• 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

Environment

Bridging the Gap.

May 24, 2021

“Even after retiring from the NFL, Seattle Seahawks players keep finding ways to give back to their community. Former offensive tackle Garry Gilliam and defensive tackle Jordan Hill, who have played football together for most of their lives, are uniting once again to create change in their hometown of Harrisburg, PA.” writes Samantha Sunseri for Yahoo Sports.

When Garry Gilliam retired from football, it was just the end of his first career. As a graduate with multiple degrees from Milton Hershey School and Penn State University, and with a thirst for knowledge and a passion to give back to his community, he launched a second career –  as founder and CEO of The Bridge. Not content with coaching youth football, his former colleague and good friend Jordan Hill also jumped on board as chief community officer.

With the Bridge they are building a ‘for-purpose’ real estate development company with the intention of acquiring unused properties such as malls, schools and warehouses and transforming them into inner-city mixed-use ‘eco villages’. Their focus is on cooperation, collaboration, and community. Sustainability will be achieved by residents being able to work, eat, learn, live, and play all in the same location. The first eco-village, in the former Bishop McDevitt High School, broke ground in late 2020 and they hope to open it to the public in 2022. The project will include affordable housing and spaces for entrepreneurs, entertainment, specialized learning and trade programs. Year-round food production is planned, using no-soil agricultural techniques such as hydroponics and aeroponics. 

The Bridge wants to address some of the challenges which many communities face and which have created systems of oppression for many Black Americans. They want to “span the tide…. that exists between the rich and the poor, the informed and the untaught, the entrepreneur and the everyday citizen.”

Listen to my interview with Garry Gilliam or read the original article here.

Images courtesy of The Bridge

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

Mass timber for the masses.

April 7, 2021

Scott Ehlert is the co-founder of Fabric Workshop, a company focused on low carbon, mass timber building technologies for California’s livable future. Scott is designing a proprietary hollow core mass timber plate, column, and wall system that uses 50% less wood fiber and will cost 10-35% less overall than for a CLT (cross laminated timber) structure. The system will also provide installation benefits like integrated MEP (mechanical, electrical, plumbing), acoustic insulation and fire performance. 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.

Scott’s background is an unlikely one for an entrepreneur in mass timber. He spent years in the  production and logistics management of concerts, private and corporate events, and national experiential marketing campaigns before pivoting to system design strategies that leveraged research, data and design to meet high-level business objectives.

While consulting for some of the largest companies in the real estate and construction space, Scott recognized a massive need for desirable middle-income housing that wasn’t being met by the market. So, he left his agency and started on the journey of what would become Fabric Workshop.

This is a story of sheer stick-to-itness!

Insights and Inspirations

  • The mass timber industry is actually being accelerated by forest fires. The neglected undergrowth throughout 32 million square miles of forest in California, has became the perfect kindling for infernos. California (and Scott) are determined to turn that kindling into an industry.
  • Scott is focused on the “next generation” of mass timber products. This is a “cassette system” – a hollow-core system of wood housing building systems, insulation and more. These systems are already being used in Japan and Europe with great success.
  • Kick-starting an industry around this model could both reduce building costs and potentially aid in filling the huge deficit of housing in California.
  • And if this is not enough of a challenge to solve, Scott is also designing and building an automated and robotic manufacturing facility to build his cassette systems.

Information and Links

  • The Nature Conservancy: Let’s stop megafires before they start!
  • Scott also wanted to point to this New York Times article about leaps forward in construction and design using engineered wood.
  • And this piece from ProPublica, on ways to keep people and homes safer from wildfires.
Read the podcast transcript here

Eve Picker: [00:00:14] 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: [00:01:18] Today, I’m talking with Scott Ehlert, co-founder of Fabric Workshop, a company focused on low carbon, mass timber building technologies for California’s livable future. Scott is designing a proprietary hollow core mass timber plate column and wall system that uses 50 percent less wood fiber and will cost ten to 35 percent less overall than for a CLT structure. His system will also provide installation benefits like integrated MEP, acoustic and fire performance. 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 to help in the state’s wildfire efforts. Scott’s background is an unlikely one for an entrepreneur in mass timber. He spent years in the production and logistics management of concerts, private and corporate events, and national experiential marketing campaigns before pivoting to system design strategies that leveraged research, data and design to meet high level business objectives. While consulting for some of the largest companies in the real estate and construction space, Scott recognized a massive need for desirable middle-income housing that wasn’t being met by the market. So, he left his agency and started on the journey of what would become Fabric Workshop. This is a story of sheer stick-to-it-ness.

Eve: [00:03:04] 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: [00:03:33] Hello Scott, I’m so pleased to have you on my show.

Scott Ehlert: [00:03:37] Thank you. Yeah, good to be here.

Eve: [00:03:39] So you’ve had a fascinating and pretty astounding career, from concert and event management to design and strategic consulting, to property technology. So, I wanted to start with what you’re doing right now. What are you doing right now?

Scott: [00:03:57] Yeah, great question. Yeah. So we are, I’ve created a company called Fabric Workshop and we are pioneering a new next generation mass timber manufacturer. We manufacture in California and a fabrication, a digital and robotic fabrication facility to bring those next generation Messmer panels to life.

Eve: [00:04:20] So what does the next generation mass timber panel mean?

Scott: [00:04:26] Yeah, so, you know, we kind of started our journey looking at the cost of housing. And, you know, as you mentioned, I worked as a design strategy consultant for many years and I kind of had run my course in that in that career and was looking for something new and something for, you know, a bit more impactful. And really started looking at housing, which was the most kinda pressing thing in my life as I was starting a family and seeing how so many of my friends and peers in California were leaving the state because of the cost of housing or were in a constant state of financial and mental pressure due to housing. And I also consulted with quite a few really large companies, just by chance in my design consulting days, worked with some of the largest companies in the housing and real estate space in the United States and just saw this, you know, kind of looming existential crisis around housing affordability. And, you know, when the housing affordability comes up, we love to kind of cut out the perennial teachers and firefighters, as you know, our benchmarks for who can afford housing. But what we were seeing was that housing was really kind of impacting bankers and doctors. We were you were talking to doctors who were having to have roommates in the Bay Area because they couldn’t afford the housing.

Eve: [00:05:54] Wow.

Scott: [00:05:54] And so there was this kind of big, big question of like, how do we make housing? How do we create housing in California that’s affordable to middle income folks we traditionally call the middle-class. And so that started us down a really long journey and looking at just a year long process of just listening and asking questions and sitting in the back of rooms and talking with as many folks in the in the industry as possible. And it became really clear that how we build and the type of projects we build were really kind of fundamental to, this seems kind of obvious, the kind of fundamental to the cost of housing. And so, you know, we really started to look at how we can build things differently and what with the technologies available out there to help them offset these costs.

Eve: [00:06:53] So let’s back up a bit. Like for some people listening, they may not know what mass timber is, which is kind of all the rage in the architecture building industry, but perhaps not something that most people know about.

Scott: [00:07:06] Yes, so mass timber is kind of the catchall phrase for what is a range of engineered wood products similar to glulam beams. The most prominent is cross-laminated timber or CLT. And that’s, the that’s the type that you’ll see turning up most often. And what CLT is, is just that, it’s cross-thatched, and kind of cross-threaded dimensional lumber, 2x6s and 2x4s, laid out in a giant press with glue. And then that press puts extreme pressure on those panels and that glue and turns it into essentially a giant butcher block. It turns it into a more or less a solid piece of wood. And those panels can be 12 feet tall and 12 inches wide and 40 feet long or larger, in some cases.

Eve: [00:08:00] Smaller, non-structural pieces of wood, glued together and engineered in such a way that they become much larger structural elements.

Scott: [00:08:09] Yes. And then they take on some really incredible structural properties. So, you know, they are stronger and lighter than steel. Stronger and lighter than concrete. You know, it’s an incredible product. It has been widely adopted in Europe and into East Asia and Japan. And it’s just starting to kind of trickle up in the United States. And as you said, it’s kind of all the rage right now. Everybody’s talking about CLT and there’s a lot of hopes and prayers being put on CLT as the, you know, the silver bullet that’s going to save us from our cost of housing.

Eve: [00:08:46] So it’s cheaper than steel and other structural elements. Is that what you’re saying?

Scott: [00:08:52] Um, no, that’s kind of the problem, that’s the that’s the challenge with it, is that while it does have these incredible attributes, you know, speed of construction is one of them. You know, these are essentially printed building panels. You know, you can get an entire wall or, you know, five, half a dozen panels to make an entire floor plate of a large building. And so you’re seeing buildings, you know, eight story buildings go up in two weeks. Right. It’s all crammed in. It’s all kind of flat packed like, an IKEA footer. Pre-cut, pre-manufactured, there’s no saws on site, no hammers. You know, nobody’s doing anything manual on site. They’re just essentially cramming these giant plates into place and a small crew catching the plates and then screwing them into place with some really advanced metal connectors to hold this together.

Eve: [00:09:51] But the materials themselves are expensive…

Scott: [00:09:54] Right.

Eve: [00:09:55] But you’re saving, you’re saving time on the site. You’re saving uncertainties like weather. Because they are factory built.

Scott: [00:10:03] Yes, exactly.

Eve: [00:10:05]  Insurance you’re saving.

Scott: [00:10:09] Yeah. Insurance is still kind of a question mark. It’s still very new in the US. So, the insurance has not quite caught up yet, but it is completely a completely safe product that has to go through a very rigorous testing process called PRG 320. And that is the fire certification process. And it’s also been the new international building codes updates around mass timber and CLT. So they’re able to build much larger buildings now. So, you know, 18 plus stories, large warehouse facilities, distribution centers, you know, these very large type two, type four type structures can now be built with mass timber.

Eve: [00:10:47] So, in balance then, if you can save all of these site costs, will it provide a less expensive solution? And especially for, you know, what you’re focused on, which is what I understand, the missing middle housing, those smaller infill lots that maybe are not as efficient as a huge 800-unit building, but certainly helped to kind of just stitch cities together, right?

Scott: [00:11:17] Yeah, exactly. So, when we were looking at CLT, we want to have all of the benefits of CLT, but without the biggest drawback and the biggest drawback of CLT, or there’s a couple of other variants like DLT, which is dowel laminated timber, which is they use wooden dowels to connect the boards together, or NLT, which is nail laminated timber, which is just that the boards are stuck together with nails. The biggest drawback with them is, with those technologies, is they just use a lot of wood. There’s just no way around it. It’s a giant butcher block and so, you know, and it uses dimensional lumber, the same lumber that stick frame builders use and modular builders use. You know, when you go to Home Depot and buy, you know, Doug fir for your deck, that’s the same stuff that goes into CLT. And so, you know, it’s a commodity product and they’re using a lot of commodity product. It’s susceptible to high prices and that there’s just no way around that. And so, you know, I don’t know how anybody that started a CLT project a year ago is going to make those projects pencil today. What, the cost of dimensional lumber up to, what, two hundred percent or something like that over year over year. Right?

Eve: [00:12:34] Why is it up so high?

Scott: [00:12:36] Yeah, so…

Eve: [00:12:37] I’m sorry. I’m completely new to this so I’m learning.

Scott: [00:12:40] Absolutely. Yeah. Yeah. No, this is you know, we are we are incredibly focused on the forestry and supply side. You know, we are kind of a hybrid between a housing prefab re-manufacturer and a forestry company, in particular the wildfire side, so I can definitely share more on that. And so, yes, you know, the implications on the lumber costs are, have a big, big impact. And lumber prices were already going up, right, there was just limited supply. There’s limited companies involved in the forestry space. And everybody’s going out to the same suppliers, like, you know, in the US. Dimensional lumber on the West Coast comes primarily from British Columbia, Washington and Oregon. And Idaho and Montana to a lesser extent. But those are the three kind of major producing markets and everybody’s buying it. Right. And even if you’re on the East Coast, a lot of people want that, like the aesthetic and material qualities of West Coast feedstock. And it’s primarily Doug fir. That’s what everybody wants. And so there’s just high demand, it’s just a supply and demand, and then Covid came and just threw a giant wrench into all of that. The mills shut down, the logging shut down, and everybody thought the housing and construction industry would collapse with Covid. But just the opposite happened. There was a huge remodel boom, a huge push for new homes in the suburbs. People were trying to get more space. And so the macron effects of that are that an industry that was already under high demand pressures is now under extreme demand pressures. And then they took their capacity offline for a period of time with Covid. And now they’re just trying to play catch up. And the industry in 2019 is already at record highs. And now we are just, it’s just through the roof, you know, OSB board, plywood of all that down the stack is all impacted by this. And so, when prices are just really high so CLT or DLT, NLT that’s just going to be less price competitive now than they were before.

Eve: [00:15:00] Interesting. So let’s go back to what you’re trying to solve and what your solution looks like. And then we can talk about how the last year has impacted that.

Scott: [00:15:11] Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. So, you know, that use of material is kind of fundamental to our approach. And, you know, we were really pursuing a CLT based product initially. But when we, when that reality of the the material cost, the fiber cost, just was the 100 pound gorilla in the room, there’s no way around it. It’s going to just do more research. Kind of went back to the table and some to look at those more mature markets in Europe and Japan and started to see this kind of, as I was saying, the next generation of mass timber products coming out where they’ve already kind of gone through that and recognize that, you know, a CFT panel is not necessarily the ideal product for a lot of building types, particularly smaller and faster buildings. And so what they’re using now is what are kind of known as cassette systems. They, these are a panelized approach, just like CLT, but they’re taking the fiber out. And so, what they’re doing is, they’ll be more or less there’s like two kind of sandwich layers, a top and a bottom and then a structure on the inside of those two sandwich pieces that give it the structural integrity. So you get a box-like panel with a hollow core and that removes a substantial amount you know 50, 60 percent of the fiber, from those panels, driving the cost down while still maintaining the structural integrity of a full kind of solid wood panel.

Eve: [00:16:47] Like a hollow core door, but not as flimsy?

Scott: [00:16:53] Exactly. A hollow core door that you could build an eight-story building out of.

Eve: [00:16:58] Yeah, yeah.

Scott: [00:16:58] There’s a membrane, a structure on the inside of that hollow core that gives it its strength. Ingenuity at play here. Companies are now taking advantage of that cavity to include things that would normally be exposed in a CLT building. So, CLT with the solid wood in place, all of your MEP systems, your electrical, your plumbing, your lighting, all of that can’t run in the middle of the plate. It’s solid wood. Right. And so it has to be hung underneath or run in interior walls or both in most cases. But with these hollow core cassette systems, you can actually run those MEP systems inside the cavity of the floor plate. So, it gives it a much cleaner and tight aesthetic.

Eve: [00:17:46] Yeah, yeah.

Scott: [00:17:48] And then you can also add additional elements to those cavities. So you can add acoustic materials, you can add insulating materials to increase the R value. You can add seismic and fire safety materials in there. And so you can actually get a much thinner for floor plate overall than CLT, where you have to then just have any piece stuff hanging beneath it. With CLT, a lot of that insulating and acoustic and dampening performance has to be laid on top. And it’s generally a really thick concrete layer that’s poured on top of the wood panel. So, a lot of people with CLT they think that you get to see all the wood, but in most cases you don’t. Actually, on the floor plate it’s kind of covered in five inches of concrete and gypsum and all that stuff. So, the cassette systems are a really genius kind of approach to a lot of those challenges with CLT.

Eve: [00:18:44] And it means less time on site, by the sounds of it.

Scott: [00:18:48] It does, yes. But the flip side of all of this is that it does add complexity and you do have to be in much deeper coordination with your trades very early in the process to coordinate where all of those runs are going through those plates so that the connection points on site are all, you know, when you when you’re doing a small prefabricated, a lot of it’s going to be automated. And so, the tolerances are down to the millimeter. So things have to be tight. There’s no change orders, I guess. So there’s no saws, there’s no handsaws or circular saws on site to fix problems. Everything has to be really, really tight. So that really, kind of, front loads the design and the engineering process. And all of the trades have to be at the table very early. And so, it’s a very different process than a standard site build construction. You know, that’s the trade-off. Is that the process that has to adapt to the material.

Eve: [00:19:47] Just listening to you speak of it sounds to me like you might be enjoying that process.

Scott: [00:19:53] Yes, very much so. Yes. As somebody that that worked in design and system design and customer experience design, you know, all of that thinking is really, you know, and you can see the outcomes, right?

Eve: [00:20:07] Yes.

Scott: [00:20:08] You know, you can go and tour these sites in in Europe and parts of Australia, where they’re being, you know the sophisticated approaches, is happening in Japan and particularly Central Europe, where this market is very mature. I mean, you’re seeing build costs in major urban markets, you know, down to 140-150 dollars a square foot.

Eve: [00:20:29] Oh, that’s extraordinary.

Scott: [00:20:31] Whereas in San Francisco, you’re at, what, 750-850 a square foot for a poor-quality building.

Eve: [00:20:39] Yeah.

Scott: [00:20:39] That’s what we’re kind of chasing. Right. Like that’s the that’s the end goal is to build out the system that can drive towards those better pricing outcomes and make housing more affordable.

Eve: [00:20:50] Where are you in your process right now? You’ve been at this for how long?

Scott: [00:20:56] We’re now officially into year three, so it’s a long and winding road. As I mentioned, with our company, with Fabric Workshop, there’s this really big wildfire and forestry component to it. So, we are focused very much on the California market. We’re based in California. We by no means will turn clients away, that’s in a neighboring state. But the challenge in California is so enormous that we feel like that so many other housing starts to take on like a national approach. And we feel that we just need to be very specific to California and the codes and the and the challenges and the crisis that that’s at hand here and that it’s a big enough opportunity that it can justify that. The new housing element numbers are coming in across the state. And, you know, we’re going to need two million units of housing in the next, within the next 10 years. You know, it’s just a staggering number of housing. And so that that volume actually presents a really powerful opportunity to impact another, maybe bigger crisis at hand in the state of California. And that’s the wildfire situation here. And so, I don’t know, I’m sure you’ve seen that on the news.

Eve: [00:22:21] Oh, yeah. I mean, I’m Australian, I don’t know if you realize from my accent, so I’ve lived with it.

Scott: [00:22:27] Yes, that’s right. Right. So, yeah, in California, you know, five of California’s six largest fires in modern history were all, all happened last year. And they were all burning at the same time. Right. When four million acres of forest burned across the state last year, which was double the previous record, which was just in the previous couple of years. You know, it’s just really staggering, right? There was nearly ten thousand separate fires across California last year. And the fire season is growing, right? Climate change, drought is driving more extreme fire seasons. And so, we’re now seeing fire season in 2020 is 75 days longer than it was 20 years ago, just 20 years ago. And that’s two months longer, two and a half months longer. And so there’s this overarching kind of pressing need to fix that. And one of the best things that we can do is to get this excess unnatural growth out of our forests and turn it into wood products. So our forests in California are completely overgrown, grossly overgrown, naturally overgrown. We have, for the last hundred years, we’ve taken a policy of complete fire suppression.

Eve: [00:23:52] That’s really interesting. Yeah, because fire is an actual regeneration of forests and that’s what was brought up on me.

Scott: [00:24:02] Exactly.

Scott: [00:24:02] They happen for a reason. So, you have to just control them.

Scott: [00:24:07] Yes. Yes. And so we actually have to go back to a natural fire cycle where we’re not stopping fires. We’re actually letting fires happen. But in order for that to take place without being so destructive, like they are now, is we have to get all of that overgrowth that was the result of stopping fires in the forests.

Eve: [00:24:26] That’s really interesting, though.

Scott: [00:24:28] Yeah.

Eve: [00:24:29] But my question is, is why were they stopped? I’ve always thought that the push of, you know, the spread of cities into forests. I mean, I’ve seen it in Australia, you know, as housing popped up in amongst the forests. Of course, you want to stop fires there. And that also exacerbated the problem because, you know, you have this push and pull between people who want to live in those places and the natural the natural forest. It’s a mess.

Scott: [00:24:58] Yeah, right it is. Yeah. That’s a huge, huge driver to it that that growth is called the WUI. It’s the WUI and that’s the wilderness urban interface. And that that growth, particularly since the 90s, has just been exponential as we’ve continued to sprawl ever farther outward in California. We’ve pushed our towns and cities, the perimeter, more and more into that WUI. And so that’s been a big, big driver as well as the, you know, the agricultural, livestock and forestry industries in the 20th century. They didn’t want fires. And you combine that with just a…

Eve: [00:25:44] Yeah

Scott: [00:25:44] Very. What’s the term? I mean, what’s the word? How do you describe it?

Eve: [00:25:48] It’s a manmade problem.

Scott: [00:25:51] Yeah, yeah. And just a desire to control nature, you know, is man’s desire , the man emphasis there to control nature and dictate, basically saying fires are evil and treating them as a as an enemy that needed to be defeated.

Eve: [00:26:07] When I was young in Sydney, Australia. I mean, I remember bush fires. Like Sydney’s a huge….

Scott: [00:26:12] Bush fires. Yeah.

Eve: [00:26:12] I remember in the middle of the city, seeing just red and grey sky all around me. But there wasn’t the pain and misery of today because not, there was not nearly as much suburban housing – it pushed into the wilderness.

Scott: [00:26:31] Yeah. Yep. Yep. And that’s the same here. That’s just an overarching problem that needs to be solved. And there’s really no easy solution to it. The state now has about 33 million acres of forest, which is bigger than Oregon, and 13 million of them are considered very high risk. These are drought affected, beetle infected, because of lots of dead trees, and they have just this extreme level of overgrowth and that overgrowth are small and medium diameter trees. Those are the trees that normally would have been cleaned out by natural wildfires. And because there was no natural wildfires, they just exploded. And what they do, the small and medium diameter trees, they’re much more susceptible to fire, but they’re also tall enough to carry the fire into the canopies of the healthy, strong trees. And that’s where we get these infernos that then get the wind picks up in the canopy and carries it from tree to tree. And it just creates these, this tinder box. So, we have to get those small and medium diameter trees out of the forest. And right now, they have no value. They’re used for livestock, mulch, woodchips in your yard. And that’s not a valuable enough product to justify the cost of thinning, mechanical thinning. And mechanical thinning is a laborious, hard job. You have to, you know, carry chainsaws and particularly if we want to take a much more ecological approach to forestry thinning and not clear cut and carve up all of these fire roads that cause horrible erosion. The state’s trying to avoid the forestry problems of the past. So, it’s all done, a lot of that has to be done by hand, much more mechanical.

Eve: [00:28:20] 32 million acres, manually cleared.

Scott: [00:28:24] It’s staggering.

Eve: [00:28:25] It’s really staggering. How long does it take?

Scott: [00:28:28] Yeah, the goal of the California Forest Management Task Force, which is kind of the broad extra agency group that’s trying to address this challenge, their goal is a million acres per year by 2025. And right now – in 2019, we had 114 thousand acres – so we’re off by a factor of ten.

Eve: [00:28:47] Wow. That’s like one hundred years we’re looking at and more.

Scott: [00:28:52] That’s right. And what’s going to be left in California in 100 years of we’re burning four million acres a year. And it’s not just, this is not an abstract any more. Our water, for all of those cities comes from these forests and with these forest fires that you can grossly impact our water supply. The carbon impact of this. Right, 2020, there was 112 million metric tons of carbon were released by the 2020 wildfires. Which is 30 percent more than all the power plants that generated power that year. So, the health and that’s how you get into the asthma and respiratory issues of all that wildfire smoke. I mean, the implications of our society are bleak. And so, we have to figure out ways to get those small and medium diameter trees out of the forests. And that’s why we really kind of looked at, you know, not only these cassette systems, but getting away from dimensional lumber and really kind of focusing on veneer-based products. So, there’s another sub product of mass timber known as laminated veneer lumber or mass plywood panels, mass plywood. MPP is a brand from an Oregon company called Freres Brothers. And what they do is instead of cutting the log into 2x4s and having a bunch of scraps left over, is they put the log on a peeler and they peel the log and turn it into a big, long sheet. And then they glue those sheets together versus gluing 2x4s together. And that’s something that you can do, that’s, a that’s a vehicle for these small and medium diameter trees, whereas 2×4 dimensional lumber is not really feasible. And so they can peel logs, you know, down to six to eight inches and turn them into veneers. And so that’s what we’re really focused on, is these veneer-based structural products. Both floor plates, floor and ceiling plates and wall plates as well. That’s where we see our role in the forestry and the wildfire piece is creating market side demand for these small and medium diameter trees and putting them into really advanced, these really advanced cassette-based plate systems.

Eve: [00:31:14] Interesting. So I’m going to back up one more time. I sense a two-parter is coming on here. This is fascinating because…

Scott: [00:31:24] Yeah.

Eve: [00:31:24] I heard somewhere in amongst all the impact finance center information that there is a company out focusing on small diameter timber products. I can’t remember the name of the company, in California.

Scott: [00:31:38] So, we pitched at that event. So you might have, is that our pitch that you’re referring to?

Eve: [00:31:44] No, I think there’s another company I talked to so, we can come back to that.

Scott: [00:31:50] Yeah, yeah.

Eve: [00:31:51] But I’ve heard of people focusing on specifically that product and now it’s all falling into place for me. Personally, I didn’t know all of this. It’s really fascinating. But the importance of using that small diameter timber is becoming pretty clear.

Scott: [00:32:07] Uh huh. The great thing is that it could actually go into a very valuable product for the construction industry, the building industry. Incredibly green product, right? Very, very high embedded carbon in the veneer-based products, much lower travel times if we’re sourcing our wood from our local forest and putting it into buildings in Los Angeles and Sacramento and San Jose. Think of all the truckloads from British Columbia and northern British Columbia that we’re saving, right. And all that diesel fuel that gets burned. So, this really big upstream and downstream and benefits to sourcing this wood from California.

Eve: [00:32:51] Sounds like a whole new industry can emerge.

Scott: [00:32:54] That’s the goal, right. And that’s what the state is trying to incentivize is a re-ignition. I hate to use fire related terminology when talking about this stuff, but like, we kind of rekindling, that’s another one, restarting a forestry industry in California, which is really kind of on its last breath. Like, in the last 45 years, 70 percent of wood processing facilities in California closed. So, there’s really no eco system to actually process this. There’s no LBL manufacturers in California. There’s no plywood manufacturers in California. There’s very few mills left in California. There’s very few loggers left in California. And so we’re kind of having to start from scratch. And what the state is working on is incentivizing and creating these wood products, wood innovation campuses, across the state to bring this industry back. And to bring it back with a much greater kind of technological focus and an environmental and ecological focus. And so that things are done right. And so we’re at very early days of that. You know, we are not going to try to get into the manufacturing side of the LBL panels. It’s a very capital heavy side and there’s a reason why most of the companies that get into that, you know, they have three or four family generations that have been in the logging industry or they’ve been around for 150 years. You know, there are companies that just know how to do that and to manage those supply chains and to manage that production. And so we’re focused on it being a remanufacture of those products. And so, if we can help, you know, kind of show that there’s demand for this for this LBL and MPP type panels in California, hopefully we can then lure a manufacturer to the state, with our some of our demand, and get them active in the state and thinning our forests.

Eve: [00:34:58] So, Scott, you’ve bitten off a huge project, like where are you? You said you’re in the third year.

Scott: [00:35:04] Yes.

Eve: [00:35:06] I mean, where are you in the process of building a company?

Scott: [00:35:09] Yeah, yep. So, it is a very meaty challenge and myself and everybody that’s on our team is up for that challenge. That’s why we’re all here. We all understand the enormity of it and the, and the urgency of it. And that’s what motivates us every day. And the fact is, there’s not a lot of other companies doing this is yes, it’s an opportunity, but it’s also drives us to lead and to show that it can be done. And so, you know, we have to take advantage of the resources that we have. This is all bootstrapped at this point and self-funded, as you said, this is a big, meaty challenge. So, it’s really hard for investors to kind of wrap their head around it or see an exit to liquidity event in the near term. So fundraising has been a challenge, but that’s really not a deterrent to us in the slightest bit. And so, we have to focus on what we can sell for.

Eve: [00:36:08] Well, you have to eat. It’s going to be a little bit of a deterrent, right?

Scott: [00:36:13] Well, you know, the spouses of entrepreneurs do a lot of the heavy lifting. Right? And so, I have a really, my wife is an incredible partner and she’s also an entrepreneur, though a much more successful one. And she’s able to carry us through this kind of start-up period. But what’s great is that our story and our kind of mission is bringing a lot of really amazing people to the table. We are working with a company, for example, called Hacker Architects up in Portland, and they are an incredibly experienced, one of the most experienced architecture firms in North America working with mass timber. And they are becoming friends. Right. Like they they’ve really been a key supporter of our mission. And it really kind of backed us up and provided a lot of design assist and are really helping the design of our building system, because we have to think of this as a holistic building where we can put these different wood materials throughout the building. And so that’s just one example. We’ve got a whole network, whole ecosystem of companies that all share our same values and recognize the enormity of the problems that we’re solving. And so, we’ve built this great network of aligned allies that are helping us drive this forward. So, like I said, we’re a small kind of bootstrap team, but we’ve got some really great friends. And, you know, we are in the R&D phase and getting closer to a first prototypes. We originally had our first building construction project penciled as supposed to break ground this year, as a single-family home in the Tahoe region. Unfortunately, that project kind of fell through, just wasn’t the right application. And so, we decided to kind of shift focus. But ideally, we’d like to get a project off the ground here sometime this year with our investor pool that we do have and get a proof of concept project on paper this year and breaking ground next year. So that’s really what we’re what we’re driving for at this point.

Eve: [00:38:22] What is good proof of concept look like at this point?

Scott: [00:38:25] Yes. So, we’re looking at a small multi-family project and that’s the market that we’re going after is a unique market in the industry. Most of the construction industry and the prefab industry is really kind of set up to focus on how we build in the United States today, which is sprawl or tall. Right? Like it’s single-family homes on the peripheral cities, or it’s a big giant two hundred unit podium structures or towers in the urban core. And Fabric, we see the opportunity, especially considering the sheer scale of the housing need and how fast that housing needs to be produced and brought to market. We really see the opportunity in that missing middle upper missing middle range, small to medium lot, three to eight story buildings. So that’s really our key focus and really kind of unique, a bit more unique in the marketplace. And so we want to, we want to get a proof of concept project of at least four units. It doesn’t have to be huge. It just needs to show how the systems kind of work together and kind of bring that to life in an infill type application.

Eve: [00:39:42] I’m excited to see it.

Scott: [00:39:44] Yeah.

Eve: [00:39:44] Are you going to act as your own developer or are you looking for a developer who will use your system?

Scott: [00:39:51] Yeah, it’s kind of like yes and…

Eve: [00:39:55] Yes, I know.

Scott: [00:39:56] If we yes, either, you know, we are talking to more and more developers. We are finding that network of of young kind of independent developers, baby developers, I’ve heard that kind of term kind of thrown around, you know, the folks that are producing like the 20-unit buildings and the odd 16-plex. Right. Like those small buildings. And we’re building that network. And hopefully we can bring a developer partner to the table sooner rather than later. But we’re also kind of setting ourselves up for self-developing our first project. And that’s what we were going to do on that single family home. We were going to develop that through our, through one of our investors, but we kind of shifted and would like to ideally bring on a development partner that knows that process better than we do. You know, we’re not developers.

Eve: [00:40:47] And so you might stretch yourself very thin during trying to do both.

Scott: [00:40:52] Yes, exactly. And we have to kind of kind of focus on what our value add is. And the development side is not it today, who knows down the road where this goes. But as of now, ideally, we have a partner that can, that can really kind of drive this through that to the development process.

Eve: [00:41:11] So you’ve talked about these materials looking very sleek. What does that first project going to look like?

Scott: [00:41:18] Yeah, I wish I could show you some of the renderings, the absolutely beautiful renderings that Hacker put together for us. One of the advantages of focusing on this smaller type three, type five building typology is that the fire code and the fire ratings aren’t as strict with the CLT. So we can leave a lot more of that with the mass timber, we can leave a lot more of that exposed. So, you’ll see a lot of exposed natural wood elements. So wooden ceilings, heavy timber beams, well it will have the aesthetic about heavy timber beams, but it’s actually LDM. A lot of the columns in the beams will be exposed and even wall panels can be of exposed wood to them. So, a very natural and a minimal, what’s the term a soft minimal kind of aesthetics to them and and very high precision tolerances on that minimalism, right, like that’s kind of what separates good minimalism from bad minimalism is the execution and the precision of it. And because everything is cut in a factory, the aesthetic is just really tight and really clean. And so we’re really looking forward to bringing that to life.

Eve: [00:42:37] Do you have the renderings on the website you’d like to share?

Scott: [00:42:40] Yeah, on our website we have a few renderings on there. So you can kind of get a sense out of the real aesthetic and that that would be our proof of concept project. Each developer will have that choice that they want to drywall over those exposed wood elements they can. But our preference would be to leave them exposed. And there’s a lot of really interesting data back to that benefits of mass timber. There’s a lot of really interesting data around the biophilia benefits of mass timber, where people get that sense of serenity and calm. Like being in a forest.

Eve: [00:43:16] Yes.

Scott: [00:43:17] In a mass timber house, they are really cool buildings. I don’t know if you’ve had a chance to spend time in one. But they do have a a dampness to them, not not wet, damp, but just materially damp. And so sound travels differently. And you do get the sense that you’re in the forest. It’s really, it’s a really cool experience.

Eve: [00:43:37] So I’m going to go back.  You’re in Truckee. Right. And I’m wondering…

Scott: [00:43:41] That’s correct. Yes.

Eve: [00:43:42] Why are you in Truckee?

Scott: [00:43:44] I asked myself that question sometimes, too. I love Truckee, but I’m definitely a city kid. So, Truckee is more or less a one road town. And so, I do feel a little stir crazy here sometimes, but it is a great place. And I have two young kids, four and six years old, and just this is a big playground for them. So, we ended up in Truckee a long time, a decade and a half in San Francisco, three years down in Los Angeles, and then had to get out of L.A. and Truckee was supposed to be a one year stopover on the way back to the bay. But, shocker, the cost of housing was so high in the bay that we couldn’t afford anything there so we could afford something in Truckee, Truckee at the time. So we were able to…

Eve: [00:44:34] You’re living the Californian dream.

Scott: [00:44:36] Yeah. More or less trying to.

Eve: [00:44:40] Okay. So tell me, I’m going to move to shift gears a little bit and just ask you, are there any other current trends out there or innovations in real estate development or construction that you believe are really important for our future?

Scott: [00:44:54] Yeah, and so a couple, yeah, so one thing that we are bringing in house we have, this is a capability that we are, as we speak, kind of building out a facility is the fabrication side of construction and particularly automated and robotic fabrication. That is the piece that’s going to have prefab construction kind of realize the benefits that it kind of promised the world when it came out a few decades ago. You know, from pricing to quality control, robotic fabrication is going to be a huge piece of this. And we are actively building that capacity out in California, will be a leader in that space here in the state. And particularly as more and more construction will go towards wood-based construction to offset the carbon and environmental impacts of concrete and steel. You know, we firmly believe that wood construction is the future of construction. And so, to make that a reality, you have to have a much more advanced fabrication capabilities like you see across Switzerland and Austria and Germany and Sweden, for example.

Eve: [00:46:10] Right. Right.

Scott: [00:46:11] And so that’s going to be a big piece. Right. And then, you know, I do believe fundamentally that we are seeing the cracks in the dam when it comes to planning and zoning in particular. I think that the sea change and our laws and regulations on what gets built and where is going to happen very quickly, much faster than I think a lot of people give it credit for. You know, we are slowly starting to see the end of single family only zoning. When I first really started thinking about creating the housing company in 2014, most of them really talk about like, oh, yeah, houses are expensive in nice parts of the city. But that was kind of the attitude. And now fast forward seven years and it’s a topic in our presidential campaigns. It’s just becoming a fundamental issue in this country. And I think that the 20th century experiment of highly segregated neighborhoods, housing over here, business over there, commerce over here. Single family based, car based, an entirely car-based society, car exclusive society. I really fundamentally believe that that is coming to an end in California and that those changes are going to happen. It’s going to build and then is going to happen really rapidly.

Eve: [00:47:36] Wow. I have one final question for you, and that is, what is your big, hairy, audacious goal?

Scott: [00:47:43] Yeah, I and I would say, you know, not as ambitious to say we want to build a new city out of wood, but definitely, you know, a neighborhood out of wood. That’s kind of our big goal is to build a five 600-unit community, all sustainably sourced, locally sourced, sustainably sourced timber neighborhood. And we’re seeing those neighborhoods pop up in Europe and Japan and they are incredibly inspiring. They are walkable, human scaled, car free, no carbon passive house technology. And I would love to just get my hands on a decrepit shopping mall in central Sacramento and convert that into the neighborhood. A vibrant, diverse, mixed income neighborhood in in Sacramento, for example. And that’s our big, big goal that we’re driving towards.

Eve: [00:48:41] Oh, I’m really excited for you. It sounds amazing. And I hope sometime in the future we’ll get to host one of your projects on Small Change.

Scott: [00:48:51] Would absolutely love that. Yes.

Eve: [00:48:53] Thank you so much, Scott.

Scott: [00:48:55] Yes, thank you, Eve. Really appreciate the time. And I’m honored to be on your podcast and be part of this group. So thank you.

Eve: [00:49:11] That was Scott Ehlert of Fabric Workshop. Scott pivoted his life and career in a way that most people do not dare. He is making all bets on an industry that doesn’t quite exist yet and technology that he needs to design. While other housing developers try to crack the construction affordability code using the same old building systems, Scott has spent years planning how to become a housing developer using a brand new building system, one that he has designed and one that he will manufacture. We’ll be hearing more about Scott. I’m sure.Eve: [00:49:58] 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 Fabric Workshop/Scott Ehlert

The impact accelerator.

March 3, 2021

From ecologist to impact investment guru, Dr. Stephanie Gripne has had a singular career arc. Originally trained in wildlife management and conservation, she went on to work on issues surrounding the built environment, in conservation real estate, environmental markets, and in the wonky world of financing strategies and historic tax credits. At the same time she was working as a research fellow, studying impact investing and philanthropy, and she became involved in the Colorado impact investing scene.

In 2012, it all came together when she founded the Impact Finance Center (IFC), based in Denver, as a nonprofit academic center with a mission to identify, train and activate philanthropists and investors to become impact investors. In 2019, the IFC added on an Impact Investing Institute, to provide education to organizations, family offices, foundations and other funding groups. Today, Stephanie’s big, hairy audacious goal is to move a trillion dollars into impact investing.  

Stephanie believes that impact investing is all about educating people – and the IFC is quickly becoming the go-to place for every level of investor, from the well-endowed non-profit world to individuals who have never invested before. We know you’ll be hearing more from Stephanie and the IFC, for sure.

Insights and Inspirations

  • Stephanie wants the Impact Finance Center to be the place to go for agenda-free and trustworthy investor education.
  • The Impact Finance Center is an accelerator for impact investors.
  • Stephanie believes there is a gigantic audience of potential impact investors out there we can reach.
  • The IFC provides impact education through portfolio evaluation, educational offerings (with 200 classes online), training and an ever-growing number of themed impact investor clubs.
  • And you should check out the Impact Real Estate Investing Club.
Read the podcast transcript here

Eve Picker: [00:00:14] 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: [00:01:09] Today, I’m talking with Dr. Stephanie Gripne. In what seems to be an improbable amount of time, Stephanie has gone from ecologist to impact investment guru. Her big, hairy, audacious goal is to move a trillion dollars into impact investing. Ten years ago, about four years after getting her doctorate, she became director of the Initiative for Sustainable Development at the University of Colorado’s Real Estate Center. There she was immersed in issues surrounding the built environment and socially responsible investing. In 2012, she took the leap and founded the Impact Finance Center as a nonprofit academic center with a mission to identify, train and activate philanthropists and investors to become impact investors. I’ve already learned a lot from Stephanie, but I’m going to learn more and so might you. So, 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: [00:02:40] Stephanie, I’m so happy to talk to you today.

Stephanie Gripne: [00:02:44] Eve, I am so happy to talk with you today.

Eve: [00:02:47] So, you have a supremely cool resume and it’s pretty clear how driven you are. There’s a lot to talk about, but I wanted to start by talking about what you’re working on today. You lead the Impact Finance Center. What is that?

Stephanie: [00:03:01] That’s a great question, Eve. For those of you in the audience who have heard of an accelerator, you might have heard of TechStars or 500 startups or Y Combinator. Those accelerators are essentially boot camps for people who want to start a startup or a small business. So, they identify, educate and invest in entrepreneurs. When I was a professor in 2010-12 at the University of Colorado at the Leeds School of Business, I was actually the director of the Initiative for Sustainable Real Estate Development. I just kept wondering why isn’t there more money flowing into good things? And I finally kept unpeeling the onion and realizing there are not entities out there providing investor education that is non-conflicted or trustworthy, in that most of the investor education is actually trying to get your business. So, it comes from Wall Street and they’re trying to become your investment adviser or raise a fund. And so, my hypothesis was that if we started providing non-conflicted investor education from the inside of a nonprofit, where we weren’t going to try to raise a fund or become your investment advisor, we could actually educate and activate these investors. So, going back to the accelerator analogy, Impact Finance Center is essentially an accelerator for impact investors. Instead of identifying, educating and investing in entrepreneurs, we identify and educate individuals and organizations who want to become impact investors. And those typically are: private foundations, community foundations, high net worth individuals, companies and family offices.

Eve: [00:04:51] So, that’s really how you and I started talking way back on the plane ramp, where we met, right?

Stephanie: [00:04:58] That is true. We did mean on a plane ramp in California. And yes, we are. I had been following the crowdfunding movement for some time and figuring out what my role in it was going to be.

Eve: [00:05:10] How do you accomplish investor education and accelerate those impact investors? What is it you actually do?

Stephanie: [00:05:17] That’s a great question. We really offer five ways for people to get education. One, and this is the the holy grail of it all, is we can evaluate your investment advisor portfolio, and that is pretty brutal. We evaluated a 100 million dollar foundation in Seattle and found out their investment advisor had charged them in excess of fees of one million dollars over five years to underperform by five million dollars.

Eve: [00:05:49] Ohhh.

Stephanie: [00:05:49] We have a 15 million dollar foundation in Denver … where we evaluated their investment advisor and found out they had been charged in excess of fees of $240,000 over seven years to underperform by 1.4 million dollars. So, we have, that is number one. We can evaluate your portfolio and investment advisor for governance and fees and evidence-based decision evaluation and impact. And then, the next phase is just education. We’re putting our 200 classes online. We have 47 recorded webinars up there. So, if you’re a do-it-yourselfer … sign on our Impact Investing Institute and train yourself. We also offer one-on-one training, small group training and large group training.

Eve: [00:06:39] Wow. That’s a lot of work, Stephanie. When did you launch the center?

Stephanie: [00:06:43] I was a professor at University of Colorado in 2010-12. And I realized then, once I had essentially collected evidence and accidentally discovered that the financial return of a grant is negative 100 percent loss. I determined that this impact investing was legal; and determined that, also, that people were interested, but there wasn’t a place for them to go learn. And then, the other piece, I realized, is asking somebody to do a first investment, cutting a 25,000 dollar check, even if you have a lot of money, is scary. And so, the key was, that’s in my, I use a baseball analogy, that’s a major league investment. And so, how do you create a T-ball opportunity for people to learn by doing. And so, that’s either using simulations like business case competitions or kind of monopoly. We do some simulation type activities, where you get to pretend you’re an investor or you actually do a small dollar amount. And we often have people take money they would have donated and pool it together in a giving circle model, and then they learn how to invest together.

Eve: [00:07:55] Interesting. Interesting. Who are you trying to reach? Like, who do you think your audience is? How big is it?

Stephanie: [00:08:04] Our audience is gigantic. If you just Google the number of millionaires in states like Colorado or Georgia or Massachusetts, and you’ll see a range from 150,000 millionaires to over a million millionaires … that’s a great question, Eve. People often ask me, oh, would you rather not work with a foundation or, versus a high net worth individual? And there’s two criteria that we look to partner with people. One, they have to be motivated and willing to take action. If you’re going to be on the slow boat will still help you, but you don’t get to be first in line. So, you have to be willing to move and take action. And the second thing is, you have to be an independent thinker. If you’re somebody who likes to have the crowd go first and you join the crowd, you’re probably not the right individual organization to come find us. And so, those are difficult to go find. But it’s great. We’re really nice about it. When people get stuck, we’re like, hey, it’s OK, go back and do this homework, and when you’re ready to get back into it, move forward. But what that means, Eve,  is that I have worked with foundations where 20 trustees, oftentimes family members, are in unison, and I’ve worked with a grumpy high-net worth individual that’s difficult to move. So, it doesn’t have to be an individual or a foundation or a family office or a corporation. It just has to be a willingness to take action.

Eve: [00:09:29] And beyond the gigantic audience of accredited investors, as you know, they are only about three percent of the population, there is now a growing audience of people who’ve never invested before and sit in the non-accredited group. So it’s huge, right?

Stephanie: [00:09:45] It’s endless. And it’s interesting, because I was trying to think the other day about how I got started. And I know my dad, when I was 12 or 13 years old, we invested in Micron Together Technology Company. I’m 47 years old. I don’t know how I found, it had to have been at the library, found a book on Motley Fool that taught direct investing. So, direct investing with public companies. And I still have some of those stocks I first invested in. But I actually did an investment in Enron, because it was a renewable energy company. So, I kind of like to think of myself as an early adopter in the modern-day crowdfunding.

Eve: [00:10:25] Since have you started seeing a shift towards impact investing?

Stephanie: [00:10:30] Oh, absolutely. In Colorado, for example, we started the Center in 2012, and I’ll go back and answer your your last question in a little bit. When we started the Center, I realized when I was at University of Colorado when I had that ‘aha’ moment that, wow, people do need education, and I thought every entrepreneurship center needs an innovative finance center. And then I took a step back, and I’m like, wait, every university that’s going to struggle financially needs innovative finance center to stay financially viable. And then I took a step back, and I thought, wait, every association of, I call them ‘clubs of money,’ a community foundation association, a YPO, family office association. They need this curriculum too. And there was, at the time, only 15 centers and really only two of us that actually do transactions. And so, that was my idea, to leave in 2012 and then start a nonprofit, multi-university academic center where we could essentially provide a curriculum in a box. And just to give you a sense of how long it takes to get going, at least in Colorado …

Eve: [00:11:46] Are you telling me how long it takes to get going?

Stephanie: [00:11:48] Well, just to just have a sense, in 2010-12, our first two transactions we supported were the Museum of Contemporary Art and the Alliance Center, and those both were real estate transactions, and one was a foundation and a couple of board members. So, they got 101 percent return. And we financed the Museum of Contemporary Art and saved them 550,000 a year. The other one was a project I led with the Alliance Center in partnership with the Denver Foundation, and we used a donor-advised fund to do a loan at zero and one percent that essentially saved that nonprofit six million dollars and gave the donor 101 percent return. I worked on those two transactions for three years and they all moved when the bills were due. They tried everything else for years and years and years. And then, when the adjustable rate mortgage was going to be due, or the building renovation COP bill was going to be due, that’s when they were finally willing to move. So, that there was a negative-like desperation as the birthplace of innovation. It took three years for two transactions. And I do believe Colorado’s probably done 100 impact investment transactions in the last three months.

Eve: [00:13:02] Wow. The story you’re telling is much like mine. I think if you build something new and I suppose on the cutting edge, it takes a really long time and you have to have stick-to-it-ness. Right. Just have to keep going.

Stephanie: [00:13:15] You do. You have to have the Stockdale paradox. You have to have this eternal knowledge you will prevail in the end. And I had great advice from a friend, Dan, whose dad said, you need to stick past three and a half years and go to five years. Most people give up at three and a half years. And there’s a great metaphor. It’s like paddling an iceberg with flippers on. It takes a long time to get that iceberg going.

Eve: [00:13:38] Yeah, it really does. It can be a little depressing but there it is.

Stephanie: [00:13:42] Um-Hmm.

Eve: [00:13:42] This is a pretty unusual place for a Ph.D. in forestry to end up. That’s what you have, right?

Stephanie: [00:13:49] Yes.

Eve: [00:13:49] So I have read about Fish and Wildlife and spotted owls on your resume. Tell me about the journey that took you from wildlife to impact investment.

Stephanie: [00:14:01] It was great. I was watching an interview this morning with Heather McGhee, and she’s approaching this conversation from a race issue. I grew up in an environmental issue, and she’s framing it using a zero sum game. And I grew up in central Idaho, in Sun Valley, Idaho. And there was a zero sum framing where it was, either we either could save the endangered species of the wolves and the salmon, or we could have jobs. And I just remember knowing deeply in my heart that there was enough resources for both of them, and my friends would literally threaten the lives of my other friends with guns. And there was a river guide I used to work for that, a bunch of the river guides, made a sticker that said ‘Happiness is the fisheries’ biologists’ face on a milk carton.’ And it was a very tumultuous, and in some ways, violent way to grow up. And I just I didn’t know. I thought it was about the wildlife at that point. And now I’m really clear it was a resource allocation issue. And I deeply believe there’s enough money for communities and the environment and jobs. And so, that just has motivated me since I was 16 and I’ll never forget. I do like woodworking. And I announced when I was 16 or 17 that I was going to become a carpenter and make furniture. And my dad, who was incredibly supportive, my late dad, of whatever I would choose, said Stephanie, what about architect? I said, I said no. I said, what about wildlife biologist? And my dad said, you have a mind for business, Stephanie. Why don’t you go make a lot of money and then you can have influence on the environment. And my dad, actually, he was a workout guy that would take companies through bankruptcy, but the last 10 years of his career, he took a company out of bankruptcy, a precast concrete company. So, for 10 years, my family made every precast concrete box in the state of Idaho, electrical box, etc., and air conditioner pad. And I said, Dad, I just don’t have the constitution to do it the way you did it. I’m not willing to go make money in whatever way I can and then do what I want to do. I’m going to do what I want to do along the way.

Eve: [00:16:22] Yeah, I think this must be part of being a parent, not really understanding what your kids are doing. Right. What would be good outcomes, do you think, if more people invest in important change making projects, what are the outcomes you hope for?

Stephanie: [00:16:41] I’ll actually, answer that question and continue my last answer a little bit. My dad would end up being quite wealthy, becoming homeless for two years, and then at 24 years of age, he would come back to live with me. And so, the roles were reversed, for those of you who cared for your parents, except my roles were reversed for me when I was 24. And I remember I was doing my Ph.D. in seven states with ranchers and, a socioeconomic analysis, a conservation project, and I got to study with my hero, the chief of the Forest Service, Dr. Jack Ward Thomas. I was also working for the Forest Service in multiple roles all around the country based out of Lander, Wyoming. And my mom came down with pancreatic cancer and my dad was living with us in a home in Lander, Wyoming. And I remember coming home one day and I said, I don’t care if you walk dogs or volunteer or you get a job, but you can’t just stay in this basement apartment. You have to do something. And he would get a real estate license and a mortgage broker license. And he didn’t cost a lot of money to support him at that time because he was living in a basement apartment of our house. And so, essentially what we did is we were used to being poor graduate students. And so, instead of taking all the excess money of having two salaries and a grad’s stipend, we would buy a house. You could buy a house in Lander, Wyoming, for six to eight thousand dollars from down payment, 120,000 dollars house from 2000-2005.

Eve: [00:18:17] Wow.

Stephanie: [00:18:18] And the reason I’m saying this is my mom passed in 2003 and I wasn’t emotionally ready to sell the house. My sister was. So, I bought the house from my sister. And I think most of us, our road to becoming an investor in a meaningful way, is that second house. The first house is, I made it. I’m an adult. I’m building wealth. But that’s a, it’s a very different experience to get your second house. And I don’t know that I would have offensively purchased my second house. It kind of came to me because my mom passed. But once that second one happened, I talked to several people who’ve had this experience, you’re like, wait a minute, I can do this. I can own an asset and make money. And so, we bought a third house and then, on the fourth or fifth house, my dad came home and he said, Stephers, he’s like, there’s these families coming into our mortgage business. A lot of them have bad credit, but there are some that have bad credit that actually used to have good credit. They just had a medical situation and they didn’t have the right medical insurance. And now they’re in this bankruptcy called a medical bankruptcy. So they’re not allowed to buy a house or car, even though they are people who paid their bills. And so we ended up doing a lease option with these families and we had a family meeting and agreed that we wanted a 10 percent return. And so we would set aside 10 percent of their rent as a partial equity. And if the house appreciated above 10 percent return during their medical bankruptcy, essentially get the upside of that. And the houses during that time period appreciated fifteen to twenty five percent. So we got the joy of philanthropy, a job for my dad, an amazing tenant, a solid 10 percent return, and they got dignity. Got to move into their home three to five years early and get partial equity upside. And so I think that all of us are on this quest of connection and meaning. And when you realize, like I did then at twenty four, twenty five years of age, that you can do well by doing good. I don’t think most of us can go back from that.

Eve: [00:20:27] I think you’re a rock star. You probably made some friends for life as well in that process, right.

Stephanie: [00:20:34] Absolutely. That was about three hundred transactions ago and I’m I have lots of friends along the way. Three to four hundred. I’ve lost count. I kind of stopped keeping count after two hundred. As as my colleague Todd James says, 60 percent of what we do has been visible and behind the scenes. So there’s a lot of lovely, incredible, awesome people out there that don’t even know that we were helping push and pull to make their dreams happen. And, you know, it’s it’s it’s an incredible role to play in people’s lives.

Eve: [00:21:03] You really did shift from fish and wildlife to real estate, and then you dragged me into it recently, which I’m really enjoying. But we’re working together on one of your many projects, which you didn’t mention before when you talked about the five ways to educate people. You’re also creating impact investing clubs, which are really fascinating, they’re themed clubs where potential impact investors gather and you’re educating them with a particular focus. And we’re on the journey of building a real estate impact investing club.

Stephanie: [00:21:38] We are, Eve. I didn’t mention this at the beginning. So Impact Finance Center does two things. We identify, educate and activate individuals and organizations to become impact investors and we also build what we call community infrastructure, which can be replicated, scaled and customized. And in that bucket of community infrastructure, you just mentioned investor clubs, which is one piece of it. We also stood up the first statewide marketplace for impact investing, which is the second time I met you when you came out to Impact Days.

Eve: [00:22:11] That’s right. Yeah.

Stephanie: [00:22:11] Our Impact Days, and that’s, you can think of it is, imagine everybody who needed money in the state, doing good, shows up and they create a farmer’s market booth and we activate new investors and organize existing investors and we bring the investors to go shopping in the farmer’s market. We call that Impactings. A Bodega is a subset of that marketplace. And that’s what we’re branding as our Investor Clubs. And then we also have two hundred classes, which we refer to as our Impact Investing Institute. And one of the most exciting pieces of infrastructure that we created was, are you familiar with The Who’s Who Under 40 that business journals do?

Eve: [00:22:49] Yes, yep.

Stephanie: [00:22:50] Yeah. We reached out to our business journal and we said we’re going to do Who’s Who in impact investing for the Rocky Mountain region. Do you want to be our media partner? And that was exciting because the first year we did it, we had 300 people apply.

Eve: [00:23:03] Oh, wow, that’s great.

Stephanie: [00:23:05] The second year that we had 1,300, and so that builds the book. And then the last piece, which is really the key, is our impact investing, giving circle or investor accelerator, and that’s in partnership with civil society organizations like Community Foundations. So, right now we have 34 women that could be middle-income or high-net worth, or connected to a company or family office or foundation, who are major league when it comes to intelligence, and major league when it comes to alignment, and major league when it comes to admission, and major league when it comes to access to money. But they’ve never actually written a check to support a sutainable real estate project, or a small business, or a startup. And so in this case, we make it low cost, easy and fun. We say, let’s participate in a giving circle, donate two thousand dollars in and we end up getting a kitty of seventy five thousand to one hundred and fifty thousand and we say, who needs money? And this year we had a 111 women apply, 112 women apply, for over 50 million dollars of need. And then we go through a selection process and they do due diligence, and they invest in a couple investments for their first investments. Because it’s a pooled donor-advised fund that the Women’s Foundation of Colorado, they don’t get the money back, it’s essentially a learned by doing fund experience where hopefully they walk in is that as a donor, they walk out as an investor and then they say, I want to join the investor club. So, yes, Eve, the investor clubs are…

Eve: [00:24:38] This is especially important, this educational piece, because because women don’t invest. And I can tell you that with certainty on Small Change, women, just a tiny minority of investors. It really kind of puzzles me.

Stephanie: [00:24:53] You know, it’s interesting because I am counting on my fingers right now and hopefully going to my toes. I have several women who will be investing in Lyneir’s project who have been spreading the good news on Lyneir and some of the other great offerings you have on Small Change right now. And I’ll be completely honest with you, we we started the Investor Club as a response to Colorado’s CDFIs, Community Financial Development Institutions and nonprofit lenders, who basically said Steph, that’s been great. The three year pilot, we had a goal to move one hundred million. We’re up to three hundred million. Success. But we need to still keep helping raise capital for the CDFI’s and non-profit lenders. And so the first Investor Club was a Main Street Lender Club. The second one was our Indigenous Investor Club. And then the third one was with the federal government’s Sustainable Forestry Mass Timber CLT Investor Club that connects with real estate. And now we’re starting clubs in California and Massachusetts and with the New York CDFIs.   But I have to say Eve Picker, the most popular one, has been the Real Estate Investor Club.

Eve: [00:26:02] This was unexpected, wasn’t it? We have to keep up.

Stephanie: [00:26:06] Yeah, I was only mildly surprised. I saw there’s a quest to need. Nobody gets paid to do the work we’re doing. I think that’s the difficult part.  If Wall Street had figured out how to get paid to educate investors we would have money flowing like hotcakes to Main Street investments.

Eve: [00:26:23] And, you know, it’s been pretty stunning because some on our club meeting announcements for mid-March, there’s something like 1,800 people signed up on LinkedIn and I have no idea where they’re coming from. It’s pretty big. It’s pretty astounding, so we better put on a really good show, right.

Stephanie: [00:26:43] Yeah, it’s well it’s easy to do. I mean, people who are either investing or working in community real estate, creating real estate, affordable housing, mass timber CLT, all of the all the good stuff. Is there some of the most inspiring people you’ve ever met.

Eve: [00:26:58] Yes, I agree.

Stephanie: [00:26:58] So so it’s pretty much you just have to set the stage and let them shine.

Eve: [00:27:04] Let me ask you, so what happens to the club meeting and how it happened? What’s your formula?

Stephanie: [00:27:10] Yeah. And and for those of you who are familiar and who’ve gone to like a pitch competition or an expo, that’s what I think about it. I think it is essentially a virtual farmer’s market. And our goal is investor education specifically and also some social venture education. But what we want to do is we do an investor panel and we want to showcase different types of investors so people can see themselves in the crowd and go, wait, they’re just like me. I could do that, too. And so really, that’s about getting diverse, interesting investors up there so we can make it seem more accessible to people sitting in the crowd that they can go from not identifying as an investor to becoming an investor. And then the same is true for the social ventures like community real estate projects. It’s a way to educate people about what’s possible. Most people I mean, Eve, you know better than anybody, but if you and I walked out of our front door right now and and just talk to the next hundred people that walked by and said, are you an investor? All of them are investors, but most of them would probably we’d probably get five to ten of them who would say that they identify as an investor?

Eve: [00:28:24] Yeah, maybe less, actually.

Stephanie: [00:28:27] Maybe less. And that is the challenge. Like I remember when Mitt Romney was running for president, the Mormon Church put up signs, they had a campaign and put up billboards and they put up everyday faces and they called I’m a Mormon campaign. And I feel like we need to put up do a similar campaign, that I’m an Investor campaign.

Eve: [00:28:46] Yeah, that’s right. I think that’s a great idea because an investor could be someone who invests ten bucks in their friend’s startup or an investor can be someone who invests a million dollars into something big.

Stephanie: [00:28:59] I would even argue a mom who goes to the grocery store and decides which milk she’s going to buy for her child as an investor. She’s invested in the supply chain of…

Eve: [00:29:08] Oh, yeah.

Stephanie: [00:29:09] Are you buying organic or not organic or how are the companies trading?

Eve: [00:29:13] Or if they decide to go purchase at a farmer’s market instead of the grocery store.

Stephanie: [00:29:18] Every time a dollar changes hands, you’re an investor.

Eve: [00:29:24] Yes. I think you have a broader description of investor than I think of. But you’re right. So the club meetings are like a mixture of panels with investors, large and small, talking about their experiences and what it means to them and social ventures. And then a little pitch round right. Of deals that are looking for money.

Stephanie: [00:29:43] Yeah. So we we essentially, because we’re in Covid, we can’t do this in person. And so I think that’s to the benefit of this, Eve.

Eve: [00:29:50] I agree.

Stephanie: [00:29:52] And because in Colorado, when you came out to Colorado, Impact Days, we physically have a farmer’s market, you know, where…

Eve: [00:29:59] I don’t want to travel that much. I kind of like this Zoom thing.

Stephanie: [00:30:02] Absolutely. So we’re essentially putting the farmer’s market online. And so we created an investor catalog. And it’s really the social venture panel is to give five to 12 minutes casually for people to learn about a couple of the investment opportunities. And then we do a speed round of two minutes. And it’s shocking to me sometimes that people actually shine better in the two minutes than they do when they’re given seven to ten minutes.

Eve: [00:30:29] Yeah, it’s pretty fun. And people get an opportunity to ask questions, too. I think it’s exciting for me. I mean, what’s your ultimate goal with these clubs? What would be a fantastic outcome in five years for you?

Stephanie: [00:30:41] I’ll put my geeky academic entrepreneur hat on for a second. We actually wrote a paper called Laying the Groundwork for the National Impact Investing Marketplace. So we published in the Foundation Review. And we’re pretty confident now that if you take our infrastructure and combine it with some other infrastructure, such as Lenny Lavis up in Seattle, he has realized impact investor flow, a Fleg regenerative accelerator. If you take some of our joint infrastructure together, we can actually completely fix the capital markets and move a trillion dollars into impact. I can do it two ways. I can go fundraise 20 million dollars and take what we did in Colorado and expand it to all 50 states. Or we can earn money from some of our social ventures, such as our Impact Investing Institute, and use it to self-fund our expansion to all 50 states. So what’s exciting about the Investor Clubs is most of our Investor Clubs are actually being purchased or supported by foundations who want to do economic development and Covid recovery. Federal government, USDA, Forest Service. And we’ve had interest in state governments, too. So I think if I was in state government or foundation interested or family office interest in Covid recovery or a corporation, I would be basically investing in as many Impact Investing Giving Circles and Investor Clubs as I could afford to support. I think that getting one percent of our wealth to invest in Main Street as an example in Colorado, that would be five billion dollars that could be leveraged through CDFI’s and banks for a 15 billion to 50 billion dollar year investment. It wouldn’t take much, just one percent of the wealth.

Eve: [00:32:27] Um-hmm. Fantastic. I’m going to change gears again. Just ask a few more questions to wrap up and they’re about you. And what do you love doing the most and why?

Stephanie: [00:32:39] I love most partner dancing. Ballroom dancing is my favorite joy in the whole world. Which I feel like it’s going to be the last activity that comes back to us after Covid. So I’m sort of isolated. I’m single in Denver, Colorado, and I Waltz and Cha-Cha and Two-step and learning the Latin dances and I Swing and I just can’t wait to get back to partner dancing.

Eve: [00:33:04] So I have to ask, have you watched my very favorite Australian movie called Strictly Ballroom?

Stephanie: [00:33:09] I have seen Strictly Ballroom. Yes.

Eve: [00:33:13] So, the Star of Strictly Ballroom used to live next to me in Sydney.

Stephanie: [00:33:17] Well, I can’t wait to be traveling with you to Sydney.

Eve: [00:33:20] I don’t think he lives there any more.

Stephanie: [00:33:24] We can go have lunch.

Eve: [00:33:24] And what are you excited about the most?

Stephanie: [00:33:27] I am excited, two things. Is, as I used to feel like that from 2012-20, I felt like I know there’s an answer and we just have to develop the answer. And now I feel like the answers there. All the puzzle pieces are on the table. Now, we just have to put the puzzle pieces together. And so I’m excited about all of the amazing impact investors and all the amazing social ventures out there. There is so much goodness and love and light and inspiring people who are showing up in the impossible ways to make the world a better place. And so I’m very fortunate in that I get to hear from people with resources and people needing resources, doing amazing things and have the the joy of being able to connect them together. And our phone has just been ringing off the hook. Especially a lot of middle aged white women, just between the combination of the global pandemic and our civil rights crisis have just called. And many of them have got a text once that says, what can I do to help my sisters of color immediately? And she made an investment quickly. I had another woman call. We do a fellowship of ten sessions. And on her first session, she’s like, I’m ready to make a first hundred thousand dollar investment today. I’m like, OK, there we go. And so, yeah. So it’s just great to see how many people are showing up and going, now’s the time. I can’t wait any longer.

Eve: [00:34:59] It’s been really wonderful talking to you and I really can’t wait to see what becomes of the Impact Finance Center and our club and what’s next for you.

Stephanie: [00:35:09] Oh, well, and likewise, Eve. I just want to give a gratitude and compliment to you, because I don’t know that we’ve discussed this, but when this movement was getting off the ground, I was very aware there’s a role to activate new investors, educate and organize existing investors and build the financial fintech solution. And I chose to be on the education of investor side, and I couldn’t be more happy to be collaborating with you. You’re just somebody who is a visionary and a joy and has incredible integrity. And I think,

Eve: [00:35:44] I’m blushing now.

Stephanie: [00:35:45] Oh, I think that what you do and what I do are two pieces…

Eve: [00:35:51] Perfect match.

Stephanie: [00:35:51] Of a puzzle that literally will democratize and provide that pathway to solve the problems that I had as a 15 year old, 16 year old watching.

Eve: [00:36:01] You know, you’re right. I mean, I think investor education is the most difficult part of what I do, and I can’t do that and investor education. So I’m extremely grateful to have you around.

Stephanie: [00:36:14] Well, let’s go find what should our goal be in the next five years.

Eve: [00:36:18] We should build humongous impact investor club and just showcase thousands of projects. And, you know, I’d have to quantify that goal clearly.

Stephanie: [00:36:30] Well, I’m going put a goal out for us. It’s February 18, 2021. How about a year from now, our goal will be able to have a list of twenty thousand investors that are actively investing in and community real estate.

Eve: [00:36:43] I think that’s a fantastic goal. I’m happy to add to it.

Stephanie: [00:36:48] Fantastic. It’s a true honor and joy to be in partnership with you.

Eve: [00:36:51] Thank you.

Stephanie: [00:36:52] Thank you.

Eve: [00:37:04] That was Dr. Stephanie Gripne. Stephanie believes that impact investing is all about educating people – trustworthy, non-conflicted investor education. The Impact Financial Center is quickly becoming the go-to place for just this type of education and for every level of investor, from foundations to individuals who have never invested before. You’ll be hearing more about the Impact Finance Center, I’m sure. Please share this podcast so that more people learn about Stephanie and the Impact Finance Center. 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 Dr. Stephanie Gripne/IFC and CO Impact Days

Why modular construction?

February 22, 2021

Modular construction is the construction of buildings using modules or prefabricated sections. Manufactured off-site, using assembly line production, modules are fabricated from standard building materials and are built to meet or exceed the building codes of conventional buildings. They can be manufactured without compromising on quality and can meet sophisticated design specifications, including matching existing building aesthetics. After manufacture, the modules are delivered to the building site where they are installed in any specified configuration before being connected together to make an entire building. After assembly, modular buildings are effectively identical to conventional site-built buildings.

If you have been paying attention to the conversation about affordable housing or environmental sustainability in construction, you may have heard of modular construction.

Here are some advantages:

  • Manufacturing can occur at the same time as foundation and site work, reducing construction time
  • Factory manufacture means less waste as inventory is controlled and building materials are weather protected
  • Factory manufacture also reduces the risk of weather delays
  • Prefabrication causes less site disturbance
  • Modular buildings can be disassembled and recycled reducing the overall demand for building materials as well as energy use
  • Manufacturing in a factory-controlled environment means less air pollution


Scott Flynn founded  indieDwell, a modular home company that grew from a one per quarter build to 10 per week in the first four years. IndieDwell began by focusing on affordable modular homes made from shipping containers. Although shipping containers are an amazing form of recycling,  they’re very complicated to use, especially for commercial projects which have more restrictive codes. So, because indieDwell’s mission is to put as many people into high quality, healthy homes as possible, they are in the process of switching to a steel studded frame system. Like the shipping containers before them, the modules will be high performance, energy efficient, durable and sustainable. And the new modules will lower the price of homes even further.

Scott is manufacturing change. Listen in to my podcast conversation with Scott to learn more.

Image from PxHere

« Previous Page
Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

sign up here

APPLY TO BE A PODCAST GUEST

More to See

(no title)

February 22, 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

  • The Mulberry
  • Mount Vernon Plaza
  • The Seven
  • Real estate and women.
  • Oculis Domes.

Search

Categories

Climate Community Crowdfunding Development Equity Fintech Investing Mobility Proptech Visionary

 

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