The Liberals just announced that, if elected, they will form a new entity called Building Canada Homes (BCH) which will, "get the federal government back in the business of building homes." Broadly speaking, this new entity is proposed to have three key functions: it will build affordable housing at scale (including on public land), it will help to "catalyze" the private sector, and it will provide financing to affordable housing developers. There's a lot that is interesting in the policy teaser, but let's focus on function number one today: Do governments make good developers?

The outlined intent is that BCH will "act as a developer to build affordable housing" and "partner with builders for the construction phase of projects." So it sounds like they will not be constructors. The language they use also suggests that BCH will be an acquirer of land. Sometimes it will develop on already-owned public land, but in other cases it will go out and buy new land, sometimes offering it back to the market via land leases.

Acquiring new land will be challenge number one. As we have talked about many times before on this blog, land should be the residual claimant in a development pro forma. Meaning the value of land depends on what you can build on it. So if BCH is looking to build affordable housing and the rest of the market is looking to build some higher-and-better use, it will be very difficult for them to complete in the market. This is the same reason why, historically speaking, the City of Toronto has struggled to acquire new parkland with the funds it collects from developers. It can't compete.

On the flip side, it's very possible that in a downmarket, like the one we're in right now, BCH might be the only real buyer of development land. Affordable housing requires subsidies and if the subsidies BCH has access to result in both feasible projects and higher residual land values, well then they'll be able to win sites. But it will depend on the market conditions at the time. It also raises an important question: What is the right level of subsidy for the affordable housing that BCH intends to develop itself?

The second challenge is going to be execution. Development is a risky endeavor, but most of the time the private sector accepts these risks because they believe they will be compensated accordingly. And once they have taken on these risks, they become highly motivated to deliver for their investors and partners. Will the federal government be equally motivated? Perhaps. There are, of course, lots of examples of public housing developers in other parts of the world. But is it the most effective way to deliver new affordable housing? An alternative approach would be motivating the private sector to participate.

Getting the federal government "back in the business of building homes" may sound promising, but there's reason to be skeptical. There will be lots of details to figure out if it's actually going to be efficient and effective.

Cover photo by Eduardo Alvarado on Unsplash

Neat B and I were in Park City this past weekend for our last runs of the season. (Now it's time to pull out the impossibly tight spandex for road biking!) This is a trip we do often, but given the current geopolitical situation, we weren't exactly sure what to expect. But I will say that we were pleasantly surprised. When we picked up our rental car at SLC, the attendant, who was from Texas, immediately said that he was trying to figure out how to become the next Canadian province. He then proceeded to inquire about the quality of our brisket in a way that made it sound like a firm prerequisite. And virtually everyone we met on the mountain was extremely apologetic once they learned we were Canadians from Toronto. Frankly, they came across embarrassed, and they made it clear that they do not approve of what their government is doing right now. This made us happy to hear.

I still love you, Park City.

Cover photo by Alex Moliski on Unsplash

Sahil Bloom tweeted this out a few days ago:

Sahil Bloom

@SahilBloom

The single greatest challenge for any ambitious person is eliminating the guilt associated with free time and rest.

8,424

9:33 AM • Mar 28, 2025

And it really resonated with me. I'm sure it does with a lot of you as well. I'm guilty of feeling this guilt. Because by definition, if you have a strong desire to do or to achieve something, then you're going to want to spend a lot time working toward it. And any time not spent working toward it, can feel like an unnecessary slowdown or delay.

But it's easy to let time melt away when you're in this headspace and I'm trying to be better at not letting this happen. For one thing, there are diminishing returns to work. We all need free time and rest. It makes us better at everything else we do in life.

It's also really easy to fill our lives with unnecessary bullshit. The same thing happens in our homes when we're not paying attention: we end up collecting unnecessary stuff. So as Paul Graham argues in this 2016 essay called "Life Is Short", it's important to "relentlessly prune bullshit." Focus on the things that matter, and don't wait.

When you're ambitious, I think it's easy to become focused on the future. I've been told I do this too much. Achieving something usually requires hard work and determination, and that likely means it won't happen today; it'll happen at some point in the future. So it can be easy to discount the present. But nobody knows how much healthy future we all have.

These are all things that I'm trying to be better at and so I'm writing them down here as a reminder. How do you manage your work-life balance?

Cover photo by Christopher Gower on Unsplash

This past Thursday, the Sundance Institute announced that it will be moving the Sundance Film Festival from Park City to Boulder starting in 2027. This is sad. Sundance has been based in Park City since 1981 and it's the largest independent film festival in the US. Last year (2024), it is estimated that it created 1,730 jobs for residents, contributed $132 million in GDP to Utah, and produced about $13.8 million in state and local tax revenue.

Here's what Park City Mayor Nann Worel had to say following the announcement:

“For over 40 years Park City wasn’t just the host of the festival, we were its home. We helped shape the identity of Sundance with our unique energy, our colorful people, our undeniable spirit,” Worel said. “The world came here for film, yes, but they stayed for something more. They stayed for the feeling this town gave them. So, yes, I’m disappointed. Deeply. I know many of you are, too.”

“To our community: We are not defined by one event. Our creative spirit is deeper than any single festival. And while Sundance may be leaving, Park City isn’t going anywhere,” Worel said.

As I understand it, Utah offered to nearly double the amount of funding that they provide to the arts festival. But that clearly wasn't enough. There's also speculation that the festival left because it had overgrown Park City and/or because Colorado is viewed as being more liberal. There are people in Utah who do not approve of some of the content shown at said festival. I have no idea as to the actual reasons. But I do think it's a real loss for Utah.

Cover photo by Spencer Davis on Unsplash

New York City was supposed to terminate its congestion pricing program last Friday because, well, Trump told them to. But they didn't do it and so harsh words were exchanged and then the deadline was extended for another 30 days. (This sounds oddly familiar.) Who knows what happens next month, but we are able to accurately quantify the benefits of nearly 3 months of congestion pricing.

Firstly, it's generating a lot of money. In the first two months of operation, congestion pricing has already brought in over $100 million in new revenue for the city. This is important because it's money that can be used for transit and other infrastructure improvements.

Equally important is the fact that this money was generated by creating measurable value for drivers. For all of the river crossings that lead into the CBD, average weekday travel times this past January are lower compared to January 2024. And in some cases, they're lower by a lot. The Holland Tunnel, for example, saw travel times drop by 48%.

Lastly, it's encouraging more people to take public transit. Here's a chart from Sam Deutsch over at Better Cities showing the increases in ridership since the program was implemented:

The MTA as a whole is now averaging about 448,000 more public transit riders per day. And to put this number into perspective, Sam reminds us that Washington DC has the second most-used public transit system in the US and that it sees an average of about 304,000 total riders per day (January 2024 figure). So in other words, New York's congestion pricing bump alone was nearly 1.5x DC's entire ridership base.

Some critics will argue that NYC's subway is dangerous and that this program unfairly pushes people toward it. But crime data suggests otherwise. New York's subway also saw over a billion rides in 2024! So I don't know how you argue that less people should be taking it. It's pretty clear that this is what moves the city. Imagine if the above went the opposite way and 448,000 more people started driving to work.

Some people may not like it, but the reality is that congestion pricing is doing exactly what it's intended to do: reduce traffic congestion, make money, and encourage more sustainable forms of urban mobility.

Cover photo by Wells Baum on Unsplash

Among other things, insurance companies now use aerial photography, combined with AI, to better assess property-level risk. Here's an excerpt from Bloomberg Green:

“Weather and catastrophe losses are running ahead of the ability to manage them, and many insurers are having trouble sustaining their business because they’re not getting the right rates,” said Jay Guin, chief research officer of the extreme event solutions team at Verisk, a catastrophe modeling firm. “AI changes the equation.”

Zurich Insurance Group AG, one of the largest insurers in Europe, uses AI powered risk-modeling software to assess catastrophe risk and often tweaks it for its own purpose.

“If there’s fire hazard like vegetation, overhang or debris in your backyard that shouldn’t be there, we can tell you to lower the risk otherwise we may not be able to underwrite you,” said Ericson Chan, chief information and digital officer of the Swiss company.

What AI allows is a level of granularity that just wasn't possible when humans were the ones who had to do it. Insurers now talk about "continuous remote risk monitoring," meaning they can use AI-powered aerial imagery to constantly check on that risky debris in your backyard.

This feels like quite an improvement for the insurance industry. But when you more accurately price risk, I would imagine that it will lead to more insurers deciding to stay clear of certain risks and certain properties, as has already been the case in places like California.

Cover photo by Pim de Boer on Unsplash

If you recall, the largest buyer of single-family houses in the US last year was Opendoor. This is according to SFR Analytics. Opendoor is a so-called iBuyer, meaning they provide cash offers to sellers, close quickly, and then turnaround and sell each home for — hopefully — a profit. They also collect commissions, and make money in other ways (such as through home loans).

This process seemed to be working reasonably well up until 2022, but then the market turned. They then quickly discovered that they couldn't sell their homes for a profit and so they ramped down acquisitions. Here's a chart from another post by SFR Analytics showing the fall off in purchase volume in the second half of 2022:

The worst performing market at this time was Phoenix, which apparently accounted for around 50% of the company's losses. In some cases, their gross margins were -$60,000 per property. But once they recalibrated their models (I'm just assuming this is what they did), they were able to regain positive unit economics. Here's Phoenix starting from their January 2023 cohort:

Opendoor has not done well as a public company. But it is the biggest buyer of single-family houses and it seems to be back to positive gross margins. Maybe that's something.

Charts from SFR Analytics; cover photo by Chris Tingom on Unsplash

This past Sunday, Paris voted in favor of greening and pedestrianizing an additional 500 streets in the capital (5-8 per neighborhood). This will add to the 300 or so streets that have already received this treatment since Mayor Hidalgo started her second term in 2020. And as a result of this expansion, it is estimated that about 10,000 on-street parking spaces will be removed, which represents about 10% of the city's total inventory.

Exciting. But who voted for this? Of the Parisians who voted, 66% voted in favor of the initiative. And it carried in 14 of 17 arrondissements (with the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th counted as one). But similar to prior referendums, voter turnout was extremely low: only 4.06% of eligible voters showed up (approximately 56,500 people). And this is after the voting age was lowered to 16 years old for the first time.

For context, when Paris voted on whether electric scooters should be banned, 7.46% of voters showed up. So while low, this situation is not entirely unique. Though it does, once again, raise the question of whether the outcome of this referendum truly reflects public opinion. My outsider view is that it probably does. Because I take the apathy to mean some level of support, or at the very least, an absence of strong aversion.

Think, for example, about who shows up at community meetings for new development projects. The vast majority of people in attendance have concerns they would like to air. It's very rare for someone to show up and say, "I didn't have much going on tonight so I decided to come by and see everyone. I have no real concerns. Project looks cool. Carry on as you were."

If you agree with this logic, well then it suggests that many/most Parisians do generally support more pedestrianized streets, even if it means the removal of parking. That's an accomplishment in my books.

Cover photo by Maximilian Bungart on Unsplash

This is an important chart taken from this recent article by Steve Lafleur talking about the need for Canada to "bulk up." What it obviously shows is that housing completions and population growth have generally been diverging in Canada since the 1970s.

Back then, we were building about 200,000 homes a year and, today, we're building slightly under that. Of course, our population has also grown dramatically during this time period, as has the number of people who move to Canada each year. The result is that the Canada Mortgage Housing Corporation estimates that we'll have a housing shortage of approximately 3.5 million homes by 2030.

But we already knew this. Big numbers are often thrown around in studies. I think the more important question is: How do we reconcile this massive shortage with the fact that, in cities like Toronto, we have lots of zoned land ready for the construction of new housing (but that isn't financially feasible) and lots of unsold homes that aren't selling right now?

Do we really have a shortage?

Well, Toronto is just one specific market, and I can't speak to all the dynamics playing out across the country and the world. But it strikes me that what's missing from the above chart, and this discussion in general, are considerations around (1) housing type and (2) affordability. And by type, I'm largely thinking about size, as it's closely linked to affordability.

If what we're building is too expensive for most people and unsuitable for their household needs, then yes, I guess that would mean we have a shortage of housing.

Cover photo by Matt Wang on Unsplash

My recent post titled "Canada must become a global superpower" has quickly become one of my most-read posts in the almost 12 years that I have been writing this daily blog. Within a few days, it quickly got to 11x the number of daily views that I typically get.

One of the points that I made was about Canada's population, and specifically the target set by the Century Initiative of 100 million Canadians by 2100. Today I'd like to expand on this point, because I'm seeing more people talk about it on the socials.

At the time of writing this post, Canada's official population clock from Statistics Canada was sitting at 41,591,151 people. So to reach 100 million in the next 75 years, it would mean we would need to grow our population by 58,408,861 people. At first glance, this seems like a big number. And to some, it has proven to be an unsettling proposition. But 75 years is a long time for compounding to work its magic.

For us to reach 100 million Canadians by 2100 it would mean that we would need to grow our population by a compounded annual growth rate of just 1.18% per year. On our current population base, that would mean about 490,000 new people next year. To put this into perspective, since Confederation in 1867, Canada's population growth rate has averaged around 1.2% per year.

So by arguing that we want to reach 100 million Canadians by 2100, we are, in a way, just saying "we should continue what we've been doing since 1867 and not change a whole lot." The status quo should inevitably lead us to 100 million people during this time period.

Of course, history isn't exactly the same. Canada's fertility rate was much higher in previous years. At the beginning of the 20th century it was nearly five children per woman. And in 1960, it was 3.81 births per woman, which placed us ahead of the US.

Today, we are 1.26 births per woman (2023), compared to 1.66 in the US (2022). We are now among the countries classified as having "lowest-low fertility." Meaning, we're sub 1.3. What this means is that we are now more dependent on immigration to maintain the same growth rate as before.

At the same time, it's not like we're unaccustomed to high immigration. Between 1901 and 1921, Canada's population increased by almost 3% a year on average. This was in large part because of immigrants from Europe, specifically the British Isles. And between 1901 and 1911, alone, Canada welcomed 1.2 million people. This is at a time when we had just over 5 million people in the entire country.

So in the end, 100 million Canadians by 2100 is probably not all that ambitious. A compound annual growth rate of 1.5% would, for example, have us grow to over 127 million people. That would be more of a stretch. There's also the important question of how quickly are we growing relative to other countries.

Whatever the exact target, I stand by what I said before. We should be aiming to lower the cost of living for Canadians, and in particular housing costs. We should make it easier for families to have more babies, should they choose to. And we should continue to attract the smartest and most ambitious people from around the world.

Cover photo by Kevin LEE on Unsplash