• Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary menu
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Say hello
Rethink Real Estate. For Good.

Rethink Real Estate. For Good.

  • Podcast
  • Posts
  • In the news
  • Speaking and media
    • About Eve
    • Speaking requests
    • Speaking engagements
    • Press kit
  • Investment opportunities

Climate

Rent an (AgTech) Robot.

October 6, 2021

Mark DeSantis is a Pittsburgh-based serial technology entrepreneur, policy wonk and educator. He is also CEO of Bloomfield Robotics, a new Ag company out of the CMU Robotics Institute that uses AI and computer vision to measure the health of agricultural crops on plant-by-plant basis, or in their parlance … “crop estimation technology.”

Mark knows venture capital and financing, and how technology gets commercialized. In the last 15 years Mark has co-founded and run three other companies: RoadBotics, an AI-based product that monitors and manages roadway infrastructure; kWantix, an energy hedge fund; and kWantera, a GE Ventures-backed energy predictive analytics company. Mark also served as CEO of Think Through Learning, an online tutoring company, and was U.S. managing director of ANGLE Technology, a UK-based venture capital firm and consultancy. And as if that wasn’t enough, he also ran as the Republican mayoral candidate in the 2007 Pittsburgh election.

On the policy side, Mark served as director of government relations for Texas Instruments in Washington D.C., and operated in a number of positions in the Federal government during the first Bush Administration, including as a Senior Policy Analyst in The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Department of Commerce. He was also on the staff of the late U.S. Senator John Heinz. Mark has sat on a number of boards and served as a consultant for a variety of technology companies throughout his career.

Mark’s robots are for rent. All over the world. And he believes, as do his customers, that his company’s robots will help us to produce more food on the finite amount of land we have available to us.

Insights and Inspirations

  • AgTech robots will help to maximize crops on the finite land that we have.
  • Bloomfield Technologies is renting “inspector” robots all over the world.
  • Mark’s startup is based in Pittsburgh. A few years ago that was unheard of.
Read the podcast transcript here

Eve Picker: [00:00:11] Hi there, thanks for joining me on Rethink Real Estate. I’m Eve Picker and I’m on a mission to make real estate work for everyone. I love real estate. Real estate makes places good or bad, rich or poor, beautiful or not. In this show, I’m interviewing the disruptors, those creative thinkers and doers that are shrugging off the status quo in order to build better for everyone. When I’m not hosting the show, I’m running my real estate crowdfunding platform, SmallChange.co, where you’ll find impact real estate investment opportunities open for everyone. Or you can learn more about me and catch up on some podcasts at my website, EvePicker.com.

[00:00:20] Today, I’m talking with Mark DeSantis, serial entrepreneur and past Pittsburgh mayoral candidate. You might wonder how these two things come together and we talk about how. Right now his talents are focused on a startup called Bloomfield Technologies. They build robots that inspect valuable crops like grapes, helping to predict crop outcomes and helping to manage crop disasters before they happen. Mark’s robots are for rent all over the world. He’s certain they will help to produce more food on the finite amount of land we have on this earth. And so are his customers. If you’d like to join me in my quest to rethink real estate, there are two simple things you can do. Share this podcast or go to Patreon.com/rethinkrealestate and support us for the price of a cup of coffee.

Eve: [00:02:27] Hello, Mark.

Mark DeSantis: [00:02:29] Hi.

Eve: [00:02:29] It’s really nice to have you on my show. It’s been a while since we talked.

Mark: [00:02:33] Yeah, you bet.  Happy to be here.

Eve: [00:02:34] So you’ve been called a serial entrepreneur and you’re on to your next venture. And this one is an agricultural technology or what we call Agtech. Right?

Mark: [00:02:48] You bet.

Eve: [00:02:49] So, what is Bloomfield Technology all about?

Mark: [00:02:52] Yeah. So we inspect plants and we determine their health and performance one plant at a time. And we do that for the world of specialty crops. So, if you think of all of the, you know, the world’s largest industry as agriculture, as many, I’m sure your listeners know, and within that industry, there’s a category of plants and crops called specialty crops. And those are all the things that you and I buy when we go into a Safeway or a Giant Eagle or a Whole Foods. So think of fruits, vegetables, ornamental flowers. But it also includes things like trees and even cannabis, all those things that are not wheat, rice, corn are speciality crops. That’s the world, two trillion-dollar market. Those crops require a lot of love and attention, specifically from inspection. So there are people who are trained to walk among those crops, whether it be in a greenhouse or a vineyard in Napa, to look at those plants. And they’re highly trained, typically viticulturists, botanists, agronomists, and they walk among those crops, and they examine them. Periodically looking for things that could damage the plant, water stress, disease infestation. But they’re also looking at the health of the plant, determine whether or not that grape is the size they expected it to be at that time of the year. Or those tomatoes are as large and red as they should be given this time of the year and these treatments. And if they see a problem, then they can tell the grower to provide a remedy, whether it’s more water, more light, more nutrients or what have you.

Eve: [00:04:21] So kind of what I do in my own garden, but on a huge scale.

Mark: [00:04:25] Yeah, absolutely. Bet on a massive scale where you’re talking about tens upon tens of thousands of acres. Well, we do that with machines and A.I., with specifically with cameras that are mounted about the size of a toaster and they’re cameras, not unlike your cell phone, they use the same kind of imaging, except they have the stereo lens and their own light source. And you put it on anything that moves. Our growers, we are in 15 vineyards in four countries, as well as a blueberry grow in Peru. And all of those customers have vehicles of various sorts. They mount the cameras on, and they just drive up and down the rows. Image, take pictures of those things and of the crops and the A.I., the artificial intelligence in the cloud does the rest. So they take those images and go through them at the pixel level. And basically the A.I. has been trained to look for all the things that that human viticulturist or agronomists is looking for when they look at the plant, believe it or not. So A.I. has now reached a point, this is my third A.I. startup and that technology, I should say, to give a shout out to Carnegie Mellon was developed over a decade at Carnegie Mellon. Little known secret about CMU is that they’ve been making ag tech robots for 30 years.

Eve: [00:05:36] Oh, that’s interesting.

Mark: [00:05:37] Yeah, little-known fact. So yeah. So that’s what we do. Eve, I’ll tell you one interesting tidbit. Your, listeners may find this particularly, I think it’s cool, but so we do this for vineyards. Some of the vineyards are some of the best known vineyards in the world. So, one of our customers in Bordeaux is Chateau Palmer, which makes the famous Chateau Margaux one of his. You know, we have vineyards in California and elsewhere, but one of the most interesting customers we have is NASA. So we recently got a grant. There is actually a greenhouse, small greenhouse about size refrigerator, inside of the International Space Station.

Eve: [00:06:18] Oh, so interesting.

Mark: [00:06:20] Yeah, they’re growing leafy greens and spices and what have you. And it’s actually a program in NASA called Space Crops. So, think of Matt Damon in The Martian. That’s a real thing. They actually want to grow plants on the moon, on Mars, but also in the ship going to and from Mars because you can’t carry enough food to make the journey. It’s too long. So you’re actually going to have to grow your food on the way to and from…

Eve: [00:06:50] We’re talking x, x, x x, urban, right?

Mark: [00:06:53] Yeah. This is what I was joking with somebody, you know, they call the greenhouse world and the vertical farm world controlled environments. And I was telling somebody other day, we’re doing controlled environments a little different than a greenhouse. It’s one in space. So we’re within two years will be all goes well, you know, we’ll be sending one of our cameras up to the ISS, where it will be in the ISS monitoring the crops in the space station. So pretty exciting.

Eve: [00:07:24] Yeah. So back on Earth. Tell me about like a success story, you know, some crop your robot saved.

Mark: [00:07:33] Yeah, well, I don’t know if we’re there yet. We’re two years old, but we’ve, generally the feedback we’ve gotten and from the growers that, you know, as I mentioned, we’re in France. We have a customer in Italy. Peru and across four states in the U.S. The response is, is the following. The good news is the problem with using people to inspect on plants is twofold. One is, there just aren’t enough of them. You know, you’re talking about, I’ll use an example, a viticulturist, the person who’s highly trained to go look at grapes and vines and everything on the vine, you know, he or she can inspect about a tenth of an acre in a day. And that’s about one hundred and fifty vines, you know, so you’re talking about a very small fraction of of the total vineyard, whether it be a vineyard or apple orchard or orange grove. The other problem with using humans, and this one’s a little bit more, a still larger problem is that, you know, you’re using humans. And you know this from from your world, Eve.  If you gave five inspectors and had them look at the same thing, you know, you’ll get probably five opinions and they’ll probably be different enough to make any one opinion a little bit suspect.

Eve: [00:08:58] So it’s really about consistency, right?

Mark: [00:09:00] Exactly. So you really want to be consistent. And that’s where the machine, the machine intelligence, the A.I. really makes its benefit. So many of our growers have said repeatedly, you know, I now know the condition of my crops, my plants. I you know, I never really knew the condition because you’re imaging in many cases where imaging every single vine on the entire vineyard and knowing its condition as of Tuesday, that’s huge. Yeah, it’s big, big. And so, it’s new and different. No one’s doing this. This is you know, drones are a solution sometimes, but drones have been around. You know, farmers have been flying over crop fields, using sensors, various types for years. And the problem is when you’re up in the air, you can’t see through the canopy and all the fruit and everything. So we are the boots on the ground for the farmer. And growers have had higher yields. They’ve had better yield predictions. You know, that’s a big, big part of farming, as you know, is your…

Eve: [00:10:06] Yeah.

Mark: [00:10:06] And your grow. You want to know how many tomatoes you’d like to have a sense of, you know, how successful this is going to be and and so on. So all of those things are, you know, knowing what the yield is going to be, protecting the crops from damage from disease and infestation, a big one for citrus, particularly knowing when to harvest. That that cannabis is an example that we don’t we don’t do cannabis now. But we did previously some time ago when we first started the company and when I learned about cannabis is if you missed the harvest window by a day. By a day, you can lose 20, 30 percent of the value of the crop.

Eve: [00:10:47] Oh, wow.

Mark: [00:10:48] Yeah, and that’s a plant, by the way. That’s a crop where you’re talking anywhere between one and six million dollars an acre.

Eve: [00:10:58] Wow.

Mark: [00:11:00] Yeah, farming is changing dramatically and A.I. and robotic technology are driving that. It’s happened in the past, Eve. There have been waves of technology advancement in farming. You know, when you think of I always tell people this when you think of technology, the kinds of things that that allow humans to do more things, most of the advances up until the 19th century were in farming. You know, if you think of all the marvellous inventions that have helped humans do more with less and all those wonderful technologies, the vast majority of them been in farming over the last millennia or two.

Eve: [00:11:46] So interesting. Yeah. So this is a really mundane question, but I want to know what the robots look like. Did they look a little different than Rosie on the Jetson’s?

Mark: [00:11:57] Well, you would be disappointed. I can tell you that right now, anybody that’s imagining you know, like the robot butler.  No, no. You would be you would be incredibly disappointed, Eve. It looks sort of like a toaster, maybe more like small microwave with two eyes and a rim around the edge of lights of LEDs. So no arms, no legs that’s provided by the ATV or the tractor. There’s a little antenna sticking out of the side. It does look like a techie thing. I mean, when they show up on the farms, people look at that. And their first question is, what in the world is that thing?

Eve: [00:12:42] So they must be designed, designed to go over a whole variety of grounds, like rocky flat, mushy, buggy.

Mark: [00:12:51] Yeah. These things are, I call it farm hardened. You know, anyone has been on a farm, knows it’s a rough it’s a, you know, it’s a rough place. So we’ve built these things. It’s very robust, you know, pieces of equipment that have been dropped and kicked and gotten dirty and rained on and and so all that’s been sort of designed in.

Eve: [00:13:17] Cool. So I have to ask, how much does it cost to deploy one of these?

Mark: [00:13:20] Yeah. So we charge our growers anywhere, somewhere in the range of two thousand dollars per month.

Eve: [00:13:27] So they don’t buy them, they rent them.

Mark: [00:13:28] Nope. Rent.

Eve: [00:13:29] Ah, rent a robot.

Mark: [00:13:32] Yeah. And that’s, believe or not, there’s a, you know, when people, your, some of your listeners, are in the software as a service phrase that probably a lot of people have heard that. Well, there’s now a whole industry called robots as a service. You’re not selling the technology. You’re just giving them access to it. There’s even something called FaaS now. It’s called farming as a service where you actually have a piece of land, and you think there’s a way to earn some money. A company will come in and be the farming entity on that piece of land. So you’re the owner, you reap the share, the profits from…

Eve: [00:14:16] Kinda like you’re renting a building, but you rent land instead.

Mark: [00:14:18] And exactly.

Eve: [00:14:19] It’s interesting.

Mark: [00:14:20] It’s exactly that. Yeah.

Eve: [00:14:22] So I have to ask, is there a plan for tiny robots, for urban gardens?

Mark: [00:14:27] Maybe someday. I mean, it’s funny you say that. So, what we’re probably going to do someday when we get to enough size, we will make a phone app version of this that will be free. So what will happen is we have cameras, as I mentioned, the hardware that’s to do it at scale. You’re talking about farms of one hundred to twenty thousand acres. But if you want to use it in your backyard, you know, you’re not going to go buy a bigger machine. You’re what you would want, though, is access to all of the smarts. And because cameras have pretty good lenses for small scale data collection, what will probably do is will make the app freely available to anyone who can, you know, wants to download it. And then they can use their cell phone camera and they can benefit from the analytics. So if you have tomatoes and we’ve done, you know, vast tomato grows around the world, we now have, because of the way A.I. works – it’s learning, we now have all that wisdom from all those tomatoes from all over the world. Well, you can get access to that for free through your phone app for your own tomato garden in your backyard.

Eve: [00:15:42] So, you know I, over the last year, I became an avid gardener, something I thought I would never do in my life. It’s a great, great hobby when there’s a pandemic going on. But I’ve been using a plant app to identify plants in case I think they’re weeds and I’m going to pull them out. Extraordinary, pretty extraordinary. So can I be the first one to test your app?

Mark: [00:16:05] Absolutely, Eve. I hereby, I’ll go on live and just right here publicly say you will be the first.

Eve: [00:16:13] I mean, It’d be fantastic because you’re dealing with all sorts of, you know, mildew and moles and bugs. And it’s hard.

Mark: [00:16:22] You know, there’s a. you know, I’ve been in this ag tech now thing for two years, so I know, you know, a very limited knowledge, dangerous amount of knowledge, which is a very little bit. But one of the statistics I learned that really kind of stayed with me is, you know, for those listeners know your population and the world’s about seven billion, it’s expected to grow to 11 billion in the next 30 years. So that’s a 40 percent increase in population in 30 years. And somebody has done the calculation on food production. And what they concluded is that we will need to grow, we will need to grow more crops in the next 30 years than we have since the beginning of agriculture ten thousand years ago.

Eve: [00:17:13] Wow.

Mark: [00:17:14] Yeah, but it’s an even bigger challenge. And the bigger challenge is we’re going to have to do it on less arable land. So, there’s no Iowas or Ukraines left in the world with dense, rich soil left. So we’re going to have to do it on probably less arable land than is available now. And with fewer of the tools that currently are common to farming. The fertilizers and what have you are with all of the requirements for sustainability that are increasingly the case around the world, those tools will be less available. So somehow or another, we’re going to have to get more with less if we’re going to feed the world. So that’s really probably what’s driving this Agtech revolution I commented on earlier.

Eve: [00:18:03] Mm hmm. Interesting. So who thought up this robot?

Mark: [00:18:08] Well, I ,you know, I was fortunate to have met two people, one of Dr. George Kantor and who is a 20 years researcher at Carnegie Mellon, very well known in the Agtech space roboticist and one of his grad students, Tim Mueller-Sim. Tim and George had spent years developing variations of this technology in the field at Carnegie Mellon. In a literal sense in the field. And they had built all the robots that you’re imagining that you want to see, they’ve actually built those. So, the ones that crawl around or can pick a cherry without crushing it, all that, you know, they developed a lot of those things, field tested them and pretty cool stuff. But one of the lessons they learned is, you know, farmers don’t want to buy robots, yet. And that’s, you know, for people that love robots and build robots, that’s tough stuff. But they concluded, hey, look, we still want to help farmers. So what we’re going to do is we’re going to carve out the perception piece of that robot, the eyes and the brains, if you will, the A.I. in sensing and we’re not going to sell that to them. We’re going to sell a service. And we know that crop inspection, especially in specialty crops, is an essential routine in every specialty crop, just the way it is in your own garden. And so they said we’re going to carve that out and sell that as a service. So it was pretty, pretty thoughtful of them to kind of you know, it’s played out that way that the growers have resonated. So, you know, it’s probably the classic example of academic researchers transitioning to entrepreneurs. And, you know, that’s hard to do.

Eve: [00:19:59] And that’s where you came in, right? Because you are a serial entrepreneur.

Mark: [00:20:04] Yeah, yeah. And so when I met them, I came in as an advisor. And I think, Eve, I was like, I don’t know, 20 minutes into their first presentation and I, you know, I said to myself, OK, I’m just going to advise, see what. 20 minutes in, I’m like, oh, I’ve got to do this. So I just like, you know, I just can’t help myself and I don’t regret it for a minute. The two years it’s been I have flown by and I’m thoroughly enjoying this.

Eve: [00:20:35] So how do you hope to scale this company?

Mark: [00:20:39] You know, great question. So that’s the challenge every tech company has when they think of the all the benefits they could bring to the world, but then they don’t necessarily think through how everyone’s going to access this this wonderful tool. And for us, you know, for a lot of entrepreneurs like us, our strategy has been initially to knock on doors. The good news is because this technology had already been sort of field tested, we had a few leads with some vintners in California that led to them trying it and then them telling other vintners. And before, you know, we’ve got 15 vineyards in four countries,

Eve: [00:21:18] So no Facebook ads.

Mark: [00:21:20] No, no Facebook. You know, it’s funny. I think that it’s interesting how sometimes that PR is a startup and I’ve been guilty of this as you can almost get too much. And what happens is you get too much too early. And then when you meet investors or customers, they find out that the hype, you know, of your business is way ahead of what actually is there. So we were careful not to sort of get ahead of ourselves. But one of the things that we’re starting to do now, which is working is, is, you know, people use this phrase partnering. There are entities right now that buy large marketers that buy crops and then resell them to package them and sell them to the Whole Foods, Safeways and Giant Eagles of the world. And they have an interest in several things. One is in knowing that what the yield for that farm is going to be, if the sooner they know that, the better they can price it to the Whole Foods of the world. They also want to ensure that the crop that they’re buying at the beginning of the year is of a sufficient quality at the end of the year as to make that worthwhile. So they have an interest in knowing the condition of the crops, knowing the yield and various other things of the person from whom they’re going to buy those crops. So they came to us and I can’t name them yet. Someday soon, a big, big entity, global entity, and said, hey, we want to pay you to give your service to our growers. They can have access to all the analytics. They can get all that for free because we’re going to pay you and we get the benefit of knowing what the yield is going to be and the quality is going to be from that same data and then we resell it. But then there’s another addendum you’re going to find interesting. And this is new and different. This is very new. So what they’re telling us with this marketer is saying is people like you and me, when we go into Whole Foods or Giant Eagle or wherever we shop, we are increasingly want to know the history of that apple or that pepper, in other words, we want to know, OK, is that pepper really organic? We want to know where it came from. And when we say where it came from in this, believe it or not, this is where it’s going. The grower, the seller, the Whole Foods of the world wants to know what tree that apple came from.

Eve: [00:23:55] You’re kidding.

Mark: [00:23:56] I’m not kidding.

Eve: [00:23:58] I mean, is there a move towards buying more local in supermarkets as well as farmer’s markets?

Mark: [00:24:05] There is an attempt to do that. The challenge with buying local is, and this is some of the issues around some of the larger issues that people are struggling with is it’s pretty hard to compete with a Driscoll’s. You know, which is a massive grower when you’re trying to reach that quality level. There’s just a point at which a small grower just doesn’t have the scale.

Eve: [00:24:28] Yes.

Mark: [00:24:29] To match the quality of a massive grower like a Driscoll. So so there’s that. But there is a desire by the to grow the grocery stores, the places where we shop, to try to at least incorporate some local production. And so you’re seeing that play out. The challenge is we as consumers still demand our quality. As much as we want to buy local, as much as we have a desire to help keep that local ecology sort of functioning business, ag ecology functioning, we still like our quality apples. We still want to want to get the best quality we can for the price. And so there’s a bit of a challenge there for the you know, for the local growers. What’s seemingly happening is and I think this is another feature of just our own preferences as people are fussier and fussier and fussier about the quality of their produce, which is great. And so where there’s an opportunity for the local grower is rather than try to compete at the low end, they compete at the high end.

Eve: [00:25:43] That makes sense.

Mark: [00:25:44] So they go after the really premium crops, the kind that, you know, that I’m not, you know, five-dollar tomato or whatever.

Eve: [00:25:56] Yes. Yeah, interesting, so you must have done the math, because this is what I’m thinking, if everyone deployed one of your, every farm, deployed one of your robots. How much more food could we produce?

Mark: [00:26:09] Yeah, good question. You know, if you do the math conservatively, if you can increase yield just on believe it or not, I mean, the farming is it is a challenging business, whether you’re a giant grower or small. As you know, a lot of resources go into farming in the margins are pretty thin. So that means if you can increase yields, say two or three percent, you can dramatically improve the profitability of that farm dramatically. But that yield increase of two or three percent over time, in other words, you can do that on a fairly continuous basis, can add up to a lot. And that’s where food production is. It’s at the margin. You know, it’s at the margin of getting more with less. And by more with less, I mean, not just with less arable land, but with a lower resource base, less water. Water is now one of the big, big challenges in farming in, say, California, where a huge amount of our specialty crops come from. In the U.S., water is a big challenge. We as citizens of the Northeast United States, believe it or not, ultimately subsidize fresh water availability in on the west western United States. We are in our taxes and in the subsidies that are provided by the federal government to farmers. It allows for fresh water practically from being places like the Columbia River and other places out west to provide water on a massive scale, fresh water to farmers. And that is increasingly becoming expensive. Now there’s issues around the water table and you know, people that are much more expert at that than I am knowing about the depletion of of fresh water in the United States. But fresh water is now increasingly a constraint. So if you can increase yield with data and as a result, target my use of water and even nutrients by and have me use less of those and get higher yields, you not only improve the quantity of food, you reduce the resource cost. And that’s just data, Eve. It’s not, you know, we’re not talking about the labor costs or anything. We’re just talking about the simple use of the data. And that’s really our goal is not only to increase the productivity, the production, absolute production, it’s to reduce the resource base required to produce that.

Eve: [00:28:52] Yeah, interesting. So I’m going to shift gears a bit.

Mark: [00:28:56] Yeah.

Eve: [00:28:57] You know, you ran for mayor in the city of Pittsburgh a few years back, and you, and I know you’ve really been involved in the city, in the startup community. And I want to know what you believe the relationship is between a healthy city and startups.

Mark: [00:29:12] Yeah, that’s a good question. And I’ve thought a lot about that. Eve I don’t think there’s a city in the world that thinks that economic growth is necessarily inherently a bad thing. However, I do believe that a community like Pittsburgh, where there is now, I think, for the first time, I’ve been here 20 years, Eve, and I tell you what’s happening in the last three, three to five years is unlike anything that’s ever existed before. As long as I’ve lived here. It is really exploding. I mean, you have your first big IPO.

Eve: [00:29:47] Yes, Duolingo, right?

Mark: [00:29:49] And you have a few more in the queue. Yeah, that’s insane. So you’re going to see an explosion of millionaires living in the city. You’ve already seen that people who are now have suddenly are flush with wealth. There’s a concern by every city that, hey, is that going to be shared? Is that going to prosperity going to go to just a handful of people or a small elite community in this city? Or is it going to be our other citizens going to enjoy the fruits, the fruits of that?

Eve: [00:30:18] That did not play out well in San Francisco, right?

Mark: [00:30:21] Not at all. And I’ve been there with anyone who’s been there sees the disparity in peculiar San Francisco. You’ve got a beautiful, magnificent city with huge pockets of poverty.

Eve: [00:30:33] Yes.

Mark: [00:30:34] Disappointing. But I think in the case of Pittsburgh, I think it’s thoughtful leadership that doesn’t create a antagonistic kind of, you know, regressive. I don’t believe what’s happened. And I’m not pointing fingers at any politicians here. I think it’s just maybe just a natural outcome, you know, is this tech community grows is increasingly another community or other communities in this city are saying, hey, they’re getting all the attention and we’re still poor.

Eve: [00:31:04] Yes.

Mark: [00:31:04] We still have crappy roads, and our institutions are not working. Our crime is. And so I think that the kind of leadership that that needs to happen is that somebody sort of bridges that that doesn’t create an us versus them mentality, because then when the tech community says, oh, the city doesn’t like us because we’re successful now, they want to make us a scapegoat for their failures as local government. So there’s two sides to that. And that you end up creating, you know, you probably see it for the listeners nationally play out this way is, you know, when it’s really easy to point the finger and say it’s, you know, they’re the source of the problem. And I don’t see it that way. I think it’s a function of quality leadership, Eve, that I sound like giving a speech here.

Eve: [00:31:51] Oh, I completely agree with you.

Mark: [00:31:54] It’s the quality of leadership

Eve: [00:31:55] That, I mean, it’s actually played out that way with the health industry in Pittsburgh, which is really absolutely first class. And there’s been constant friction politically between that community, each other, and the city. And, you know,

Mark: [00:32:14] Needlessly, I think needlessly, I think both care about their community, both want it to succeed. Both have a desire to have everyone as much as possible enjoy the fruits of what’s happening. But I think that is in the details where it gets lost.

Eve: [00:32:30] Yeah, I mean, how did you get here? Like, what’s your background in a nutshell?

Mark: [00:32:35] Yeah, in a nutshell, it’s going to be a big nutshell because it’s crazy, but I’m trying to fit it in a tiny nutshell. OK, I spent the first 14, almost 15 years of my life in Washington, D.C., professional life in Washington, D.C., in and in and out of government, in and out of the federal government. I worked I was fortunate. I worked for initially two then congressmen, one guy named Tom Ridge, which any of your listeners in Pennsylvania would know to me became governor and secretary of homeland security. And fortunately, I worked for him. And then another guy named Mike DeWine, who is actually, now, the governor of Ohio, and that those two experiences were sort of fundamental. I then managed a political campaign in Maine.  A guy we ran for Congress and a fellow named Rollin Ives. That’s a great New England name. And we lost. But I learned a lot about campaigns and came back to D.C. I worked for a Beltway bandit, Booz Allen, that’s the phrase in Washington for anyone listening. So I don’t mean that in a negative way. So big, big consulting firm. Worked for the Justice Department, the US Justice Department, briefly as a policy analyst, and then ultimately got a job working for John Heinz. Senator Heinz, up until tragically he passed away in 91. When the senator passed away, the new senator came in and brought his own staff. So I was again in the market and I was fortunate. Just dumb luck really, got a job in The White House. Got a job working in the Office of Science Technology Policy and under the first Bush administration in the early 90s, so I got a chance to work with an interesting group of people, the science adviser for people who don’t know something called the Office of Science Technology Policy was formed formally became a White House office staff when Eisenhower was President. But but every President since John Quincy Adams actually has had some kind of science adviser. So did that for two years. And President Bush lost. I was a political appointee. So when the President loses, you also lose a job. And so I was out the door and back on the street again. But I am fortunate to have all those wonderful experiences. And I ended up getting a job with Texas Instruments. So, Texas Instruments was looking for a lobbyist, somebody to help run their government affairs in D.C. And at that time, Texas Instruments was a Fortune 60 company in 48 countries and had a lot of business all over the world. So I had to travel, got a chance to travel around the world and had a lot of interesting assignments and it’s a wonderful company. I cannot say enough good things about the generosity of the Texas Instruments. I learned a lot about technology and policy and funny thing when I left, Eve, for your listeners who don’t like corporate lobbyists, they all enjoy this. I had a going away party when I decided to leave that world and moved to Pittsburgh. So I kind of finished that stint when I was about thirty five. I had done all that stuff and I was ready to kind of move on. And they had a party for me at my favorite watering hole in D.C. and they someone gave me a bumper sticker and it said, and these are other corporate lobbyists too, they give me a bumper sticker and it said, “Please don’t tell my mother I’m a corporate lobbyist. She thinks I’m a piano player in a brothel in New Orleans.”

Eve: [00:36:30] That’s great.

Mark: [00:36:31] So anyway, so I got that and then decided I was done. I had done a lot of what I wanted to do there. It was wonderful, but I was done. So I came here right around 2000 and didn’t really have a job. I actually was able to pick up some consulting work locally and then kicked around, got some work done. I was did a little bit of consulting work for Free Markets, back in the day. And I did a little bit of consulting there and that gave me a little taste for entrepreneurship and then really kind of dedicated myself to the starting companies over the next, you know, 15, 16 years here.

Eve: [00:37:15] So, what’s interesting about that is, you know, when people think about startup, they think about some young 20-year-olds starting a company. But you have this amazing wealth of experience that you’re bringing to this company.

Mark: [00:37:33] You know, Eve, I will tell you, the statistics share. I’m also an adjunct professor, at Carnegie Mellon that’s said I want to shout out to CMU. I’ve been teaching here since I moved here and they’ve been wonderful to me. But people if the statistics for those listening or prospective entrepreneurs, statistics are, most startups are started by people in their late 40s, early fifties, believe or not vast majority. It is the, there’s a small fraction of people in starting new businesses that are in their twenties or early thirties. That’s a rarity when it comes to starting businesses. And everyone thinks of the overnight success and…

Eve: [00:38:14] And overnight success is ten years, right?

Mark: [00:38:16] Oh, yeah. I mean, this is it’s a, this isa brutal, I tell people who are contemplating starting a business and, you know, you’ve done it, you’ve done it more than once, and, you know, it’s a brutal taskmaster. It is unforgiving. And it’s…

Eve: [00:38:34] I think I’m about halfway through that ten-year fix, that success on my latest business. And it is completely brutal.

Mark: [00:38:41] Yeah. And it just, but, you know, it’s funny. It’s the kind of thing where as tough as it is. I have a friend, he’s a retired Navy SEAL officer and he’s also an entrepreneur. And he said to me once, you know, he is, you know, being an entrepreneur is sort of like being a Navy SEAL and that you just have to get comfortable being uncomfortable.

Eve: [00:39:04] Yeah. Yeah. OK, I have one more question for you, and that is, what is your big, hairy, audacious goal?

Mark: [00:39:15] Wow. Wow. Oh, my goodness, where do I begin? I just want to make a difference here and in our community and whether that community is Pittsburgh, the region or even the state, I want to make a difference. That’s my goal. I enjoy what I do. I feel great about this company and what it can do. And that’s one of the reasons I love this company, is it’s going to make a difference for farmers, hopefully all over the world. And, but another important goal of mine is to make a difference where I live and try to make as big a difference as possible. And so I think that the great old, grand old, you know, Keystone State that we live in, you know, one of the colonies from way back is seen better days. And I think the communities that are here, you know, we’ve had suffered from population decline in Pittsburgh, in the region and in the state. And I think that there’s a desire to see something better and see change coming. And I think that that’s now possible. You know, it’s not the old, you know, stodgy community state that it once was. I think there’s new vitality, but I think it’s going to take time. And I want to see what I can do to make a difference somehow, some way. That’s what I think is the most energizing thing for me is that it’s why I love startups. It’s a way to kind of cause positive things to happen, keeps me motivated. And that’s what motivates me, is to try to make a difference where you live.

Eve: [00:40:53] That’s a great answer. I feel completely energized now. Mark, thank you very much. Thank you very much for talking to me.

Mark: [00:41:01] Yeah, sure. Happy to be here, Eve. Thanks.

Eve: [00:41:09] That was Mark DeSantis of Bloomfield Technologies. Mark pivoted his life and career from politics into start ups, and he moved from D.C. to Pittsburgh, where he is living his dream, nurturing an ag tech company into a global position in his much loved, adopted city. We’ll be hearing more about Mark and Bloomfield Technologies, I’m sure.

[00:41:46] You can find out more about this episode on the show notes page at EvePicker.com or you can find other episodes you might have missed, or you can show your support at Patreon.com/rethinkrealestate for the price of a cup of coffee. A special thanks to David Allardice for his excellent editing of this podcast and original music. And thanks to you for spending your time with me today. We’ll talk again soon. But for now, this is Eve Picker signing off to go make some change.

Image courtesy of Mark DeSantis, Bloomfield Robotics

One year. 41 more conversations.

July 28, 2021

41 amazing people. 41 inspiring conversations.

Cynthia Muller. Richard Rothstein. Andre Perry. Charmaine Curtis. Lyneir Richardson. Darryl Scipio. Libby Seifel. Beth Silverman. Patrick Quinton. Daniel Parolek. Charles Durrett. Heather Hood. Diana Lind. Scott Flynn. Atticus LeBlanc. Sam Ruben. Andrew Luong. Stephanie Gripne. Shannon Mudd. Ken Weinstein. Garry Gilliam. Andy Williams. Daniel Dus. Patrice Frey. Bruce Katz. Christopher Leinberger. David Peter Alan. Annie Donovan. Michael Shuman. Dan Miller. Scott Ehlert. Katie Faulkner. A-P Hurd. Max Levine. Brian Dally. Jonny Price. Michael Lee. Kevin Cavenaugh.

These are the rockstars of my show.

Season Three starts soon …

Read the podcast transcript here

Eve Picker: [00:00:14] Hi there. Thanks so much for joining me today for the final episode of Rethink Real Estate. For Good, season 2.

My name is Eve Picker and I’m on a mission to make real estate work for everyone. Real estate can help to solve climate change, can house people affordably, can create beautiful streetscapes, unify neighborhoods and enliven cities. 

You can learn more about me at my website, rethinkrealestateforgood.co, or visit my real estate crowdfunding platform, SmallChange.co. Our projects offer impact, solve housing problems, invest in neighborhoods and give everyone the opportunity to invest and build wealth for as little as $500.

[00:01:12] Today marks the second anniversary of this podcast. Two years ago, I didn’t know that our audience would grow as it has. In fact, two years ago I wasn’t sure we would have an audience at all. Now 10,000 people download episodes every month. That’s 10,000 people who care about thoughtful and impactful real estate solutions.  Wow!  I am humbled that all of you want to listen in.

This second year has been an opportunity to learn from yet another class of extraordinary leaders and innovators in real estate. My guests are working on housing solutions, policy issues, manufacturing, in fintech, on preservation, on developing new technologies and on providing real estate metrics, on mobility issues, as architects, on sustainable development, on community capital, on equity for women and equity for minorities and in many other niches, pushing the boundaries of the built environment to be better for everyone. 

The range of work that is being accomplished is quite awe-inspiring.

[00:02:25] Perhaps the most important theme this year was equity.

Cynthia Muller, director of Mission Driven Investments at the Kellogg Foundation. has been described as a “thought leader of the impact investing ecosystem and a trailblazer in the field.” In No guilt. Just Action. she reminds us that every time there has been an opportunity for black and brown people to build an asset, to build wealth, it’s been taken away from them. Let’s change that. 

Richard Rothstein and Andre Perry have written about these inequities.In The Color of Law Richard argues for a national civil rights movement to ensure that we all get to reap the economic benefits of living in this rich and diverse country. And In Know your price, Andre share findings that homes are underpriced by 23 percent, or $48,000 per home, in majority black neighborhoods. That’s $156 billion in lost equity.

[00:03:31] Charmain Curtis, Lyneir Richardson and Darryl Scipio are a new breed of black developers. Charmain has built a successful career as a developer despite being a black woman. She didn’t realize what she was up against until she was in her 30s. In Spread the Wealth she ponders how wealth could be distributed equitably to everyone.

In Building Generational Wealth, Lyneir describes his plan to buy 100 community shopping centers with 100 community members, all focused in majority black neighborhoods. He provided the first opportunity to 140 investors on Small Change early this year.

[00:04:17] Justice runs deep with Darryl.  In Turning renters into homeowners he describes his latest passion project, Savers Village.  He aims to help every tenant save enough for a down payment on a home.

And Libby Seifel is focused on women.  In Women building collective muscle, she describes the network of women leaders in real estate she has built. After more than 30 years in the industry, she is no longer the only woman in the room, and that some of the biggest new projects in the Bay Area are being driven by women.

[00:04:56] Housing solutions are importantly getting a lot of attention.

Perhaps the boldest of these is Beth Silverman’s Lotus Project. In Radical in its Simplicity she tells us how ,for just $800, her organization can successfully house a homeless family and change the trajectory of their lives forever.

We learn about accessory dwelling units as an affordable housing solution in Yes! In My Backyard! Patrick Quinton has developed a manufactured solution that drops a 32×14 foot ADU into a typical 50-by-100-foot lot in Portland, Oregon without hitting the setbacks and without requiring city design review. And he’s raising money for this project on Smallchange.co

[00:05:48] On the west coast, Daniel Parolek, architect, coined the phrase, The Missing Middle just as the critical absence of affordable housing was becoming a major planning issue for cities nationwide. He explains what the missing middle is, why it is important and how we can build more of it. 

Charles Durrett brought co-housing from Copenhagen to the US many years ago and wrote a book about it. He explains why he’s spent a career in co-housing and how it can make people’s lives better in It takes a Village.

[00:06:27] In Northern California, Heather Hood oversees efforts for the Enterprise Community Partners that ensure low- and moderate-income residents have access to affordable, quality housing. We talk about the enormous size of this problem in The elephant in the region.

And Diana Lind wraps it up for us in Lets be Brave. She’s written a book called Brave New Home in which she argues that the single-family home is at least partly to blame for our current housing woes.

[00:07:01] Technology is rapidly transforming the real estate industry in many different ways as well.

Some of my guests, like Patrick Quinton and Scott Flynn in Manufacturing change, are focused on manufacturing affordable homes in factories. Scott’s company, IndieDwell, manufactures smaller, sustainable and affordable homes at the pace of 10 homes per week and growing.

But others are pursuing new ideas.  Atticus LeBlanc tells us about PadSplit in One Room at a time.. He wants to dramatically change how we address affordable housing by using space that is now under-used in everyday homes.

[00:07:46] Or Sam Ruben in 3D-printing, robotics and automation, oh my! His company is printing buildings and hopes to create affordable and sustainable homes with their new technology.

And finally, Andrew Luoung who has deconstructed the often lengthy and confusing process of small scale real estate investment, making it accessible to everyone.  In Andrew loves real estate he describes the online turnkey service that he has developed into Doorvest.

[00:08:20] Some guests are focused on fertilizing tranches of future impact investors and leaders.

None is more passionate than Dr. Stephanie Gripne. In The impact accelerator, she tells us about founding the Impact Finance Center with a mission to identify, train and activate philanthropists and investors to become impact investors. Her big, hairy audacious goal is to move a trillion dollars into impact investing.

Dr. Shannon Mudd is right behind her, teaching students how to invest $50,000 of real money for maximum social impact. His Young Angels are carrying this knowledge into their professional careers.

[00:09:09] Others want to pay it forward.

Like Ken Weinstein, a highly successful Philly developer whose career was inspired by his landlady in Germantown. He’s created a boot-camp for aspiring developers called Jumpstart Germantown and describes the program in Jumpstarting a community.

[00:09:32] Garry Gilliam may be best known for playing in the NFL. Today he has a second career as an impact real estate developer. He tells about his first project in The Bridge. It came about as a joint effort with Garry’s friends from the Hershey School, a philanthropic school for low-income children. That school gave them all a leg up and now they want to give back to their community. 

Or Andy Williams, a former Marine who was determined to secure his future through real estate. He’s built a substantial portfolio of homes, a real estate development business focused on larger projects, and now, a program that seeks to turn veterans into entrepreneurs just like himself.  

[00:10:23] Some guests, like Daniel Dus and Patrice Frey, are focused on building on what’s already there. Learn how Daniel is planning to redevelop the dramatically underutilized historic luxury estates of the Berkshires for the shared economy in Everything old is new again.  And in Saving Places, Patrice explains the role of the National Main Street Center in servicing the revitalization of commercial main streets in big cities and small towns alike.

Bruce Katz moves the focus back to metro areas in Cities are networks. As a foremost policy expert, Bruce argues that cities must knit together solutions. It’s an imperative. And he calls this the new localism.

Christopher Leinberger is thinking along the same lines in Back to the Future. As a renowned urban strategist, teacher, developer, researcher and author Chris thinks “Back to the Future” got it right.

[00:11:30] While David Peter Alan enchanted me in I’ve been working on the railroad with his singular passion for the country’s railway system. He has ridden the entire Amtrak system and about 300 transit providers in the U.S. and in Canada.

Annie Donovan and Michael Shuman are focused on alternative finance. Michael thinks we have it Totally backwards. Local owned businesses make up 60 to 80 percent of the private marketplace in the average U.S. community. But economic developers and subsidies almost always overlook them. And Annie believes that disruptive capital is critical for solving thorny problems. She describes her pursuit of fairness in economics and finance in The world beyond banks.

[00:12:27] A handful of guests are diversely focussed on sustainability in the built environment.  Perhaps the most interesting is Dan Miller, who has launched a platform that connects everyday investors with farmers who need loans. He’s Stewarding the Future of Farming with investments as low as $100.

Scott Ehlert and Katie Faulkner are mass timber experts.  Katie as an architect with an eye on sustainability in From here to there.  In Mass timber for the masses, Scott tells us about the installation and cost benefits of a proprietary hollow core mass timber system he is designing that uses 50% less wood fiber. And, as if that is not enough, Scott is also designing a robotic fabrication facility to anchor a new wood product innovation campus, in California.

While A-P Hurd remains focused on building Livable and delightful communities.

[00:13:28] This class of guests would not be complete without my colleagues in the crowdfunding industry.

Some like Max Levine and Brian Dally are focused on real estate.

In Hello, Neighbor we learn about Max’s Neighborhood Investment Company, which has a mission “to localize wealth creation and broaden access to neighborhood equity.”  While in Get in on the ground floor,  Brian describes the platform that he has built into the go-to funding platform if you want to fix’n flip property.

Jonny Price, previously with Kiva and now with Wefunder, is focused on Filling the “crazy” gap. There’s a common theme for Johnny – financially excluded and socially impactful businesses.And Michael Lee is Building Virtual Communities using blockchain. Instead of using blockchain for crypto, he’s using it as an organizing tool to democratize the power of data.

[00:14:31] Finally, what better way to end than with Kevin Cavenaugh a developer in a class of his own. In I do a bunch of weird stuff, you can tap into this unique developer. Left brain, right brain, head and heart all come to bear on his wildly creative buildings. “I’m tired of mocha-colored, vinyl-windowed boring. I can’t change the fact that the streets are gray, and the sky is gray. But the buildings?” says Kevin.

Phew. That’s a lot of podcasts.  I’ve enjoyed every interview with every person.  I’m in awe of them all.   But it’s time to take some time off to recharge and get ready for Season Three. We’ll be back refreshed in September with many more amazing people for you to listen to and for me to learn from.

Thank you so much for joining me.  Now go forth, invest a little in your community and make some change!

It takes a village.

June 16, 2021

Charles Durrett is an architect often credited with introducing the concept of cohousing to the United States through his co-authored book, Cohousing: A Contemporary Approach to Housing Ourselves and more recently Cohousing Communities: Designing for High-Functioning Neighborhoods. Over a number of years, he has built a career around this idea – one he was introduced to as a student in Copenhagen. These Danish housing projects captured his imagination enough that he set about bringing this novel idea to the U.S.

Today, Charles oversees The Cohousing Company, which designs cohousing projects for many kinds of clients. A typical design includes densely packed cottages of 30 or so homes that form a ‘village,’ with a liberal sprinkling of communal areas and amenities, occupied by people who want to live co-operatively. The historical idea of planned communal ‘villages’ in the U.S. is not totally new – you have everything from worker housing to the freeform communes of the 1960s and 70s. But Charles has taken it further, inspired by the Danish model and adding in a dash of the principles of New Urbanism. Most interestingly, Charles describes himself as more of an anthropologist than an architect because every design begins with a deep dive into the psyche of the 30 families that plan to live together. Only once he understands how they want to live their lives, does he embark on the process of designing the physical place.

Charles has received numerous awards and regularly gives presentations on cohousing to interested citizen groups. He has spoken before the United States Congress and has lectured at many universities. His most recent book is A Solution to Homelessness in Your Town, about the Valley View Senior Housing project, built in 2019 in Napa County, CA. Charles lives in Nevada City, CA, in a community he and his office designed.

Insights and Inspirations

  • Cohousing is just a modern-day village.
  • Financing a cohousing project is easy. 70% of the homes are pre-sold and banks like that!
  • Contrary to expectations, over half of cohousing inhabitants are introverts.
  • Cohousing owners believe that their life will be easier if they live co-operatively. That’s the common thread.
  • To design cohousing one must be as much an anthropologist as an architect, making sure that what is designed serves the eventual occupants.
Read the podcast transcript here

Eve Picker: [00:00:13] Hi there, thanks for joining me on Rethink Real Estate. I’m on a mission to make real estate work for everyone. Real estate can help to solve climate change, can house people affordably, can create beautiful streetscapes, unify neighborhoods and enliven cities. So I’m on a journey to find the most creative thinkers and doers out there. I’m not the only one who wants to rethink real estate. You can learn more about me at EvePicker.com or you can find me at SmallChange.co, a real estate crowdfunding platform with impact real estate investment opportunities open for investment right now. And if you want to support this podcast, please join me at Patreon.com/rethinkrealestate where there are special opportunities for my friends and followers.

Eve: [00:01:16] Today, I’m talking with Charles Durrett, an architect often credited with introducing the concept of cohousing to the United States. Charles has built his career around this idea, one he was introduced to as a college student in Copenhagen. These Danish villages captured his imagination. And so he set about bringing this novel idea home. Today, he oversees The Cohousing Company, which designs cohousing villages for a variety of clients. His designs are densely packed cottages of 30 or so homes that form a village with a liberal sprinkling of communal areas and amenities. They are occupied by people who believe their lives will be easier if they live together. You’ll want to listen in. If you’d like to join me in my quest to rethink real estate, there are two simple things you can do. Share this podcast or go to Patreon.com/rethinkrealestate to learn about special opportunities for my friends and followers and subscribe if you can.

Eve: [00:02:27] Good morning, Chuck. Thanks so much for joining me today.

Charles Durrett: [00:02:31] Well, top of the day. Thanks for having me.

Eve: [00:02:33] Very good. So, you’re known as a cohousing expert, and I wanted to start by having you explain what is cohousing?

Charles: [00:02:43] Oh, well, yes, cohousing is at some level, it’s a custom neighborhood. It’s very much for people who are quite motivated to live in a high functioning neighborhood. When I first discovered it, I met a woman in Denmark who said that her and her husband grew up in high functioning neighborhoods. And it was pretty much chance these days to find a neighborhood where people knew each other, cared about each other and supported each other. So cohousing has six fundamental components. One is that the future residents are very much a part of making it happen. And it turns out they’re better at making neighborhoods function than any bureaucrats, business people, bankers, builders, even architects, frankly. I’ve done about 55 cohousing now, and every time somebody says, Hey Chuck, why don’t you just design it? We’ll see if we like it. And I always say no, because with you we’ll do a much better job, and we’ll make a more high-functioning neighborhood. And that’s really been the case, no doubt about it. So, future residents extended common facilities, self-managed design that facilitates knowing each other over time, completely resident managed and no hierarchy of decision making.

Eve: [00:04:05] So what did you learn about cohousing?

Charles: [00:04:08] I learned, I went to the University of Copenhagen in 1980 and…

Eve: [00:04:12] Lucky you.

Charles: [00:04:13] You know, it was fantastic, actually. Really fantastic. And walking home from school one day, I just stopped, and I noticed as I was walking by single family houses, there was no life between the buildings, walking past apartments and apartment buildings. There was zero life. Condos, none. Assisted care, none. And then there was this one neighborhood that every single day that I walk by, when the weather was halfway decent, there would be people outside sitting at picnic tables talking to each other, kids running freely in and out of a building where it looked like nobody lived, but everybody lived. And that turned out to be the common house. And I just stopped and asked this young mother, hey, what’s going on here? in my broken Danish and she answered me in her perfect English that, yeah, this is a neighborhood that we made. And we made it so that we lived in an environment that we felt was not only healthy but sustainable over time. Anybody who hopes to make a single family house that is remotely sustainable is just putting lipstick on a pig, no doubt about it. I mean, we’ve got enough single family houses. We need to make villages now.

Eve: [00:05:26] So were there any cohousing projects at the time in the U.S.?

Charles: [00:05:31] Zero. We came back and made the first one and it was built and finished in 1991 in Davis, California, Muir Commons. Very much based on the Danish model and it’s elaborated on extensively in our book called Creating Cohousing, as well as another 200 other communities have been built since that first one was built in 1991.

Eve: [00:05:54] So how big was the first community?

Charles: [00:05:57] 26 houses and that’s about par for a new cohousing community, 26 to 30 houses. I mean enough people that everybody relates well with five or six others and turn into good friends and not so much that, not so much the consensus and other decision making and management becomes difficult at all.

Eve: [00:06:25] And architecturally, because you’re an architect, so what do these, what does a housing cohousing project look like? How does it differ from, you know, a regular neighborhood or an urban neighborhood or a suburb?

Charles: [00:06:40] Well, fundamentally, it’s quite different. You’ll notice when you walk in. I mean, it’s very much a modern-day village. And the Danes would say they’re not creating anything new. They’re just recreating what used to happen naturally. We now have to make very consciously and subconsciously we have to get our sleeves rolled up and make them happen. So, for example, imagine a typical suburban block and and now imagine when you drive on to that street with nice little porches and all the rest, that you everybody parks at the very end of the street and walks by all the other houses on their way home. That fundamentally changes the nature of a neighborhood basically where you see everyone, that’s germane in terms of knowing them and, you know, it plays a big role down the line. Now, imagine you take all the garage doors off of the front of the houses and you move the houses, oh, instead of a typical suburban neighborhood is about 110 feet doorknob to doorknob. And our houses range about 20 to 30 feet, doorknob to doorknob. And so now when you walk by, you can see the smile on the face of the person in their kitchen waving at you. And it’s simply the opposite of anonymous housing or spread out housing or even warehousing like a typical apartments are. And now imagine where that street used to be there are sandboxes and play cards and picnic tables and gardens. And that’s what a cohousing looks like, basically. Quite different.

Eve: [00:08:23] In addition to housing people in a friendly manner, there’s also sort of the urban design aspects of bringing activity to the street, that really part and parcel of it, of the sounds of it.

Charles: [00:08:37] Oh yeah. I mean, like to the tune of thousands of people hours per week. In a typical cohousing neighborhood, there’s thousands of people hours per week of communing basically with each other. How’s Johnny, I heard he wasn’t feeling well. Hey, I’m taking my kids to the zoo this weekend, are you interested? And if you were to walk down a typical single family house neighborhood, you’d probably find less than one hundred people hours a week of people communing. I mean, really barely extends past salutations, rarely passed salutations. So, but it does. And there are some fantastic neighborhoods in the U.S., but far too few. Probably runs much less than one percent. And then the common facilities play a big role. I live in a 34-unit cohousing and we have dinner in the common house available six nights a week for anybody who wants to make it. You sign up a couple of days in advance. But we usually have 30 to 40 people there a night, and there’s nothing like breaking bread together to enhance and sustain a sense of community. No doubt about it. I mean, it’s timeless.

Eve: [00:09:51] Interesting. So, was it hard to get the first one, the first project done?

Charles: [00:09:56] And by the way, we also have a childcare center on site, and we just have a lot of things in our neighborhood where, a music room, a lot of things that stitch us together. Was it difficult to get the first one done? Well, you know, people often ask us, you know, Chuck, or ask me is, is it the zoning codes that make it difficult? Is the bankers that make it difficult? And that has not been my experience. My experience has been very much it’s our culture that’s challenging, makes it challenging. We’re very much grown up on the shirttails of movie stars like John Wayne, who, by the way, has starred in more movies than any other actor or actress in American history at 126 films. So, that’s a lot of propaganda about pulling yourself up by the bootstraps, which is probably a big reason we have millions of homeless people in this country, is because that’s a myth that does not work. What does work is people helping people. We know that. I can imagine a community pulling you up by your bootstraps, but I cannot imagine you pull yourself up by the bootstraps. It is physically impossible. So, our culture is slowly but surely making a shift. And that’s great. The second cohousing community we finished in the U.S., hardly anybody was born in the U.S. Which is interesting and it’s largely because…

Eve: [00:11:23] That is interesting.

Charles: [00:11:23] Yeah, it’s largely because these are people from the Philippines, from Mexico and other places where it was obvious to them that community was fundamental to their quality of life. And so it was not a big culture shift. So…

Eve: [00:11:39] Perhaps also extended families which are in the community, right?

Charles: [00:11:44] And they were away from their extended family. So they were seeking other means to grow nearer to the people that lived around them.

Eve: [00:11:54] Really interesting. So, since you built the first project, have they evolved at all to suit U.S. culture?

Charles: [00:12:04] Yes, absolutely. I think U.S. culture is evolving as well. But the key thing about cohousing is it’s very much based on who that group of people are. I mean, I feel like I’m as much of an anthropologist as I am an architect. My job is day in and day out figuring out who this group of people is. How do they stitch their shifts together in general? What do they care about? Where are their values? What are their experiences? And I built two cohousing communities right across the street from each other and been quite different, actually. Because it’s very much designed to reflect the values of that group of people and fit like a glove, consequently. Some of them that we built today are almost exactly like the first one we built them, but more likely all of them in between have been quite different, quite, quite different. What is interesting is what are the constants? And the constants seem to be that the common denominator among all these thousands of people that now live in cohousing, the common denominator is they have one thing in common, and that is that they believe that their life will be easier, more convenient, more practical, more economical, more healthy, more interesting, more fun if they give cooperation with their neighbor the benefit of the doubt. And in other words, if we don’t cooperate on anything unless we consent to it. But consequently, we have one lawnmower for 34 houses. We have one swimming pool for 34 houses. We have one hot tub. We have hundreds of things we share. We have discovered that we can successfully share together.

Eve: [00:13:47] Have you ever done a survey on how many introverts versus extroverts we have in cohousing projects?

Charles: [00:13:54] That survey has been accomplished numerous times with surprising results. The general population is running about 60 percent extroverts and 40 percent introverts, and the cohousing population runs about 60 percent introverts and 40 percent extroverts.

Eve: [00:14:12] Oh, that’s really fascinating. Really fascinating because introverts get the energy by being alone, having a lot of alone times.

Charles: [00:14:21] Exactly, but on cohousing is very, very much designed to give you as much community as you want and as much privacy as you want.

Eve: [00:14:29] And I say that because I’m an introvert, so I know how I get my energy.

Charles: [00:14:33] Right. Sure.

Eve: [00:14:34] Interesting. It’s really interesting. So what’s the process like then? Walk me through the process to design a cohousing village.

Charles: [00:14:42] Okay, I will. And by the way, that is the one common denominator among not only every American but every European I’ve met. I’ve been to about 385 cohousing communities, the one common denominator is that these are people they distinctly want to balance between privacy and community as opposed to feeling like they have as much privacy as they want and as much privacy as they want. And cohousing, they want as much privacy as they want and as much community as they want as well.

Eve: [00:15:08] Interesting.

Charles: [00:15:09] That’s distinctive. The process. Well, typically, somebody has gotten a hold of our book called Creating Cohousing and or the book Senior Cohousing by myself or and Creating Cohousing was written with Kathryn McCamant and has a little study group in their town. And then those eight or nine people invite either Katie or I to come to that town. I’m actually getting on a plane on Thursday and going to Richmond, Virginia, and that’s typical. So then I’ll do a presentation, usually an hour or two. They usually have about 100 or 150 people show up. And from there they’ll have what’s called a Getting It Built Workshop for the 15 or 20 households that are motivated to proceed. And that’s two days of this is how this whole thing gets built. The residents play a big role in the development, and they figure out how to get everybody on board. Even those who come to the table who really can’t afford it. So, there’s some grant writing involved and such. And then after the getting built, let’s say there’s, where I live 25 houses at the Getting It Built Workshop. 21 households were at the next workshop, which is Site Designing. Where we do exercises to figure out how far we’re going to make the houses away from each other and all the rest. And then Common House Design Workshop a month later and then Private House Design Workshop a month later. And then we go through the design of the whole project. And then there’s bank financing that has to be procured and building permits. And while the buildings are being built, the group hammers out their management, how many days a week they’ll have dinner and all the rest and kind of goes like that. That sounds easy, but they take two to three years to pull off.

Eve: [00:17:15] Yeah, I’m sure. So, I have two really big questions. And one is about NIMBYism. What are the neighbors think when you build a village like this? And the second issue is how do they get financed?

Charles: [00:17:27] Yeah, question one, that is a really good question. I’m surprised rarely do people ask that. I guess most people don’t know what goes into getting a project built, and dealing with the neighbors is certainly one of the biggest hurdles.

Eve: [00:17:41] I know. I’m an architect by training and I used to work at a planning department, so, yeah, I’m pretty familiar.

Charles: [00:17:49] So and yeah. And it’s a workout. In 55 projects though, we’ve only had one stop by the neighbors, oddly enough. So we have a much better track record. But it has to do with the fact that, you know, you get two or three nursing moms up at the podium and asking the city counselors, why wouldn’t you approve this? I need this. In fact, I need it by September so my other kids can go to school, etc., etc. So, the human appeal really eclipses the normal “just say no to the developer” attitude. And the magic bullet really is being able to put 150 people in the room that are saying, why wouldn’t you build this project? You know, it’s just prejudices and all the wrong reasons. So, and especially today, with affordable housing being such a crisis in the U.S., we’re running into much less NIMBYs than we used to. And now I don’t have to fill the room of 150 people but more like 50 to 100 before the bureaucrats and the politicians say, hey, we just have to do this. But we had some absolutely miracle projects, right? Pulling a rabbit right out of the hat. Like, for example, Stillwater, Oklahoma, Vancouver, B.C., where we have bought with the group a single family house on a big lot and transformed it into 24 houses in one case.

Eve: [00:19:16] Oh, wow, that’s fantastic.

Charles: [00:19:18] 31 houses in another case. And we’re just doing that more and more. And it’s even getting better than that. We just have our first case right now in Auburn, California, where the county has come to us and said, Chuck, if you build a high functioning neighborhood on this property, we will give you this 4.6 acres. That’s very European. And it’s the first case in the U.S., some 30 years after we introduced it to the U.S. So.

Eve: [00:19:46] And what about financing and banks who are traditional?

Charles: [00:19:49] Yeah, they are. Well, there’s a couple of things that they really like about cohousing. The main one that they like is that the project is pre-sold, so we don’t start construction without 70 percent pre-sales. So compare that to a regular developer who’s now designing 30 units, but not one single pre-sell. So, they have to do this market study after market study. I know a woman developer who just spent 350,000 dollars on a market study to prove to the banks that her houses will sell. And we just spend zero money on the market study because they’re at the table and then not only at the table, but they put in their down payment to get the project built, which is 20 percent of the value of their house. So these are people with real skin in the game. If they walk, they also lose. So the market walks, they lose. And, you know, there’s nothing like getting a project approved. And when I meet with the bank the first time, I usually ask a couple of the residents to come. And, you know, everybody just says, hey, these are just people. I mean, you know, you got to get past all the prejudices about, you know, a village which could look like a commune under the wrong circumstances, but it never does. I mean, it’s far from a “commune”. There’s no guru, there’s no strident back to nature ideology. There’s just people who want to live lighter on the planet and live closer to other human beings. I mean, the banks themselves realize that they’ve been looking in the rearview mirror too much. You know, what sold last week.

Eve: [00:21:19] Exactly.

Charles: [00:21:20] They want to get past that.

Eve: [00:21:22] Yes. Yeah. So I’m getting the sense that you play a very large role in getting these projects off the ground because you go to the bank with them. You make sure that there’s enough people at hearings. So explain what your role is in a process like this with a community.

Charles: [00:21:42] Well, ostensibly, I’m the architect and however I’m an architect, I’m going to argue with a little bit of a mission and whatever the mission presents itself, I have to help solve. So, for example, nobody would publish our first book, which came out in 1988 and ended up selling 30,000 copies and just a couple of years. But, so we published it ourselves and sold 3,200 copies in the first six months and then another publisher picked it up. So, you know, sure we’ve run it up against too much skepticism, no doubt about it. America is an innovative land, but not socially. When it comes to social innovations you look to the Swedes, the Danes, the Finns and so many others, and so we barely know how to sustain a viable society. I mean, it’s clear. And so we just basically have to do whatever is necessary. I mean, I had to learn about publishing. I had to learn about kerning and letting and fonts and all the things that I formerly didn’t care about at all. So whatever presents itself, we have to embrace and get past that hurdle. So that’s our big problem.

Eve: [00:23:03] You’re a problem solver. So tell me, is there a typical cohousing project in terms of amenities and or are they all like, what sort of amenities to they have and how do they vary and why?

Charles: [00:23:16] Well, I’ll describe a couple. Where I live, we have a lovely common dining room. I mean, the acoustics have to be perfect from an architect point of view, a lovely super gourmet kitchen, much more gourmet than any of the private houses. I mean, there’s one very, very gourmet kitchen for 34 houses and then there’s 34 standard kitchens. We have a kids room where we have child care and after school and after dinner play, we have a lovely music room with a piano and we have lots of musicians there that teach the children after school music and you know, and then they do rehearsals at the local assisted care and recitals at the nursing care, et cetera, et cetera. We have, for sustainable reasons, 26 of the 34 houses use a single laundry because that’s the only place we can have recycled grey water and use 100 percent biodegradable detergent. We have two guest rooms, which means that, you know, the single family, the houses could be smaller. People didn’t need a third bedroom for potential guests. So, there you can, you can book them out up to two months, two weeks, a year. But most people, we don’t really pay attention to that. But that’s our goal. And they’re full all the time. We have a lovely sitting room with a fireplace with lots of men’s clubs and stuff like that happens in the evenings. And women’s knitting happens and quilt making happens on the weekends. And we have a lovely teen room, which is fantastic. We moved in with 21 seniors and 37 kids and the rest were adult parents. And you know, I went to the teen room one night and there were 21 teens there. Actually, only ten of them lived in the cohousing and they were having a slumber party on the outside deck there and it was midnight and I just popped in on them to see how everyone was doing. And I counted 21 kids. And then coincidentally, the next morning in the Sunday New York Times, I read that the safest thing you can do with your teenagers, because being a teenager in America is relatively dangerous, is to keep them at home and however they want to be where the action is. So you want to make the action in your neighborhood and basically keep them at home.

Eve: [00:25:50] Yeah, yeah.

Charles: [00:25:51] And so we have a great workshop. I mean, it’s fantastic. We can build, people build all kinds of stuff in the workshop, and people are learning from each other all the time. You know, the things are one thing, but really, they’re just all a format for us to learn from each other all the time. Some people like myself make homemade bread for dinner for the common dinners, and other people are learning how to make common homemade bread and all the rest. So, it’s all about what am I getting out of it? I hate to say it, but I think, and Ayn Rand was correct, and it’s all about me and yet, and so that’s the way it’s kind of set up. Everybody feels like they’re getting something out of it and therefore it just it just continues to grow that way.

Eve: [00:26:33] Interesting. So, you know, I know in the U.S., each state seems to have a cultural vibe of its own. And there’s some states where we’re more housing projects have been built than others.

Charles: [00:26:47] Oh, yes, for sure. And there are.

Eve: [00:26:50] That was a loaded question.

Charles: [00:26:51] That was a loaded question. California has by far the vast majority of cohousing because as Paul Ray, in his book, Cultural Creatives, points out, and he was our keynote speaker at one of our yearly conferences, as he points out, the people who move into cohousing are, in fact, cultural creatives because they don’t feel like they have to do what the parents did. It’s not interested in growing old like my parents did. They were wasted away in a big, dumb, single family house. And then they went off to assisted care and then they went up to nursing care. I’m not interested in growing up like my little brother did, where I had already left the house and my little brother was alone and forlorn and watching video games and social media all the time. I think there’s only like two or three residents in our 34 houses that even have a TV. TV is not a big part of growing up where we live. Running out the front door is and having races in the swimming pool and just goes on and on. I mean, I know I make it sound a little bit idyllic, because I feel that every time I walk home from work every day. But managing it is a workout, by consensus does make it a workout. The thing I love about cohousing more than anything else, above all, is how many people that live there that say the best part about living there, is I’ve learned how to get along with other people. I take these lessons to my church. I take these lessons to my school. I take these lessons to my work. And I know from my own experience, my daughter is 29 now, works for a Congresswoman in D.C., but she worked for the U.N. for four years and I just watched her go to Africa and introduce different concepts to different villages like clean cookstoves, so young girls weren’t walking in the middle of the night to go get firewood, etc. and Jesse simply knew how to help people get organized. She simply knew how to work with a lot of different people, both at the U.N. and in the villages. So, she had something to offer, and people wanted to listen to her because she knew how to get her proposal passed.

Eve: [00:29:02] So you’ve also written a book on housing the homeless. How does that tie into your cohousing work?

Charles: [00:29:09] Well, thank you for asking. There is a movement afoot called Housing First, and I fully respect it. It’s about getting a roof over people’s heads and then you can deal with their alcoholism and their mental illnesses and they’re just down and out situation. But I’m a big believer in community first because I’ve seen too many times now where I’ve built a homeless project like a five-story project in downtown San Francisco, where the residents currently make dinner for each other six nights a week again, and how community has played such a huge role. And they’re leveraging relationships to bettering their lives. I’m infinitely impressed with a project in Eugene, Oregon, called Opportunity Village, where they built 30 units for 8,000 dollars each, volunteer labor mostly, but with the homeless. And then after the volunteers left and the homeless were left to self-management with some help from some local elders, from various churches, all of the amazing things those guys did. First, they had trucked in water. They had porta potties trucked out. They didn’t have a kitchen, et cetera, et cetera. They built the trenches for the water, the sewer.

Eve: [00:30:32] Wow.

Charles: [00:30:32] Then the dining facilities. And then they put heat in the units because the first winter, they had no heat. These were just little tiny boxes. And one person was clever with getting some solar panels donated. And then they put in some batteries and then they were able to create some heat. Now all 30 of them have heat. I mean, I’m just astounded by how much cleverness out there is homeless. It’s just astounds me. Every time I organize a new project, some very wise people come to the table and given the right format, they can actually provide for each other immensely. And we’re so hellbent on victimizing those folks. I wish they would just move on that we don’t even embrace the potential there and help those people reach the potential. It’s very sad. So, yes, I do hope a lot of people get the book, A Solution To Homelessness In Your Town, because it’s to the extent that that book stays in circulation is to the extent that more will be built.

Eve: [00:31:40] Just changing text a little bit. Are there any current trends or innovations in real estate development that you believe are important for the future?

Charles: [00:31:48] Oh, there’s actually a lot, but I wouldn’t call them trends per say. I would call them innovations. And unfortunately, those innovations are sexy and interesting and yet don’t get the kind of traction that they need. I mean, the Congress for New Urbanism, for example, I mean, building towns that feel more urban instead of more suburban. No strict commercial, no boxes surrounded by a sea of asphalt, which is America everywhere. You know, if you drive through Spokane, Washington; Sacramento, California, it’s just parking lot after parking lot after boulevard after box in the middle of a pool of asphalt. So, however, the most distressing part of the whole thing is I don’t know what the percentage of last year. They were probably about 1.2 million houses built in America and by probably over a million were single family houses. And that’s the trend that we’re continuing on, simply because that’s the rearview mirror. You build out into the farmland. And if you build on the farmland, you won’t have any NIMBYs, as you alluded to earlier. If you build into the farmland, you won’t have any management issues because these people are not organized. It is the path of least resistance for the banks. If they sold last time, they’ll probably sell this time. It is the most deleterious solution that we could come up with for the planet or for us as healthy social beings. They say that our second responsibility as a species is to get along. The first responsibility is surviving, and that’s true for every species. But getting along is particularly important for our species. And if we don’t get along, we might not survive. So, it really feeds into priority number one. And yet if you put everybody in a box, equidistance, atomize, estranged they’re not going to know how to get along. That possibility will wane further. And I’m very concerned about the vast majority. So, it is it’s going to take more people. I’m mentoring as many young people as I can these days to become architect activists, because it turns out, just like the CNU, the architects are better than average activists.

Eve: [00:34:19] Yeah, I think that’s true. So what’s, final question, what’s next for you?

Charles: [00:34:25] Well, like I said, I’m getting on a plane and I’m going to Richmond. I’m working with the Chickahominy Indian Tribe, and I see that as the future. I mean, it kills me when I, when they first called me and said, you know, our old people are dying in nursing care and it’s as far away from our traditions as humanly possible. We have to figure out who we are and respond to that, not what the institutions are providing for us now. And so, this is going to be housing and a child care, nearby on the same property. Right? I mean, I’m going to have a super close. It’s going to be a village and I’m going to make it I’m going to make it reflect their needs, wants and desires as distinctly as possible. But I’m also going to challenge them a little bit to go back to their previous priorities so that we’re not hedging our bets. So, you know, I’m increasingly playing an activist role, but I only take the Chickahominy as far as they feel comfortable. But I’m taking the American population as far as they feel comfortable because I’m hellbent on getting these projects built, because I know it’s a better way to go. So there’ll be more activism in my future.

Eve: [00:35:40] I’m looking forward to it. I really enjoyed this conversation, and I can’t wait to visit one of your villages.

Charles: [00:35:46] Will you live in Pittsburgh, huh?

Eve: [00:35:49] I do.

Charles: [00:35:50] The closest one is Ithaca, New York. I don’t know. I don’t know where the closest one is to you.

Eve: [00:35:57] I’ll have to do a Google Search.

Charles: [00:35:59] But we need to get some more in PA, that’s for sure.

Eve: [00:36:01] We do, we do. Well, thank you so much.

Charles: [00:36:04] You’re welcome. Good. Thank you very much, Eve. Appreciate it.

Eve: [00:36:19] That was Charles Durrett. The historical idea of planned communal villages is not new. You have everything from worker housing, such as Pittsburgh’s Chatham Village, to the free form West Coast communes of the 1960s and 70s. But Charles has taken it a little further, adding in a dash of New Urbanism. Most interestingly, Charles describes himself as more of an anthropologist than an architect. Every design begins with a deep dive into the psyche of the 30 families that plan to live together. Only once he understands how they want to live their lives does he embark on the process of designing the physical place.

Eve: [00:37:10] You can find out more about this episode on the show notes page at EvePicker.com, or you can find other episodes you might have missed, or you can show your support at Patreon.com/rethinkrealestate, where you can learn about special opportunities for my friends and followers. A special thanks to David Allardice for his excellent editing of this podcast and original music. And thanks to you for spending your time with me today. We’ll talk again soon. But for now, this is Eve Picker signing off to go make some change.

Image courtesy of Charles Durrett, The Cohousing Company

Livable and Delightful.

May 19, 2021

A-P Hurd says that she can understand why people don’t like developers. “Most people don’t like change, and development is really visible,” she says. “Often, five or 10 years after something gets built, people really love it. But when you’re talking about replacing the familiar with the unknown, that’s hard for people. All we can do is what Garrison Keillor admonishes: “Be well, do good work and keep in touch.”

Born and raised in Ottawa, A-P’s career is smartly eclectic. Journalism, finance, software startup, and novelist are all part of her career path. Then she decided to go to graduate school to further her engineering skills, and found her way to sustainable and transit-oriented real estate development. Today she has SkipStone, where she works with clients like Sound Transit, the City of San Jose, Community Roots Housing and private developers bringing projects to market, sustainably. 

A-P has been a faculty member in the Runstad Real Estate Department at the University of Washington, and she co-authored The Carbon Efficient City (2012) with the U of W Press. She is on the boards of CityBldr, a technology company, and Blueline Group, an engineering design firm. She also served on the board of OneBuild – a modular construction company. Currently, A-P is a board member at the Downtown Seattle Association and serves on the board of the Pacific Real Estate Institute (PREI).

Insights and Inspirations

  • Livable and delightful is what all communities should aspire to be.
  • Really successful cities never have a finish line.
  • Expanding rail infrastructure into non-urban areas might be the next thing for A-P
  • Regulations squish innovation.
Read the podcast transcript here

Eve Picker: [00:00:15] Hi there. Thanks for joining me on Rethink Real Estate. I’m on a mission to make real estate work for everyone. Real estate can help to solve climate change, can house people affordably, can create beautiful streetscapes, unify neighborhoods and enliven cities. So I’m on a journey to find the most creative thinkers and doers out there. I’m not the only one who wants to rethink real estate. You can learn more about me at EvePicker.com or you can find me at SmallChange.co, a real estate crowdfunding platform with impact real estate investment opportunities open for investment right now. And if you want to support this podcast, please join me at Patreon.com/rethinkrealestate where there are special opportunities for my friends and followers.

Eve: [00:01:16] AP Hurd says that she can understand why people don’t like developers. “Most people don’t like change, and development is really visible” she says. “Often five or 10 years after something gets built, people really love it. But when you’re talking about replacing the familiar with the unknown, that’s hard for people. All we can do is what Garrison Keillor admonishes: Be well, do good work and keep in touch.”

Eve: [00:02:02] Born and raised in Ottawa, AP’s career is smartly eclectic. Journalism, finance, software start-up and novelist are all part of her career path. Then she decided to go to graduate school to further her engineering skills and found her way to sustainable and transit oriented real estate development. Today, she has SkipStone where she works with clients like SAM Transit, the city of San Jose, community roots housing and private developers bringing projects to market sustainably. Share this podcast or go to Patreon.com/rethinkrealestate to learn about special opportunities for my friends and followers and subscribe if you can.

Eve: [00:03:03] Hello, AP, I’m really happy to talk to you today. I want to find out more about what you do. Welcome.

AP Hurd: [00:03:11] Thanks. I’m pleased to be here, Eve.

Eve: [00:03:13] And I think I’m most impressed that we share a tagline Build Better Cities. So SkipStone, your company, helps private, public and non-profit entities build better cities. And I wanted you to tell me a little bit more about what that means.

AP: [00:03:30] Sure. In answering this question might be helpful to go back a little bit to my history. So, my background is in operations and finance early in my career, but really spent the last 15 years working in real estate and development. And for about 10 years of the last 15, I worked for a company called Touchstone, which is a large regional developer in the Pacific Northwest and ran that company for a few years and then started my company, SkipStone, about three and a half years ago and pretty early into working as a developer, I became very interested in the idea that development happens a certain way because of a combination of where capital wants to invest and the regulatory framework that governs where it can invest. And the mental model that I have for this that I’ve talked about before is, you know, when you’re a kid and you have one of those playdough extruders…

Eve: [00:04:32] Oh yeah.

AP: [00:04:32] And you had a little tube and there’s a little thing, you can push through the tube and there’s little plates you can put on the front of the tube. So if you put a little star shaped plate and you push playdough through the tube, you get a little star shaped extrusion. And if you take out the star plate and you put a circle, then you get kind of a long tube extrusion. And if you put in a plate that has very, very tiny holes, you might push on the playdough thing and actually nothing comes through because the playdough is too viscous. And so the for me, this metaphor is interesting because I tend to think of the little plate that is across the front of the tube as the regulatory framework. It sort of governs what’s allowed and what’s not allowed and what can go through and what can’t go through. And then the playdough is actually the investment capital that flows to projects. And so, you know, if you’ve got a plate that’s got very tiny holes in it, you might be that’s a very that would correspond to a restrictive regulatory framework. And so you would have to push very, very hard and you’d only get a little bit of playdough to go in. And that would be the idea that if you’ve got a very restrictive regulatory framework, you might get less investment. And so, what all this is to say that in thinking about building better cities, I’ve become very interested early in my real estate career about how the regulatory framework interacts with large flows of institutional capital. And I’ve become interested in can you have a regulatory framework where the most profitable projects, so the ones that attract a lot of capital or playdough, the most profitable projects, are also the ones that align with the public interest? How can we get more investment into things that are good for people instead of just stopping investment into things that are bad for people? And so when I think about building better cities, I think about how we do both of those things. Have frameworks that let capital flow to things that serve the public interest. And I guess I would say I’m also really interested in that in the broad picture of sort of how do businesses, as a whole, get regulated. And so I’ve wound up working in areas like environmental policy and energy policy and housing policy and really trying to think at the local and state level about sort of how are we creating frameworks that can get us more of the things that our cities desperately need.

Eve: [00:07:12] So I have to ask the very big question, how close are we to frameworks that work well towards building better cities?

AP: [00:07:25] That’s a great question, Eve. I think there are several ways that you could evaluate that. One is, are our cities doing for us the things that cities need to do? And so, one of the reasons that people have always aggregated into cities or towns from much of human history isn’t because it’s prettier or nicer smelling. You think of the Middle Ages, but it’s because people can exchange things with others and particularly with others who are quite different from them. There is a pretty fundamental economic theory that the value of an exchange between two people is higher if they are more different from each other. If they have things to exchange that are more differentiated. And this is true if you’re exchanging a bolt of silk for some olive oil. But it’s also true if you pair up a lawyer and a computer programmer. If you have two computer programmers together, they might have some differences in their field and stimulate each other to think differently. But if you bring a lawyer and a computer programmer and a cook together, the kinds of things that they may be able to produce jointly are going to be more innovative and higher value. And so, to the extent that cities facilitate exchanges that drive value for people, I think cities are doing pretty well at serving a reasonable proportion of the people who live there. And that’s why across the world right now, we are seeing continued urbanization and continued in migration into cities pretty much across most countries of the world. The things that cities are not doing especially well right now, well, they have not in the last year done especially well, slowing transmission of Covid.

Eve: [00:09:24] That’s for sure.

AP: [00:09:25] They are not doing particularly well at moving people around in them as they grow past two or three million individuals in size, at least across much of the sprawling North America. They are not doing particularly well, and this is a related concept, at sheltering people in ways that are adequate and affordable, in a reasonable proximity to the jobs and interactions that are so important. So, I would say we’re doing OK. We’re still attracting people. But there are some very worrisome trends that threaten to tip the balance of cities, particularly large cities, not working so well for people.

Eve: [00:10:13] So, you know, this conversation is going to go in a different direction than I planned, but it’s sort of fascinating. So, you know, I always think that financial institutions actually have a very large say in which way the balance is going to tip even on small projects. Right. So, do financial institutions understand the need to innovate and do things a little differently?

AP: [00:10:47] That’s a good question, Eve. I think that the one of the things I’ve learned about the real estate industry is that people who control capital in real estate tend to be very risk averse. And so that makes it a very challenging industry to innovate. And I’ve wondered a lot like, why do we innovate better and faster and on quicker cycles for the companies that are making portable phone and tablet devices than we do on real estate? And I don’t think I know all the answers. But one thing that’s occurred to me is that if you’re a developer, maybe even more to the point, if you’re a major investor and certainly if you’re a contractor, you’re making in any given fiscal year, you’re making a few big bets. You’re not diversified across a ton of retail customers and you’re not diversified across a ton of customer relationships. And a lot of times those relationships are not long term because you’re buying or selling a building. So, they’re more transactional and you’re making some pretty big bets where any one bet could tip the company upside down. And that’s true as much for the investors as it is if you’re a contractor for a general contractor, your company might be working on two or three projects. And if for some reason the customer can’t pay you or you have a huge cost overrun that you have to absorb, that can also tip the supply chain upside down. So, I think that’s made all financial participants in real estate more risk averse and then consequently has made it quite difficult to innovate.

Eve: [00:12:38] Yes.

AP: [00:12:38] And certainly to innovate in ways that someone is not requiring of you. Now, just to provide a little more optimistic note. I think that also a lot of really exciting examples of people who participate in real estate and who are very focused on de-risking projects, providing a good return to investors and who also figure out how to innovate or build better cities or have a better street front experience or better designed building or contribute to the civic environment in a lot of ways. But when I see that happen, it seems to be more driven by the passion of the individuals.

Eve: [00:13:22] Yes.

AP: [00:13:22] And they’re doing it as an and, in addition to satisfying their investors as opposed to it being the path of least resistance where it’s really happening at scale. Does that make sense as a distinction?

Eve: [00:13:35] Oh yeah, it makes absolute sense. I mean, my crowdfunding platform, SmallChange.co is actually where we have the tagline Build Better Cities is actually trying to fill in that innovation gap for real estate at a very small level. So I think, I mean, I’m completely frustrated by the lack of innovation in large financial institutions, and I see it, the larger the project, the more complex the financing, the bigger the chance you’re going to you’re going to be stalled or stymied by someone who doesn’t really understand yet what you’re doing. The more you have to weigh your work your way up a ladder with a creative project, the less likely it is to happen. And I learned that really early on as a developer doing small projects. If I could find a loan officer in a bank who would basically be my ally in front of the loan committee, I had a much better chance than if I went to a larger bank, where the person I was talking to was six steps removed from the loan community. Right.

AP: [00:14:49] Um hmm.

Eve: [00:14:50] So, there’s a lot lost in translation. And it’s almost like we need the entire financial system to be educated on the value of innovation. Yeah.

AP: [00:15:05] Yeah, I mean, I think what you’re driving at Eve, is maybe even a more fundamental question that I think a lot of people have been asking over the past couple of years and what our corporations for? Right? And, yes, they have a fiduciary duty to their investors or shareholders. But do they have other duties? Do they have duties to their employees? Do they owe a standard of care to the places they operate in? And some people who are very sort of traditional economists might say, no, no, the duty of a corporation is to its shareholders. But we do accept that that’s not the case in its entirety because we have regulations now that prevent some kinds of pollution. So, we do in our legal framework, have some reflection that the duty of a company is also to not desecrate its environment. But I think that there are a lot of people, many of them much more articulate than me, who are starting to ask these questions of how corporations operate in the world. And if they are sort of the the primary entity of how we organize economically, do we need to have more clarity about sort of what their obligations are to to place and people? Because I’ll just say one more thing about this. Companies are not real. They’re a made-up construct to allow people to organize and transact with each other. And so just like money, they’re kind of a made-up convention, but that humans have come up with. And I just will say it would really be a shame if a made-up convention wound up not really serving the public interest. And I think there’s some question right now about the framework for corporations and whether on the balance they are serving the public interest adequately.

Eve: [00:17:16] Yeah, yeah. So, you know, if you can talk about this, who are your clients? And I’d love to know a bit about what you’re working on.

AP: [00:17:26] Sure. So, about half the work that I do is still really kind of traditional development advisory work. So, the company that I worked for before, Touchstone, all of our projects were transit oriented developments. And this is something in which I believe really strongly and I’m a pretty committed environmentalist and really have done a lot of work on climate change policy and energy policy. And one of the things I love about working in cities is that cities have a much lower carbon footprint per capita per inhabitant than any other land use patterns. So, cities are off to a good start, certainly in that respect, and in particular cities that have robust transit infrastructure, whether it’s rail or the much less sexy but very useful bus, cities that have those kinds of infrastructure do even better on their carbon footprint per inhabitant. So there is a ton of value to serve for the planet and economically, it turns out, to building along transit. And one of the ways that this manifests economically is if you build a house near transit, you can start out by just building a house for the person and not have to build a house for the car before you get to building the house for the person.

Eve: [00:18:52] Right.

AP: [00:18:52] So that the lower need for parking around transit has the potential to really positively impact housing pricing and access to housing. So, I’ve been really mostly focused in the world of TOD and thinking about how do we build transit oriented development that also creates great cities that people love. We don’t want to build know so efficiently around transit that suddenly it becomes inhospitable or it’s not a nice place to walk around because at the end of the day, you also need people to want to and choose to live there. But a lot of the work I do now is working with landowners and developers to bring projects to fruition around transit and to think about how to attract capital to those projects. And so really kind of all the levers, the entitlements, the outreach to the community, the project capitalization, the design and construction, and thinking about how to pull all those pieces together into a successful project financially, but one that is also accretive to the community around it. And so that’s about half my work and then the other half of my work is with public entities, cities, but also transit agencies that are trying to think about how to catalyze or bring transit to fruition. And for me, it’s really fun to wear these two hats because I’ve had such a long-standing interest in the policy frameworks that shape development and getting to work with municipalities and agencies that influence those policies. It really is a way to both get to pick what plate goes on the front of the playdough tube and to help push capital through it.

Eve: [00:20:43] So is there a project that you’ve worked on that’s come to fruition that best exemplifies what you do?

AP: [00:20:51] Well, I think one of the most interesting opportunities and I’ve had a chance to work on in the last few years is working with the regional transit agency in Puget Sound. It’s called Sound Transit, and it operates some of the buses, but also all of the light rail system. And a few years ago, I think three or four years ago, there was a bond measure passed or a referendum passed across the tri-county area, which is the three counties that encompass Seattle and the surrounding areas. That was to fund light rail expansion to the tune of about 52 billion dollars. I think it’s the largest transit measure that’s ever been passed by voters in the United States. And what that means is that we’re really expanding our rail infrastructure and sort of the backbone of it into some areas that are not as urban today. And the first reaction to that would be, well, if it’s not very urban, why are you building light rail? But if you go back and think of examples of very successful transit systems, when New York City built its subway as it was building, this is one hundred years ago, as it was building up into the areas that are now the Bronx, it was building into farmland.

Eve: [00:22:14] Yes.

AP: [00:22:14] And so there was there was even fewer people around the transit stations and the stations ultimately influenced the land use pattern. And so there can be some very significant advantages to building infrastructure early and then letting the land you shape around this. And the counter example of what isn’t so great as we’ve seen that in the United States with our freeway system is that a lot of times freeways got built and then they subsidize development around them and then the freeways got clogged up. And now you’ve got people who theoretically have access, but not during large swaths of the daytime. And so light rail expansion is pretty exciting. But it also raises the question of what kind of development is going to come up around some of these stations, particularly in places that, like I mentioned, are not not even close to being an urban land use pattern. And one of the things that has been particularly interesting to observe is that there is a large appetite for TOD, or transit-oriented development of the flavor that shows up on the cover of the ULI magazine. And when I say that, I say it a little bit tongue in cheek, but sort of seven story multifamily over retail with the cute little bakery in the ground floor.

Eve: [00:23:37] And it’s a podium building. Right?

AP: [00:23:40] Right. But also, with these very cute little businesses and eight stories high and no parking. And the reality is, if you’re starting off, whether it’s the fields of the Bronx or an industrial zone on the outside of Seattle, you’re not going to get the cute little croissant bakery on day one. And what’s been interesting is to have the conversation with people about really successful cities don’t have a finish line. It’s not like you put in light rail and you get this prototype of development and then you’re done and it never changes. And if that was to happen, it would quickly become a dying city because it would be full and it would never change. And so thinking about cities as living organisms that are never finished and that sort of build on themselves has given us a bit of a framework. And I say us, kind of collectively as a team and a group of thinkers, that it’s allowed us to ask the question of what comes first and then what comes next and are there phases to zoning and are there phases to development? And how do we think about even interim land uses or interim land use patterns? And for me, this was very interesting because I had previously developed in quite dense urban areas that were very kind of urbanized. And so looking at what is it take in a place that is not yet really a compact, mixed use land pattern. What does it take to get that wheel started? And it’s also sort of forced a reckoning of like we’re not going to be done with the first set of development. It’s going to change over time. And how do we put ourselves in a mindset of evolution rather than a mindset of just getting to some arbitrary finish line?

Eve: [00:25:43] So, you know, the other thing is I just interviewed a guest who described developers as pale and male and, um, and, you know, he said, you know, we end up with pale and male looking developments because that’s who’s driving them. So as a woman in real estate, which is still shamefully a tiny minority, how do you view that? And what are some of the challenges you’ve encountered because of your gender?

AP: [00:26:19] I was very fortunate to join a development company where the three founders were white and male, but they were incredibly supportive of my career and the career of the folks on the team. And we were able to build, you know, not what would be a diverse team by some standards, but a diverse team by real estate standards. And I think as I moved into leadership of the company, I believe strongly that people need to be able to bring their whole selves to work. They they need to not feel that there’s only a little slice of them that is accepted at work, but that they can be themselves at work in all of their glory and all of the different sides of their personality and aptitudes and passions. And that if people do that on a team, the team will be more successful. Not only will it have the benefit of more talents and aptitudes and passions, but that people will share of themselves and speak up about things that are important to them and about things they’re worried about and about risks that might be emerging. and the team will be more successful as a result. And so the company that I was in was very good. I think the founders laid a good foundation for people bringing their whole selves to work. And I really tried to perpetuate that. I, I think that within the industry as a whole, Seattle has a lot of women leaders in real estate, but I gather that’s a bit less common in other parts of the country.

Eve: [00:28:14] Yes, definitely.

AP: [00:28:16] So I would say that I’ve been very fortunate to be in a place where my gender is less of an anomaly. That being said, you know, I wouldn’t really be in real estate if I hadn’t experienced some very awkward situations. And one that comes to mind is at some point, that was when I was running Touchstone and a lender came to our office and wanted to sort of pitch the, us on a relationship with them. And we had a meeting in our conference room and there was a couple of men from this lender organization. And I had a couple of the folks on my team with me. And the lenders would only talk to the two men who worked for me.

Eve: [00:29:01] Oh, AP, I’ve had the same experience, exactly the same experience.

AP: [00:29:05] Yeah. Even when I asked them a question, they wouldn’t look at me when they answered, and they would only look at the folks who worked for me. And so, you do realize that people’s biases about who is making the decisions or who’s in charge can be pretty deep and pretty hard to overcome, even with evidence to the contrary.

Eve: [00:29:25] Yeah, I know. Pretty crazy, huh? So, you know, real estate has become a bit of a dirty word, too, or developers, should I say. So you know, but we, you and I, know that building better cities really requires developers. So how can you make people feel comfortable that real estate development is a solution that will help them have better places to live in?

AP: [00:29:52] I think two answers that come to mind to that question, Eve. The first one is when a site in a neighborhood is being redeveloped, almost regardless of what was there before, people feel a sense of loss at the thing that is going away. Even if it’s a parking lot, they feel a sense of loss. And I’ve thought a lot about why that is, because sometimes the new thing that’s being proposed is actually quite cool. And my conclusion is that people can only love what they know, and they can’t love something that they’ve never encountered. And so, there is something very natural psychologically about people experiencing the moment of redevelopment as a sense of loss, even if 10 years down the road, they love the new things so much that they can’t imagine it ever going away. But I think that creates an obligation to us as developers to try to make the new thing lovable and delightful so that even if the community has a sense of loss at the moment of redevelopment, that they eventually are made whole again and that they love the new thing that came into their neighborhood. So that’s the first answer is we probably can keep as developers through our efforts, giving people new things to love. And the love will eventually catch up. But we shouldn’t fault people for feeling a sense of loss when they don’t know the new thing yet. And then the second answer is maybe a little less positive about human psychology. And it’s this. I think that when neighborhoods are redeveloping, there is a current of conversation that inevitably comes up that is about is it consistent with neighborhood character? Are we preserving neighborhood character? And I think it’s an interesting question to ask, but it’s rarely balanced against the question of are we making room for everyone who is an immigrant to our cities, who wants to have a chance at economic opportunity? And I think neighborhood character in at its worst can wind up being a foil for people to keep others out who are not like them in the name of some lovely sentimental concept. That’s not to say that developers shouldn’t do a good job and build beautiful buildings, because that’s the first part of what I was saying. But I do think that sometimes people who want to stop development, they want to seem like good liberals. And certainly San Francisco has their share of these. But at the same time, like these good liberals are preventing really decent people who want a crack at economic opportunity from having space in their city. And when we don’t make space for other people, we are doing them harm because cities are where economic opportunity resides in this country today. And it is not just a sin of omission to not make space for those people, but it is a sin of commission. And so, I think that sometimes disliking development can be a way for good liberals to make this idea of making space into the bogeyman. Like I don’t like what those developers did, but really what they mean is they don’t like that it’s hard to make space for others. And make no mistake, it is hard to make change and make space for others. But it is so imperative that in this country we figure out how to do that.

Eve: [00:33:45] Yeah, I agree. So I mean, I think that would have been, I suppose, my third point, and that is that some people take easily to change and other people have a very hard time with it. And I remember someone showing me a bell curve with Prada at one end and, you know, a farmer at the other. And at the top of the curve was Walmart or Target. You know, when when that thing has been accepted into the the mainstream. And like, you know, I probably am at the Prada end and or maybe a little bit further up. Right. I can’t really afford Prada. But at the other end is probably my husband who doesn’t really, like, change. He like things being the same. And so I think that that’s, you know, you’re going to have a whole range of people to deal with who, who can move with the times or not, I suppose.

AP: [00:34:46] Yeah. I mean, our cities are the way they are because of a lot of historic framework, some of which are pretty ugly. And redlining is at the top of the list. But there are a lot of structural things built into our land use pattern that are fundamentally about excluding other people. And so, I think we do have an imperative to change because the way we have been is not just.

Eve: [00:35:16] Yeah, I agree. So I’m going to shift gears a bit and ask you about what innovation are you watching that you might think about in future projects or that you think is essential to watch?

AP: [00:35:29] I’d love to say mass timber because I’m working on a mass timber project, but that also feels incredibly clichéd because everybody is working on  mass timber project these days, it seems like. You know, here’s one that is a little weird. If I am going back to this concept, we talked a lot about very suburban neighborhoods or even sort of industrial or undeveloped exurban areas that are urbanizing because of transit. I become very interested in the idea of grouping surface parking so that you can have compact development and buy compact, I mean, two or three story apartments that come right up to the street or row houses with a shared backyard, but that none of the structures that house people would have parking in them, the parking would be sort of getting together either a street parking or angle parking on the street or in a parking lot at the end of the block. And the advantage of ganging together the street, sorry, ganging together the parking, the surface parking is people then have a place to put their car during the period where they need a car because the neighborhood is transitioning, but the parking being aggregated in one place as surface parking, also allows it to be potentially shared with other buildings as it’s not needed so much, or maybe even in the very long term, redeveloped if it’s not needed at all.

Eve: [00:37:04] I love that idea.

AP: [00:37:04] And I have not seen that many places that are doing this. But I am having more and more conversations with cities who are starting to explore this and starting to understand that their right of way or the street is an asset that can be used for lots of things, including maybe having some parking for a period of time until it’s needed less. And that the city’s using the right of way in such a way can help stimulate development and sort of the nascent stages of urbanization around the station. So to me, that’s a really exciting idea.

Eve: [00:37:39] Oh, yeah. And it goes further because if you have a four-lane road, eventually you hope you can reduce the size of the road and that frees up even more land, right? So you get rid of cars.

AP: [00:37:51] Yeah. I don’t know if you need to totally get rid of them, but they’re useful. If you need to go to the Petco and get a hundred-pound bag of dog food, but you certainly don’t need them quite as much as we use them. I did an interesting project a couple of years ago with a community in North Seattle. This was really a grassroots community project that was funded by research and environmental organization called the Bullet Foundation in Seattle. And we took a right-of-way that was really underutilized in a neighborhood that didn’t have a lot of public space. And we created a way to close it during certain periods and also to narrow it and put in community gardens. And we painted the street and we had festivals and what was really sort of a block and a half of city street came to take a much more park like function, but a park that was really active and that gave people a destination to gather within the neighborhood during the summer. And so, it’s made me think a lot about that sort of 20 or 23 percent of of city space that is the right of way. And what are all the public purposes we can put it to?

Eve: [00:39:05] Yes. So, one last question for you. What’s your big, hairy, audacious goal?

AP: [00:39:13] I think that one of the things that I am most focused on and sort of the arc of my life is making the difference that I can on climate change, and it probably is a hairy, audacious goal because there are so many headwinds. We have a system of living and commerce and interacting with each other that depends tremendously on fossil fuel use. And so, it’s very, very hard to change those patterns. I have done work lobbying and on sort of carbon taxes and regulatory frameworks for energy use. And in addition to that, I think maybe the more promising, I’ve written a book about this, the more promising strategy is probably to give people a better way that they love more and to to delight people with an option that is more carbon efficient. And that’s probably the root of my interest in cities, because I think cities can bring people opportunity and they can also bring freedom and joy and not just economic opportunity, but sort of opportunity to live your potential and be your best self, and they provide a lot of flexibility for people to grow into their identities. And so, I think those kinds of things do bring joy. And if we can shape cities so that they continue to lower the carbon footprint per capita, but in ways that people embrace because it’s better than the old way, that maybe seems like the biggest potential for change. And I feel like I can only do a small part of that. But it’s a very exciting place to work.

Eve: [00:41:24] Well, thank you very much for the conversation. I love your upbeat take on real estate and especially the idea of delighting people. That’s a great way of looking at it. I can’t wait to see what comes next.

AP: [00:41:37] Thanks a lot, Eve. It was a pleasure talking with you.

Eve: [00:41:47] That was AP Hurd. Her mantra these days is livable and delightful. An inquiring and eclectic background led AP to where she is today, an in-demand consultant solving very large real estate challenges, all focused on sustainability. Not a straight path, but a very rewarding one. You can find out more about this episode on the Show Notes page at EvePicker.com, or you can find other episodes you might have missed, or you can show your support at Patreon.com/rethinkrealestate, where you can learn about special opportunities for my friends and followers. A special thanks to David Allardice for his excellent editing of this podcast and original music. And thanks to you for spending your time with me today. We’ll talk again soon. But for now, this is Eve Picker signing off to go make some change.

Image courtesy of Touchstone

Women building collective muscle.

April 14, 2021

Libby Seifel‘s life is built around big causes. She has spent much of it professionally focused on affordable housing and much of it personally focused on women. Libby’s interest in housing came about when she lived through gentrification in her own neighborhood in Boston. There she saw her own godmother pushed out of her apartment into distressed public housing, and that convinced her that mixed-income housing was a far better solution. She went on to get degrees at MIT in Planning and Urban Studies and became the founding Executive Director of Tent City Corporation, a nonprofit developer of a ULI (Urban Land Institute) award winning, mixed-income housing development in downtown Boston.

Since the 1990s, Libby has run her own consulting firm, advising public and private clients on projects where sustainability and social equity are pursued in equal measure alongside strong financial returns. And she has worked in every part of the Bay Area: Transbay Transit District, Mission Bay, Mission Rock and Hunters Point Shipyard, as well as South San Francisco’s Oyster Point, Mountain View’s North Bayshore and Novato’s Hamilton Field.

When she started out in the 1980s, she says mixed-income housing and sustainable development were considered somewhat of an “oddball” concept. Now she says, they’re widely accepted as good planning. Libby is also the founder of the Women’s Development Collaborative – a network of women leaders doing transformative real estate developments. After more than 30 years in the industry, Libby notes that she is no longer the only woman in the room, and that some of the biggest new projects in the Bay Area are being driven by women.

Insights and Inspirations

  • Libby hopes that Women’s Development Collaborative will become a place where women build collective muscle.
  • If you want change, you need to become involved, or start the process yourself.
  • It can’t be said enough. Women need to support women in every field. Things have gotten better, but we are not there yet. And education and the sharing of our learned experiences with other women is critical.

Information and Links

  • The Women’s Development Collaborative is a network of women leaders who inspire, promote and support women who lead transformative real estate developments.
  • The ULI San Francisco Housing the Bay is a multi-year initiative to find new solutions to overcome the Bay Area’s housing challenges and ensure more people have access to housing that is safe, healthy, sustainable and affordable.
  • Two amazing projects Libby has worked on: The redevelopment of Mission Bay and the Transbay Transit Center District, which have both created mixed income, transit oriented neighborhoods in the heart of San Francisco.
Read the podcast transcript here

Eve Picker: [00:00:15] Hi there, thanks for joining me on Rethink Real Estate. I’m on a mission to make real estate work for everyone. Real estate can help to solve climate change, can house people affordably, can create beautiful streetscapes, unify neighborhoods and enliven cities. So I’m on a journey to find the most creative thinkers and doers out there. I’m not the only one who wants to rethink real estate. You can learn more about me at EvePicker.com or you can find me at SmallChange.co, a real estate crowdfunding platform with impact real estate investment opportunities open for investment right now. And if you want to support this podcast, join me at Patreon.com/rethinkrealestate, where there are special opportunities for my friends and followers.

Eve: [00:01:29] Today, I’m talking with Libby Seifel. Libby’s life is built around big causes. She has spent much of it professionally focused on affordable housing and much of it personally focused on women. Libby’s interest in housing came about when she lived through gentrification in her own neighborhood in Boston. There she saw her own godmother pushed out of her apartment into distressed public housing, and that convinced her that mixed income housing was a far better solution. She went on to get degrees at MIT in Planning and Urban Studies and became the founding Executive Director of Tent City Corporation, a non-profit developer of a ULI, award winning, mixed income housing development in downtown Boston. At that time, mixed income housing and sustainable development were considered somewhat of an oddball concept, says Libby. Now they’re widely accepted as good planning. And then she founded her own firm. She was the only woman in the room when she started her career. Today, that has changed a little, but not nearly enough for Libby, who has founded a quickly growing women’s development collaborative to support women developers. I’m a member of the Women’s Development Collaborative, so I’ve seen firsthand the strength of Libby’s focus. If you’d like to join me in my quest to rethink real estate, there are two simple things you can do. Share this podcast or go to Patreon.com/rethinkrealestate to learn about special opportunities for my friends and followers and subscribe, if you can.

Eve: [00:03:32] Libby, I’m really happy to talk with you today. Thanks for joining me.

Libby Seifel: [00:03:38] Thank you.

Eve: [00:03:39] So I’ve known you for quite some time. I was trying to remember how long that was, but I just couldn’t. It’s been a long time. But still, I was really surprised when I read your resume and you’ve done so much and there’s probably more that you haven’t talked about, which I’m hoping we’re going to talk about today. But I wanted to start with a quote I read that you were going to be a doctor and and I’m wondering what happened.

Libby: [00:04:07] That’s interesting story. So, I think what happened was that I got really, really interested in urban planning and I was actually talking with somebody about this recently that I had the great fortune of having Lewis Mumford as one of my professors, my freshman year in college. And I was coincidentally reading The City and History, which is his famous book. And he was such a wonderful storyteller and really conveyor of what was going on in the earlier part of the 20th century with respect to thinking about what cities could be and how they could be. And so he looked at it both historically and as a visionary, and he was very dedicated to sustainable development. About having development that was holistic, where people could walk to, walk in their communities to the grocery store where they could live together.

Eve: [00:05:16] And that was before this was the thing, right?

Libby: [00:05:18] This was before it was a thing. This was, yeah, it was. I mean, there’s, we can talk about the criticism and there are pieces about the movement that he was part of that was very white focused. So I want to just say that up front. And I understand and and that but this sort of it was kind of the city beautiful, but it was really more country beautiful movement. He lived for it pretty much his whole life after he moved out of New York City, in Amenia, New York, which is an absolutely beautiful part of New York. And if you’ve never driven up the Hudson Valley, it is absolutely exquisite. And Amenia is off the Hudson Valley inland. And it’s a beautiful farming community near the border of Connecticut and on, coincidentally, a rail line that goes into New York City.

Eve: [00:06:11] I’ve been on that train. It’s fabulous.

Libby: [00:06:13] You’ve been on that train. So you know what I’m what I’m talking about. So, and my uncle’s an architect, so my mother never wanted me to be an architect or an urban planner, which is what I am now. She wanted me to be a doctor and specifically she wanted me to be an ophthalmologist. So I was like, no, but I love visual arts and I love visual science. And I actually studied that. So alongside of studying urban planning, I studied neurophysiology and urban, just a lot of urban studies. And and I prepared to be a doctor. And I finally convinced my mom that if I got a master’s in urban planning alongside of my undergraduate degree, I’d be so much more competitive to be a doctor. So, so that’s the funny story. But on a more serious note, I was able to study with Dr. Land at Polaroid on visual art and visual science. And I have a very deep appreciation for the arts and colors in particular. And I like the idea of creating a colorful world where we all can participate and be part of this. You know, it’s the utopic view, but my life is really dedicated to making the world a better place. That’s what I try to do.

Eve: [00:07:41] That’s wonderful.

Libby: [00:07:41] And I think Lewis Mumford and people like him are just very inspirational to us in this field.

Eve: [00:07:50] You were lucky.

Libby: [00:07:50] And I wouldn’t really be here without him. And then actually the other clincher to all of this was that – it’s a story that kind of leads into my career – is that I moved to Boston, I went to school in Cambridge at MIT, and I moved to Boston with my college roommate, who’s now still a very good friend of mine and a real estate developer and investor. And we moved into the South End neighborhood of Boston, which is a really incredible neighborhood now. And then when we moved in there, it was a neighborhood very much in transition and it was a neighborhood very affected by urban renewal. And these were the times when wholesale displacement of people occurred, where they were moved out of their homes. Where a vibrant neighborhood that had been very colorful and dynamic, was changed through urban renewal, and the community had been promised development as part of their protests against urban renewal. They had formed a tent city in protest to say we did not want to be moved. And a group of folks reenacted this tent city event, this demonstration, and I was coincidentally in college at the time and was at a studio that was dedicated to working on studying this site called Tent City, which was the site where this protest had occurred. And so I took the studio and I was forever transformed. I got very involved with the community. I was living there. We really wanted to make this housing happen. We wanted it as mixed income housing. We wanted it to be a resource for the people who have been displaced in the community. And we wanted it to be a place where people of all income levels could live together in a great, absolutely great site in Boston, right next to that Back Bay Station, which ultimately got built. I mean, that’s part of my whole history, but ultimately got built with that vision and that dedication of that group of people totally transformed my life.

Eve: [00:10:14] And that also got a ULI award, right?

Libby: [00:10:17] It did. It did. It got a ULI award. And it is great to visit. It’s right next to Copley Place. There’s a whole story about Copley Place. We could talk about later if you wanted, but it’s next door to Copley Place. It’s next door to Back Bay Station, which is where the Amtrak station is and the light rail. And it’s also next door to the moved underground railway that used to be an elevated railway, a streetcar through Boston, through the South End in a southern part of the South End which was then put into an underground tunnel. And on top of it is the most amazing set of community gardens.

Eve: [00:10:57] Yes, I’ve been in them. They’re stunning.

Libby: [00:10:58] You’ve been in them. And the walkway…

Eve: [00:11:01] That was the Big Dig, right?

Libby: [00:11:02] Yeah, well, it’s not the Big Dig, but the Big Dig is amazing. The Big Dig is over by the waterfront of Boston. This is actually in the Back Bay, South End, part of Boston. It’s the orange line. And you wouldn’t know because you’re going underneath it if you’re riding it. But it is on top of it. There are these amazing community gardens.

Eve: [00:11:25] The gardens are gorgeous.

Libby: [00:11:27] Yeah.

Eve: [00:11:27] Including, you know, community vegetable gardens.

Libby: [00:11:31] Exactly and each neighborhood block actually participated in the design of each garden and walkway at the end of their block. Another mentor and person that got me into this was Ken Kirkmeyer, who lived in the South End, who was the President of Tent City Task Force. And he was actually the project manager that spearheaded this project and worked with the neighbors to create this marvelous place to walk the South End corridor.

Eve: [00:12:04] So Boston and all that really formed your professional path. And where did that lead you? Where are you now?

Libby: [00:12:12] So I now live in San Francisco, across the country.

Eve: [00:12:18] Very different.

Libby: [00:12:20] Yes. But I think sister cities. We’re on the water. We have a long history of progressive politics. Though, it’s quite different out here than it is in Boston and a very, very strong set of values when it comes to preserving history, to recognize the importance of neighborhoods and community and thoughtfulness about design. A lot of architects and designers. In fact, when I when I was making the decision to leave Boston and come out here, I can’t tell you how many people told me not to come because there’s way too many planners out here, urban planners and architects and real estate economists. And it was going to be very hard to move, unfortunately, chose the time to move, which was one of the recessionary times we had across the industry. But it all worked out and I love it here. It’s a beautiful city and the Bay Area is an absolutely lovely place to be. And there are so many challenges and I thrive on challenges. So there are so many urban challenges in the Bay Area to work on.

Eve: [00:13:34] What sort of challenges? What do you work on?

Libby: [00:13:36] Well, first, you know, like in Boston, but even worse, the cost of housing is just phenomenal out here and out of reach of so many people. And it exacerbates the haves and the have nots. So that’s a big challenge that I work on a lot, both as a volunteer and in my profession. It’s also that we have we have to be very conscious of sea level rise, much of the Bay area is on water, as it makes sense, we’re on the bay. We’re on the ocean, San Francisco straddles the Pacific Ocean and the San Francisco Bay. And so, we’re virtually surrounded by water on three sides. And we have the possibility of our downtown in San Francisco being underwater in the not-too-distant future. The history of San Francisco, like Boston, there’s a lot of the city is on fill. We have natural hills that we took down, many of them to build fill, and we filled in a lot of the areas that when you come to visit San Francisco and you’re walking around that land used to be either marshland or ocean, very deep ocean or bay. So actually bay, not ocean, but through the ocean, water intrudes. So that’s a big challenge. We also have earthquakes. Just to keep things interesting. So that shakes us up every once in a while. And we’re at risk of an earthquake, particularly in the East Bay, happening again. So we have to be very conscious of resilience in so many ways. So that makes our our life challenging. And we have we have it’s an absolute blessing and a curse. As many people say, we have the most amazing set of folks in technology. I mean, many of whom are M.I.T. alums and Stanford alums who have formed this tech corridor and biotech corridor that we have all through the through the Bay Area Peninsula and Silicon Valley, which is absolutely amazing and makes our economy incredibly strong and robust. And California’s incredibly strong and robust. But alongside of that, it ends up pushing up the price of land and the price of development so it can make it very hard for small businesses to be successful. Sometimes small retail businesses, the rents can get very expensive. That can make it more difficult for them. So, we have a lot of challenges.

Eve: [00:16:18] So how does that like, how does that color the work that you do? You now have your own company, right? And you do consulting work? And is it mostly around affordable housing or what challenges do you confront in that work?

Libby: [00:16:33] Great question. So, I do a lot more than affordable housing work, but my passion and heart is around affordable housing. I just want to say on one of my volunteer efforts, because I want people to know about this, I’m the co-chair of the Utilized San Francisco Housing the Bay Steering Committee, and we are dedicated to promoting and producing more housing in the Bay Area through our work. And we have an upcoming summit that’s happening June 2nd, 3rd and 4th. This will be our fourth summit that we’ve had where we bring together a very diverse group of speakers from around the world and the United States to talk about the Bay Area’s housing situation, but also more generally, the housing situation across the United States and what are great strategies and tools and best practices that we can use to improve our housing situation. Which includes building all types of housing for all types of people. It’s very invigorating to be part of the housing the Bay effort. And this summit always inspires me every year to do more. And in my practice, I work with a lot of cities and developers that are dedicated to building affordable housing and mixed income housing, which is even tougher to do. Tent City was able to hit the timing right with the funding and the commitment by the city to make that mixed income housing development happen. And it had a unique location, but it’s been it’s very difficult to get the funding together and the financing that is necessary to do mixed income housing at scale. We do have a strong inclusionary housing set of regulations, but here in many cities in the Bay Area, so we do a lot of work and inclusionary housing, which means that a portion of housing is restricted for occupancy or dedicated to occupancy by persons of usually very low, low and moderate income, which is HUD speak is federal housing agency speak for people that earn typically less than the rest of us or about the same.

Eve: [00:19:05] Critical for the function of the city, right?

Libby: [00:19:08]  Right.

Eve: [00:19:09] Often service workers and …

Libby: [00:19:11] Essential workers, yep.

Eve: [00:19:12] And people who keep places going.

Libby: [00:19:15] Yep, exactly.

Eve: [00:19:17] If they live too far out, then those places are not going to work anymore.

Libby: [00:19:20] Exactly. Exactly. And trying to figure out how to do this with the private market. So I work a lot on the private market side. I’m the number cruncher behind the scenes and the strategist trying to work on these projects. And so, we’re constantly trying to thread the needle to figure out how can we keep the private market still building housing while including housing for more people of a greater and more diverse set of backgrounds and incomes?

Eve: [00:19:54] Yeah, it’s a really big challenge.

Libby: [00:19:58] It’s really big.

Eve: [00:20:00] Well, I want to shift gears a little bit, because I also know about another one of your passions, which is also very close to my heart. And that is how to increase the visibility of women in the real estate industry, in particular real estate developers. And so I’ve kind of watched you over the years put together a little group that’s become the Women’s Development Collaborative, and it isn’t so little anymore. And I wanted to talk about that. Where did this come from? Why did you start it?

Libby: [00:20:35] That’s a great question. I guess I mentioned the Urban Land Institute or ULI earlier, and I’ve been a member of ULI now for, realizing it’s been three decades or more. It’s an organization that’s dedicated to advancing development across the world, globally, and since I’ve been involved for so many years. When I first got involved, I was often the youngest person in the room and many of these national conferences, and I was often the only woman or one of the few women. And it was very important to me to find, I guess, soul sisters or wise women in this industry. It had been a struggle in my career at different I know, right, to be the only woman. And it was definitely…

Eve: [00:21:31] I was the only woman developer in Pittsburgh for quite a while. So, I …

Libby: [00:21:35] Yeah. You were? Well, and Eve, I don’t know if you remember this, but how we met was we were at a conference for the Women Presidents Organization in San Francisco.

Eve: [00:21:47] Yes.

Libby: [00:21:47] Many, many years ago, and you and I both were involved in that. And that’s an organization that’s dedicated to women entrepreneurs and building capacity. It’s a peer-based group. It actually also inspired the Women’s Development Collaborative. So it’s worth talking about for a minute in case anybody on the line, a woman entrepreneur, it’s a great group.

Eve: [00:22:09] It’s a great group.

Libby: [00:22:09] But what was incredibly funny was there’s this entire ballroom, one of San Francisco’s largest ballrooms, with tables all across it on a Saturday morning with signs on it of like, you know, are you in consumer affairs? Are you in you know? I don’t know. Do you do retail product, apparel, whatever? But all across the room, everything. There was one table in real estate, and it was at the table. You and I, we were the only ones at the table.

Eve: [00:22:40] And it’s really not a whole lot different today, Libby. What really scares me.

Libby: [00:22:49] It’s true. It’s true. So, I mean, it’s better, we’re working very hard at ULI. So the origin story of the Women’s Development Collaborative goes back to these times. And ULI, which still often continue but have gotten better because a number of women that were part of this informal network of wise women, soul sisters that came together to meet on a regular basis at the spring and fall meetings of ULI, which are national meetings when we get together across the country. And we would meet, whether it was for dinner or breakfast or whatever, and we would share ideas about development and best practices and what we were doing. And one of my mentors, she said to me, well, you need to we need to do something more than this. Like these women’s receptions in these gatherings are fine, but we need to actually make a difference. We need to improve leadership. And so a number of us got together and helped form what’s now called the Women’s Leadership Initiative, or WLI within ULI, which is dedicated to advancing women’s leadership in the entire real estate industry. And that’s been phenomenal and that’s gone on since 2012. And again, anyone in the real estate industry should follow that because WLI is wonderful. But at the same time, there we had this niche group that was really focused on development and we recognize that development itself, which is part of the entire landscape of real estate, that you needed support and nurturing and showcasing. And so we started to alongside of the WLI activities, I continue to organize with a lot of other women, events around this spring and fall meetings where we would showcase women developers. We’d go tour their projects, we hear from them, we learn from them. And it’s just been so inspiring to see these projects.

Eve: [00:25:02] It really has been.

Libby: [00:25:03] And then we had to go virtual because there was no Toronto meeting. And so now we’re online. So, you can find us at the Women’s Development Collaborative online. And we are really trying to build our presence across the United States and Canada. We have a number of women involved from Canada to really promote and advance women’s success, leadership, innovation and collaboration and building transformative developments.

Eve: [00:25:35] I need to tell you, like I I was also a member of ULI for many years, and then I stopped my membership because I really didn’t feel like I belonged there, for a couple of reasons. One was the whole woman thing. But also, I was working on quirky, small interstitial urban projects. And when I was a member of ULI just there was there was nothing there was no one talking about that. So I stopped attending. And actually, when you started inviting me to the Women’s Development Collaborative meetings was when I decided to join again because I finally felt like there was sort of a space emerging for developers like myself. That and the small-scale development group, which has been also pretty wonderful to see emerge. But I think…

Libby: [00:26:28] Yes, yes.

Eve: [00:26:29] Times are very different, but it is incredibly inspiring what you’re doing and you have a lot of stick-to-it-ness. And it’s also very frustrating to see how slowly things have changed. I mean, what do you think about that, for women? It’s very slow.

Libby: [00:26:43] Yeah, it is really slow, but it is it is getting better bit by bit. You know, it is, I was looking at some data and it is it is improving, but it is very, very hard. And it’s I think that, you know, I, I think that a couple of things that we have to think about and think about deeply, which is that in addition particularly to the history of African-Americans in the United States and their inability to first secure and hold property or even keep property right after the civil war. Property was actually stolen away from them, it was often stolen away back from Native Americans as well. So, we have had a history in our country of not respecting and honoring property for persons of color. But at the same time, when we think about the history and it’s not just of the United States it’s of the world, women were not allowed to own property. And it also varied state by state. And I believe it still does. And a lot of states that there are different rules that make it very hard for women to hold property or to transact. So it’s not just discrimination in the sense of how you show up. Like if you’re a woman, you’re obviously different as you enter a room, but it’s also the rules by which we play. So getting through the those rules…

Eve: [00:28:21] Not just the rules, but the culture that those rules perpetuate,

Libby: [00:28:25] Yeah, and the culture.

Eve: [00:28:25] Because even if there are no rules there, you know, I have to say I, I own a small portfolio of buildings and I have two female bankers to thank for it. Without them, I would not own that portfolio of buildings, which is really an extraordinary thing to say, right?

Libby: [00:28:44] It is. It is. And, you know, that’s part of what WDC is trying to work on. I mean, we have we have a lot of ambitions and it’s and it’s hard to even figure out what to prioritize because there’s so many challenges. But alongside of really promoting women developers, we want to expand women in the workforce and the development supply chain for developments because of exactly what you said, that we need more women bankers. We need more women equity investors. I mean, that’s something we want to talk about, right? That that women just aren’t investing as much as men.

Eve: [00:29:24] Oh yeah, women investors. Why do women not invest? I don’t understand.

Libby: [00:29:32] Well, and I think it’s I think there’s a history of this. Like I think there’s an education process. I mean, that’s partly what WDC is a big part of our mission is to educate. But I’m now recognizing it’s not just educating and building up women developers like educating ourselves about each other or, you know, the service providers, introducing them to women developers. It’s also about educating the broader community. I was listening to your podcast with Stephanie Gripne and I absolutely loved the conversation that you had about the fact that in essence, you know, part of this is a perception issue that if we think about it, everyone is an investor, as Stephanie said. She said when we make a choice to buy, she used buy milk. That was her analogy. When we buy milk, we make a conscious choice whether we’re realizing that it’s conscious or not, that we’re using milk. We’re choosing a type of milk that’s sold by a certain company. And we may be choosing it based on price, but we may be choosing it based on the fact that we recognize the farms or the farms where it came from. Or in these days, we might be making a choice not to buy cow milk. We might be buying almond milk or soy milk, and we may be looking at how that was grown. So we have to, I think women are the biggest consumers in our country. So struck by this, after I listened to that podcast, that we are the ones that we lead the buying. If you look at all the consumer surveys, women are the buyers in our society. We are the retail shoppers. We love to shop. We do comparison shopping, et cetera, et cetera. We need to learn as women how to do the same thing with real estate investment. We need to get educated about it, it’s it’s a much different world than buying milk, but at the same time it is it is how the milk is, where the milk sits right in our society, these buildings.

Eve: [00:31:49] What’s interesting to me, if I think about researching where milk comes from, so I can make an informed decision, that makes my brain hurt compared to understanding a real estate project and what I might invest in. So I think it’s partly what you’re trained in, what you learn, how you’re educated. It’s not I don’t think it’s harder to do. It’s just different.

Libby: [00:32:12] Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, you’re absolutely right. It’s it’s not harder to do. It’s just different. But we’re not educated in it. I mean, I don’t know how you feel about this, but I never learned really what I do today. Like when I was in school, they didn’t teach me what I what I practice right now. I learned real estate by reading books, honestly.

Eve: [00:32:39] Oh. How did I learn Securities Law? Yes, yeah.

Libby: [00:32:46] Yeah, exactly. Like reading books so and getting educated in it. And now I mean I’m grateful. I’m able to teach, I’m teaching now at UC Berkeley. I’m a lecturer part time, but I just absolutely love being able to teach. And what I recognize is I teach public private partnerships, which is a lot of my work is how to get the public in the private sector to work together, whether it’s on a deal that the public sector is sponsoring or whether it’s just a deal a private developer wants to do. And they need the support of the public sector, which is pretty much every project ever.

Eve: [00:33:24] Yes, that’s right.

Libby: [00:33:26] Especially in the Bay Area. If you don’t have public support, you’re not going to get your project. And what I recognize is there are so there are so few classes that actually teach people how to do this and how to do it well or how to do real estate development and how to do it well. Luckily, ULI has offers a lot. And as you said, the you know, the small scale development council, that they focus on that and have some great trainings through ULI. But it is not something that is taught to the average person. It’s not like we go to school and we learn about how buildings are built.

Eve: [00:34:03] Right.

Libby: [00:34:03] And so I think we have to start to educate the general population and in our case with the women’s development, collaborative women in particular, and including women in our field, because what I’m even finding out is through the WDC, I’ve been asking women like, do you invest in real estate? And the answer is often is pretty much no, we don’t we don’t know. We don’t know how to do it. We don’t understand it. So that’s a mission for someone in our and where…

Eve: [00:34:39] I can sense a class coming along that you and I can conduct.

Libby: [00:34:43] Exactly. I’m so excited about this. I really want to do this, Eve this spring or summer. I want to do a class in how to invest in real estate and why. It’s like how to invest in real estate and why should we care and why should we do it. And I think it’s critical.

Eve: [00:35:01] Yeah, it’s also something else about real estate, you know, that I think over the last few decades, everyone’s been trained to think about quick returns. And real estate isn’t that. You just have to think about the long haul.

Libby: [00:35:19] Right.

Eve: [00:35:20] And I’m always stunned when I hear from people saying I invested there and they’re going to give me my money back in six months. Can I do that in real estate? And I’m like, no, what can you do in six months in real estate? It’s, it’s a different thought process.

Libby: [00:35:38] It’s absolutely a different thought process. And I also think that the real estate is much more long term in the investment horizon that many capital providers, meaning institutional and private investment capital, which is what fuels a lot of real estate development in the United States and across the world. It is usually focused on five-to-seven-year time horizons. And in terms of equity investment, a lot of the money that is coming in. So, their preference is that they can make their money back, they can get their money back and a return within a five-to-seven-year horizon. And that puts you on the one hand, it puts a certain discipline in the market, but it also means that it goes at counter purposes for, you know, the idea of patient capital, because buildings are they’re going to I mean, if we build them well, they should last for a very long time, if not forever, like they do in Europe. And some buildings have a lifetime. Kind of you think at a minimum of 50 years, if we’re doing a good job, that should be the minimum life and hopefully it’s much longer than that. So the time horizons have to be much longer. But as you said, you know, in many consumer markets, it’s a much shorter time horizon, six months or a year. It is just not it’s not realistic in real estate.

Eve: [00:37:15] Tell me, how much has WDC grown since you started it? How many members how many of your meetings and what do you do now that it’s covid-19.

Libby: [00:37:28] Right. Right. So so first of all, we are very much still a start-up organization. We’re reaching out to anyone that’s interested in joining, please Google Women’s Development Collaborative and reach out. Our organization has about I guess we have 400 to 500 women on our email list and our LinkedIn group now I think it’s around 300 people. So it’s still very much a growing group. Our meetings are intentionally intimate and small, usually 30 to 40, maybe 50 people, 50 women. We are intentionally keeping this focused on women. We are trying to think about how do we bring in men as allies, because that’s critical, particularly as we start to think about some of our next goals of what we want to do as an organization. But the goal of WDC is to really build our capacity and to create a safe space for us to as women, to be able to provide advice and guidance to other women and to be open about our deals and what we’re what we’re experiencing and to provide advice. So that’s the scale we’re at. And I think to myself, how big do we really want to be? Do we want to be another ULI? What is the scale that we really want to be at, and I and I think it’s a, it’s a question that we have to ponder as the group of us, because I think we cherish having the ability to know one another and to get to know one another. So, we want to keep that part of WDC alive because it’s so important to all of us.

Eve: [00:39:22] So this year, programming is changed because of the, at least last year, because of the pandemic.

Libby: [00:39:27] Yes.

Eve: [00:39:28] And I thought as I watched it, it was sort of an amazing opportunity. To move this group along a bit fast and not be reliant on ULI meetings twice a year and the people who can afford to show up there.

Libby: [00:39:42] Yes, yes, that’s true. It is. That is one thing about being online that we can provide better access to, just across the country and people can access it. We will definitely keep an online program, even if we could hopefully go back to meeting in person, maybe even as early as this fall in Chicago at ULI. But what we what we have right now are a series of programs that we’ve been evolving. You do such an amazing job at Small Change in branding. I’ve learned so much from you about this.

Eve: [00:40:23] Thank you.

Libby: [00:40:24] And really, it’s incredible. And one of the programs that we have very much inspired by you and this podcast, though I didn’t even know when I when I was first thinking about it, I didn’t even realize you were on this podcast quest. And then when I started talking with you, you actually agreed to be the first person to participate. And it’s called In Conversation with Developer. So, it was in conversation with the developer, Eve Picker. And we’ve done a series of these. And each conversation is just so fascinating like this. Your podcast about how did the women make the decisions they did to be developers, who has provided them support along their way, etc. So those have been really, really inspiring. We also have these project forums that are dedicated to helping women developer and emerging developer present the challenges that she’s facing regarding her development project and receive advice from a panel of seasoned professionals to help her overcome these challenges. And thankfully, Eve, you also participated on one of those project forums as well, were you able to be part of a panel to provide advice? We call it kind of instead of a shark tank. It’s a guppy tank. It’s a place it’s a safe space where people can feel comfortable and really get honest advice about how to move forward. So, we’ve had several of those. We’ve we’re doing three this year. We’ve had three already last year in the year before. So, we’re building our program there. So, if anyone out there is an emerging developer, that’s an option for you to consider. And then I’m just going to do one other program. We have a number of others. But the other one I want to talk about is the investment forum, because this is where tying to our discussion earlier, we are really trying to build our collective muscle to invest in and advance successful development partnerships. And that investment forum is featuring conversations with women developers and investors about how deals are done. And it’s actually a learning experience for developers and potential investors. So that’s what we’re dedicated on. And that’s the program where I really want us to collaborate on thinking about how. How can we get more women in the investment world?

Eve: [00:43:03] Yes, that’s critical. So what are some potential strategies you’re thinking about for promoting investment or encouraging women to invest?

Libby: [00:43:16] So we’ve been working on an investment framework that’s a gender lens framework for how we could evaluate investments in women led developments. And that’s been a process. We’ve been very informed by the Small Change metrics and thinking about how crowdfunding could be a potential tool to encourage investment in women led developments. But we also realized that we needed to define what we meant by women led development, and we needed to think about the whole ecosystem, like I talked about earlier, about all the women that could contribute to it. So we’re focusing right now on WDC taking on four dimensions of activities to empower women developers to expand economic opportunity, which means expanding women in the workforce and the development supply chain, as we talked about earlier, expanding access to capital. So building on the same theme. So, both getting women, individual women investors to invest in real estate, but also just to promote investment more broadly from men and women and institutional corporations in development. And then we want to make sure that these developments benefit women and communities, and so we’ve come up with a set of principles and you and I speak. There’s a lot of 10 principles books. So, we have 10 principles of transformative development that benefit women and communities. And we’re using these four criteria, these four activities, as a way to measure women developers and their development to provide recommendations. So the screening process to provide recommendations to women and to men about developments that they may invest in. So, four lenses are women in leadership in development, women in the supply chain and workforce, women capital providers and benefiting women and communities. And out of these criteria, we developed 10 questions. We spent a long time actually refining these 10 questions that really it was more like 15. We refined it went through a number of rounds. And what’s really been great is we had this whole community of women developers who’ve beta tested this scoring process a lot. And you were one of them. So, thank you so much, Eve.

Eve: [00:45:53] It’s great.

Libby: [00:45:54] Women from around the country and we learned a lot through this beta testing. And we think we have an investment framework that can work alongside of the Small Change index and other crowdfunding platform.

Eve: [00:46:09] And other ESG indices, right? Like…

Libby: [00:46:13] Yes.

Eve: [00:46:13] It’s a very particular woman-centric real estate lens. It’s great.

Libby: [00:46:20] Yeah. And so what we’re hoping to do, our next step is that we are really trying to work on the strategies that are going to enable us as a small organization, you know, where can we make impact first and how can we make impact first? But our hope is to actually encourage some individual investment and crowdfunding investment in specific real estate developments that will be placed through this investment framework lens. That’s our first goal.

Eve: [00:46:52] It’s pretty big.

Libby: [00:46:54] It’s a big goal. It’s a really big goal.

Eve: [00:46:56] It’s a very big goal. So, I have to wrap up and I just have one final question for you, and that is, what are you most excited about right now?

Libby: [00:47:08] It’s so many things that I’m working on, but I think what I’m most excited about with WDC and my work generally is just the number of wonderful young and emerging women developers and and women who want to be developers. There is this community of women that are both really younger and older. It’s women who’ve been in their careers in real estate for a number of years. For example, a woman architect who’s decided that she wants to be a developer after having been leading her practice for a number of years and is actually her first project, is going to be building a building for herself and her community of professionals that she works with. So the building will be bigger than just her architectural practice. It will include others in it as well. And then younger women developers who are starting out, who are really interested in changing the world and in leading development companies. And it’s very exciting to talk to them and hear what they’re doing and how they’re going about it and trying to support them. We have another colleague that you and I know who is developing is working on a mixed use project in her community that is going to be transformative for that community, be a place where people can gather. And whereas she says one plus one can equal much more than that. And that’s Molly McCabe, who you’ve also interviewed here in your podcast.

Eve: [00:48:50] Yes.

Libby: [00:48:51] So I just thought that constantly inspires me to have to just have that sense that there is this community and this future of women in development that we can encourage and build upon, which is fabulous.

Eve: [00:49:06] Well, thank you so much for your time, Libby. I have really enjoyed our conversation and I’m going to be seeing a lot more of you.

Libby: [00:49:14] Yes, I’m looking forward to it. Thank you so much, Eve.

Eve: [00:49:32] That was Libby Seifel, Libby’s career has been one built from her heart. First, she worked on affordable housing concepts that were ground-breaking at the time, having witnessed firsthand how crushing gentrification and displacement can be. And now she is focused on the small number of women in the room. She has puzzled over the years, as have many of us, why there are so few women who take the leap into real estate investment and development. She intends for the Women’s Development Collaborative to be a safe place for women who are testing the waters to land. A place where they will be supported by their peers as they emerge as women developers. Please share this podcast so that more women learn about Libby and the Women’s Development Collaborative. You can find out more about this episode on the show notes page at EvePicker.com or you can find other episodes you might have missed or you can show your support at Patreon.com/rethinkrealestate, where you can learn about special opportunities for my friends and followers. A special thanks to David Allardice for his excellent editing of this podcast and original music. And thanks to you for spending your time with me today. We’ll talk again soon. But for now, this is Eve Picker signing off to go make some change.

Image courtesy of Seifel Consulting/Libby Seifel

« Previous Page
Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

sign up here

APPLY TO BE A PODCAST GUEST

More to See

Oculis Domes.

February 25, 2025

Bellevue Montgomery

February 11, 2025

West Lombard

January 28, 2025

FOLLOW

  • LinkedIn
  • RSS

Tag Cloud

Affordable housing Climate Community Creative economy Crowdfunding Design Development Environment Equity Finance FinTech Gentrification Impact Investing Mobility Offering Opportunity zones PropTech Technology Visionary Zoning

Footer

©rethinkrealestateforgood.co. The information contained on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this website is intended as investment, legal, tax or accounting strategy or advice, or constitutes an offer to sell, solicit or buy securities.
 
Any projections discussed or made may not be accurate and do not guarantee a specific outcome. All projections or investments are subject to risk due to uncertainty and change, including the risk of loss, and past performance is not indicative of future results. You should make independent decisions and seek independent advice regarding investments or strategies mentioned on this website.

Recent

  • Podcast hiatus.
  • The Mulberry
  • Mount Vernon Plaza
  • The Seven
  • Real estate and women.

Search

Categories

Climate Community Crowdfunding Development Equity Fintech Investing Mobility Proptech Visionary

 

Copyright © 2026 · Magazine Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in