US has something called Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, which HUD calls their most important resource for creating new affordable housing.)

✅ Create policies that will outlast the current government, and don't make them convoluted

There are, of course, many other things that need to be done to improve the delivery of new housing in this country, including a lot at the micro level. On this blog, we regularly talk about everything from single-stair buildings to streamlining environmental permissions.

If you have anything else you'd like to add, please leave a comment below. Let's keep the pressure on.

Cover photo by Charan S on Unsplash

I was reminded of this duality the other day while listening to a Scott Galloway podcast where he talked about his love for expensive hotels, and how he travels to hotels, not to places. This is a bit abnormal. Traditionally, people stay at a hotel because there are things they want to see and/or do in the place where the hotel happens to be located. Meaning they choose the place first, and then figure out where they're going to stay after.

But there is also a statistically significant percentage of travellers who work in the opposite direction. Scott seems to be one of them. Now, his examples were all at the highest end of the spectrum, and that makes intuitive sense. If your M.O. is to travel to hotels, and you're kind of agnostic to place, then presumably the hotels are going to be super nice. But I don't think this market segment only exists at the very top. I don't stay at the same kind of hotels as Scott, but I still love hotels.

One example that I have talked about before is Tuba Club in the south of Marseille. Bianca and I stayed here a few summers ago. We read somewhere that it was about to open, we loved the vibe, and so we organized our travel itinerary just so we could stay there. We ended up loving Marseille (so much so that we went back), but Tuba came first. It was the catalyst.

A local example I can give is the Drake Devonshire in Prince Edward County, Ontario. When it opened in 2014, "The County" was not on my radar. Maybe I had been there as a kid? I don't know. But as soon as it opened, I wanted to go, as did many others judging by the lack of room availability. The design by John Tong was a hospitality offering that just wasn't available in the rest of southern Ontario at the time.

This is a powerful position to be in for a hotel. Because it means that through some magical combination of design, brand, service, and experience, you have a product that people specifically want. They're not just stopping by and need a place to stay, they're actively seeking you out. This is not to say that location doesn't matter; it does. But it is to say that a highly-coveted offering that people love is always better to have than not.

And if you get it right, there's the opportunity that people will even choose you over place.

Update: A previous version of this post incorrectly stated that John Tong had passed away. John unfortunately had a severe stroke, but he did not pass away. Sorry, my mistake, John!

Cover photo by Toni Osmundson on Unsplash

There is a nonpartisan, nonprofit think tank based in New York called the Citizens Budget Commission (or CBC). And this week they launched Competitive NYC. The intent is a kind of dashboard that provides insights into NYC's overall competitiveness — specifically its ability to attract and retain both residents and businesses. I won't summarize all of the findings; if you'd like to take a look, you can do that here. But I did want to point out one finding.

Here's a chart showing the top 10 states for people with incomes greater than $1 million:

The number of "millionaires" in New York state increased from 35,802 in 2010 to 69,780 in 2022, but its share of US millionaires declined the most. Previously it was 12.7%, and in 2022 it had dropped to 8.7%. On the other end of the spectrum, the state with the biggest share gain was Florida.

The tracker goes on to suggest that high taxes may be a factor for households moving out of New York City. Here's a chart showing taxes per $1,000 of personal income:

New York state is the highest and is 56% above the US average, whereas Florida is 31% below the average. Florida also has the sunshine thing going for it. This migration trend aligns with what was talked about a lot during the pandemic. Between April 2020 and July 2022, NYC lost nearly half a million residents, a chunk of which went to Palm Beach and Miami-Dade Counties.

It's a reminder not to take competitiveness for granted, especially when there's a clear trend toward places with warmer weather. People can and will vote with their feet.

Cover photo by Andre Benz on Unsplash; charts from CBCNY

Vancouver is in the same boat as Toronto. The Globe and Mail recently reported that the number of newly completed, unsold condominium suites in the city is expected to increase to 3,493 by the end of this year, which would be a 60% increase compared to the end of last year and one of the highest levels of unsold inventory in recent times.

The profound change, as we know, is that individual investors have largely left the market. Also in the article is some commentary from Ryan Berlin, who is head economist of Rennie Intelligence. According to Rennie's data, investors made up about 50% of their buyers from 2020 to 2023. In 2024, this number dropped to around 25%. And so far this year, the number is ~7%.

At the same time, the math is not mathing for developers:

Real estate appraiser David Eger, vice-president of Western Canada for Altus Group Ltd., gave the example of an older Vancouver apartment block within the Broadway Plan that is currently on the market for $12.2-million. To achieve a profit margin of 10 per cent of total costs to redevelop the site, the developer would have to pay drastically less, around $3-million for the property. That’s based on a rent of $5.50 per square foot, or $3,300 a month for a 600 square-foot unit.

In some ways, all of this is what housing critics wanted: "Too many speculative investors are buying new homes and outbidding actual end users." But now they're not. So where are all the end users? Aren't we in a housing crisis? This is the paradox of our current market. But I think the lesson is that a housing crisis does not necessarily equal a housing shortage in all segments of the market.

Another way to think about it is that the inventory that is now accumulating has lost product-market fit. The market used to be a lot of investors, but now it's not. So either the market needs to change again or the product needs to adapt to what the market wants today. And I suspect that, even in today's market, there would be strong demand for more affordable family-oriented housing.

The challenge is that our industry and our cost structures are not currently set up to deliver this kind of product. In software, it's relatively easy to pivot in search of product-market fit. But it's not so easy in real estate. Using the above example from appraiser David Eger, you'd need a negative land value (i.e. a subsidy) in order to be able to feasibly deliver more affordable family housing. That is, larger homes at a lower per square foot rent.

But I think this is how all city builders should be thinking right now. We should be viewing this point in the cycle as an opportunity. It's an opportunity to ask ourselves: what does the housing market want and how could we actually deliver it? Then it's time to get creative and figure out how to pivot our collective product. There are, of course, lots of levers we can pull.

Cover photo by Nate Foong on Unsplash

I like thinking about new things, and so I like this recent post by Vitalik (the Ethereum crypto guy) talking about what he calls "the tree ring model of culture and politics." The basic insight of the model is the following:

How a culture treats new things is a product of the attitudes and incentives prevalent in that culture at that particular time.

How a culture treats old things is primarily driven by status quo bias.

To explain why the world seems to work like this, he uses the analogy of tree rings, which are also called annual rings or growth rings. Trees grow in diameter each year and the result is a set of successive rings.

Importantly, each tree ring is a result of the conditions that the tree experienced during its growing season. A wide ring typically suggests a favorable growing season and a narrow ring suggests a stressful growing season.

Once the growing season is over, the ring becomes set, which is why dendrochronology is a thing, and why tree rings can be used to tell us about what happened in the past.

The parallel with culture and politics is that it's far easier to shape new things during their initial growth cycle, then to try and do it later. Because once the growth cycle is over and it becomes an old thing, attitudes are then guided by the status quo. They become set.

To quote Vitalik: "What is easier is to invent new patterns of behavior that outcompete the old, and work to maximize the chance that we get good norms around those." This makes a lot of sense to me and it's a reminder to stay open to new things.

Cover photo by Aleksandar Radovanovic on Unsplash