• 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

Finance

Innovation in real estate. An inevitability.

November 15, 2019

In order to keep a-pace with the quickly changing world, the real estate development industry needs to change. One way is to focus on strategies for business model innovation. Let’s take a look at a few forward-thinking real estate development and investment firms that are leveraging technology and modern business strategies to create sustainable development projects.

Machine learning

Some early-stage companies are using machine learning to identify optimal opportunities to build housing. CityBldr, for example, have positioned themselves as the first “Smart Brokerage.” They use AI and machine learning to determine the market value of a property. And they connect those property owners with buyers willing to pay the market price. This is a win for the property owner who may not have known the value of their property. At the same time, they are providing previously unrecognized (and unavailable) property opportunities to developers. Property owners can see if a builder or developer would pay more for their property in thirty seconds by visiting CityBldr.

CityBldr’s solution could help to build more by-right housing which conforms to local zoning codes. By aggregating potential development parcels and providing developers with access to their advanced software tools that model potential development, they are impacting both the supply and the demand side. The supply side is represented by current landowners, who hold rights to any potential project on the site. The demand side is represented by developers or other stakeholders who are intent on revitalizing a given neighborhood or geographic area.

Analytics systems like those offered by CityBldr and other similar data companies have the potential to take the guesswork out of development and facilitate projects that would be otherwise overlooked due to financial constraints and the time cost of negotiating with landowners.

Unlocking credit opportunities

Many hopeful homeowners are locked out of traditional home financing solutions. Credit problems, bankruptcies, alternative income streams, and lack of credit history all prevent many people from buying a house. This is especially true for low-income Americans and those with little history of homeownership in their family. In the mortgage lending arena, renters that have troubled credit histories are known as no-file or thin-file. These individuals, like many others, experience issues related to cash flow. This is where payday and short-term lenders come into play- these lenders often prey on lower-income or cash insolvent individuals with high-interest rate loans with terrible terms. And so the cycle of credit and other financial problems begins.

Many companies and nonprofits are working to serve these consumers with housing-related credit, offering opportunity without the onerous loan terms. They act as go-betweens for landlords and renters – the renter pays the company directly, and the company pays the landlord. They can provide bridge financing when times are tough, thus ensuring people stay in their homes. Landlords work with these companies due to the guarantee of rent coming in on time, every month, regardless of the financial circumstances of tenants.

In many ways, the housing and rental credit industries are among those most in need of disruption. Increasing access to mortgage loans and other housing-related finance will reduce housing insecurity, while also providing the industry with much needed growth from customers they would traditionally not be able to serve. This means more transactions, more filled properties with rent-paying tenants, and an overall boost to the real estate industry and the companies that work with real estate professionals.

_

When we think about business technology, we’ve been programmed to think about gleaming data centers, mobile apps, and other common examples of tech-driven solutions. But new business and development models are also a form of technology. They can disrupt and improve the industry just as much as (if not more than) any technical solution. Companies and investors who embrace these new methods will find that they’ve provided more housing, to more people, while improving their overall profitability at the same time. It’s a win-win for everyone.

Image by Gino Crescoli from Pixabay

Connecting impact and creativity.

October 16, 2019

Laura Callanan is connecting impact investing to the creative economy. 
To accomplish this, she founded Upstart Co-Lab. Upstart Co-Lab’s goal is to show impact investors that the arts can be a powerful economic driver in communities. 

Laura brings a powerful background to Upstart Co-Lab. Before launching Upstart Co-Lab, Laura was senior deputy chair of the National Endowment for the Arts; consultant with McKinsey & Company’s Social Sector Office; and associate director of the Rockefeller Foundation where she managed the endowment and co-led impact investing, closing two investments in the creative economy.

She has also been a visiting fellow at the San Francisco Fed, a scholar in residence at UC-Berkeley/Haas School of Business and a Rockefeller Foundation Bellagio fellow. Laura chairs the GlobalGiving Foundation, advises Shift Capital, and is a member of the British Council Creative Industries International Council. 

Listen in to Eve and Laura to learn how creativity is connected to impact, and how together they can build better cities.

Insights and Inspirations

  • Incremental change is insufficient. Be open and bold!
  • Artists are by nature peculiarly suited to community development since art is built on tradition, whether it embraces it or not.
  • Creative endeavors can bring every bit as much to the economy as any other enterprise.
  • Strategy and focus are key to accomplishing Upstart Co-Lab’s big goals. Make the case. Build the coalition. Bring investible products to market.
  • Laura is intrigued by the hunger for immersive experiences. Is this a reflection of the isolated lives we live?

Information and Links

  • Subscribe to ImpactAlpha.
  • Go to SOCAP.
  • Read the books by Jed Emerson and Cathy Clark.
Read the podcast transcript here

Eve Picker: Hey, everyone, this is Eve Picker, and if you listen to this podcast series, you’re going to learn how to make some change. Thanks so much for joining me today for the latest episode of Impact Real Estate Investing. 

Eve Picker: Hi there.  Thanks so much for joining me today for the latest episode of Impact Real Estate Investing.  My guest today is Laura Callanan, The founding partner of Upstart Co-Labs. Upstart believes that creative people solve problems. It is disrupting how creativity is funded by connecting impact investing to the creative economy.  One way the creative economy drives impact is in communities.

Laura brings a powerful background to Upstart Co-Lab.  Just a few of her many past roles include serving as senior deputy chairman of the National Endowment of the Arts;  consultant with McKinsey & Company’s Social Sector Office and associate director at the Rockefeller Foundation 

Be sure to go to evepicker dot com to find out more about Laura on the shownotes page for this episode. And be sure to sign up for my newsletter so you can access information about impact real estate investing and get the latest news about the exciting projects on my crowdfunding platform, SmallChange.

Eve Picker: Be sure to go to EvePicker.com to find out more about Laura on the Show Notes page for this episode and be sure to sign up for my newsletter so you can access information about impact real estate investing and get the latest news about the exciting projects on my crowdfunding platform, Small Change.

Eve Picker: Hi, Laura. It’s really a pleasure to have you here. Thank you for joining me. I’ve come to know you through your most recent enterprise, Upstart Co-Lab, where you’re a founding partner. I’m wondering if you could just tell us a little bit about Upstart’s mission and goals?

Laura Callanan: So Upstart Co-Lab is a field builder, a catalyst, a connector. We are connecting impact investing to the creative economy. We know that creative people solve problems. Like all entrepreneurs, they need capital to do it. Most creative entrepreneurs are very socially minded. Artists care about the human condition and that extends to the work they do through an enterprise model. So, the capital that fits them best is social capital, impact capital. Upstart Co-Lab is trying to unleash more of that impact investment capital for the creative economy.

Eve Picker: That’s great. How do you propose to accomplish that? I know you have a few different strategies you’ve been working on, but I’d love to hear more.

Laura Callanan: Well, from the beginning, we realized that what we were doing for the creative sector, in a lot of ways, followed on from what leaders had done around gender lens investing, so we went to the mothers of gender lens investing, and we said, “How did you do it? How did you take this idea, and, in a pretty short period of time, it really infused the notion of gender lens throughout the impact investing space?” They said it was a three-part recipe: make the case, build the coalition, and bring investable products to market. So, that’s what we’ve tried to do.

Laura Callanan: We have undertaken research to get facts, and case studies, and examples in hand to be able to really articulate the opportunity for investors and the demand for capital in the creative sector to really represent that case. We have shared what we’ve learned through the research published on our website, through opinion pieces in the Financial Times and other publications, in conference panels and keynote talks. We’ve been trying to get these ideas out into the world. That’s how we’ve done the first step.

Laura Callanan: Building the coalition, we have been working with strategic partners from the very beginning. We’ve taken an approach of being small, nimble, spunky; trying to take our ideas and work with much larger, older, better-established partners to get the idea of the potential for the creative economy to make change and do good, infused into the work of community development – finance institutions, impact platforms, like CapShift, and Small Change, your own platform, and work with partners who can help us make these changes happen quickly. 

Laura Callanan: We’ve also been building relationships on the investor side. Through a number of conversations in small and large meetings, we’ve really started to build this community of impact investors who recognize the power of art, and design, and culture, and heritage, and creativity to drive change. We have recently re-oriented our approach to what we’re calling Upstart 2.0, and we’re really going to focus on building a member community of the ambassadors, the evangelists who – as donor-advised funds, as private foundations, as endowed cultural institutions – want to take these ideas back to their peer group.

Laura Callanan: Then, the third step – bring investable products to market – our greatest example of that to date is work that we did with the Local Initiative Support Corporation (LISC) to launch a New York City Inclusive Creative Economy Fund. This is working with the oldest and largest national community development finance institutions, harnessing the power of their AA rating; harnessing their ability to underwrite and manage loans to real estate projects – in this case, affordable workspace for multi-tenant creative economy businesses.

Laura Callanan: We’ve found this to be really exciting, because we set out to raise $5 million of impact capital for the New York City Inclusive Creative Economy Fund. We closed the fund after about six months, having raised $6.2 million [cross talk] all Foundation that capital is fully deployed. We’re talking with LISC now about what a $100 million National Inclusive Creative Economy Fund could be [cross talk] That’s been our approach: make the case, build the coalition, and bring investable products to market to make it easier for investors to deploy their capital.

Eve Picker: I think you must be a very focused person not to get distracted, because that’s … You make it sound easy, but it’s pretty big. I’m very familiar with LISC; one of our would-be issuers on Small Change actually tried to use that program. She didn’t end up being able to buy the building, but it was that program that would have made it possible for her. That’s pretty great. How do you think that LISC might expand that? Are you talking to them about expansion?

Laura Callanan: As I said, the national fund is in the works, so let’s just wait and see when that’s ready to be announced.

Eve Picker: Okay, very good. I have to backtrack a little bit and say, why is all of this important to you, personally?

Laura Callanan: I majored in theater in college. I started my career working in the arts. My husband, my late husband, was a playwright and a novelist. So, in my personal life, I’ve always had a connection to creative people and the work that they do. I guess, now about eight or nine years ago, I had a lunch with a guy named Jim Howden, a founding artistic director of an off-Broadway theatre company in New York, Signature Theatre Company. And I at that point, I’d known Jim for about 20 years. I had known him from the very first days at the very beginning of his founding Signature Theatre Company.

Laura Callanan: We were having a lunch, and catching up, and he was talking to me about the $70 million Signature Theatre Company had raised in a public-private partnership to create a new three-theatre complex in West 42nd Street in the Times Square area. He was talking about how that new space would allow Signature Theatre to expand their programming. He reiterated the commitment to be sure that every ticket for every play was affordably priced at about $25. He was just describing all of the vision and what was going to happen next.

Laura Callanan: The architect on the project was Frank Gehry. They were designing a 7,500-square-foot open lobby space that would be a community center … A community green in the middle of Hell’s Kitchen was how Jim talked about it. He was just describing all of these plans. I knew where this company had started. The budget for their first year with $30,000. They were in a borrowed space way downtown. Things had not always been smooth and easy. They had made a commitment to equity and access from the early days. I knew that it had not been a smooth trajectory, but here was Jim talking about what was happening next.

Laura Callanan: It was at a moment that I was working at McKinsey & Company in the social sector office. I was in the middle of an engagement with the school foundation, so I was thinking a lot about social entrepreneurship. I heard these words coming out of my mouth. I said, “Jim, you’re what they call a social entrepreneur, but nobody calls you that because you’re working in the arts and you don’t call yourself that because you’re working in the arts. But take it from me. I am a highly paid McKinsey consultant. I know this stuff, and this is what you are.”

Laura Callanan: I left the lunch really scratching my head and thinking, if this guy were not a friend, would I put him in the same group as Muhammad Yunus, Wangari Maathai, Paul Farmer, Wendy Kopp, all of these card-carrying social entrepreneurs? If Jim is objectively a social entrepreneur of that caliber, is he the exception that proves the rule? Is there nobody else in the arts who could be called a social entrepreneur, or is there this whole overlooked cohort of talented, socially oriented, potentially hugely successful leaders who, for some reason, have not benefited from the grants, the networks, the incubators, the accelerators, the impact capital that other social entrepreneurs have access to?

Laura Callanan: I thought about this for a while. A few years later, in my role as the senior deputy chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts, I started to explore what it would take to close this gap for creative people who’ve decided to move beyond the studio, beyond the theatre, beyond the concert hall, and to work in their communities and to work as every bit of a social entrepreneur. That’s the background and how we got started with Upstart Co-Lab. 

Eve Picker: That’s pretty fabulous. So, I suppose the question is – what’s the end goal for Upstart Co-Lab? What does it look like when you’ve succeeded? 

Laura Callanan: When we’ve succeeded, every impact investment advisor on their website, next to talking about how they can help their clients invest in community development, and environmental sustainability, and by using a gender lens, they’ll also have a nice tab, a nice page, that talks about all of the ways that their clients can invest in the creative economy. We want to see this be as much of a theme, as much of a focus for impact investors as all of the other things that are already grabbing attention and investment dollars.

Laura Callanan: Our goal is to integrate this into the thinking of all impact investors and, frankly, to welcome a whole set of potential impact investors who’ve been sitting on the sidelines up to this point. By our calculation, more than $58 billion sits in the endowments of our museums, performing arts centers, libraries, or just endowed foundations, schools like Juilliard and RISD. 

Laura Callanan: These are institutions that are, at the moment, under some pressure for taking small donations from folks connected with opioids, tobacco, fossil fuels, and weapons. There’s been a lot in the headlines in recent months about cultural institutions declining contributions from these tainted sources. But the conversation stopped a bit short, and folks have not yet recognized that these are institutions controlling billions and billions of dollars and, unless they have taken active steps, are likely invested in, and earning returns from tobacco, and fossil fuels, and weapons, and private prisons, and some of these other things. 

Laura Callanan: The future that we hope we’re building through Upstart is one where all impact investors have more access to the great opportunities happening in sustainable food, ethical fashion, social-impact media, and other parts of the creative economy, and that artists, art lovers, arts institutions, who are investing, are able to learn about and are welcomed into a larger conversation about socially responsible investing through the door of the creative economy.

Eve Picker: Be sure to go to EvePicker.com and sign up for my free educational newsletter about impact real estate investing. You’ll be among the first to hear about new projects you can invest in. That’s EvePicker.com. Thanks so much.

Eve Picker: It’s really a shift in thinking, isn’t it? You’re an early pioneer in thinking that the creative arts are social impact, and you really have to wait until that idea takes hold with the masses. That’s a pretty hard road- 

Laura Callanan: Introducing any new idea takes some time, and some patience, and some moral fortitude. We’re trying to bring all of that to our work.

Eve Picker: Yeah, that’s pretty wonderful. That brings us to real estate, which is really my interest and the interest on this show. You talked about investment in creative enterprises. What do those enterprises look like? 

Laura Callanan: Let me describe one where real estate is a really core component. It’s interesting because it’s actually in the social-impact media space. When you hear social-impact media and you think about film and TV, music, video games, things like that, you think about content. That seems to be the furthest thing- as far as away as possible from real estate. But actually, real estate can play a crucial role.

Laura Callanan: I’m speaking to you today from the Hudson Valley of New York. One of my neighbors is the actor-director Mary Stuart Masterson. She is an example of a creative person who is also very much a social entrepreneur. She is launching a film and TV studio here in the Hudson Valley called Upriver Studios. She is doing it, in part, because she would like to be able to work where she lives, when she acts, and directs, and produces. But she also understands that film and TV can be a significant economic driver for a region. 

Laura Callanan: There’s a tax credit in this region of New York state, as in the rest of the state, and other places around the country, that incents producers to bring their projects here. One of the obligations to qualify for the tax credit is that your project needs to spend two days shooting on a certified soundstage in the geography, or the tax credit doesn’t apply to you. 

Laura Callanan: Mary Stuart, and her business partner, Beth Davenport, are launching Upriver Studios, a women-led New York State benefit corporation that will be environmentally friendly. They’re looking at solar power, and a green roof, and some other features like that, as well as environmentally friendly on-set practices.

Laura Callanan: It’s a hoteling model. They will have the state-of-the-art facility, and producers, directors, projects will come in; rent the space. It’s very fit for purpose. It’s a specialized space. There is sound attenuation; there are loading docks. There are high ceilings. There’s shop space. There are all of these things that are very particular to what it takes to film a TV series.

Laura Callanan: The advantage of this, for the community, is a couple-fold. First of all, every TV series generates between 150 and 200 production-crew jobs. We all think about the actors, and the writers, and the directors who are behind some of our favorite programs, but in fact, they’re the minority of people working on the show. There are all of the electricians, and the grips, and the sound folks, and the hair and makeup folks. You look at all those names that run on the credits at the end of a movie or at the end of a TV show [cross talk] 

Eve Picker: -Yeah, pretty long list. 

Laura Callanan: -150 to 200 people. These are quality jobs. Most of them are union jobs. They pay between $75,000, and $250,000 dollars a year. They have excellent health benefits. To bring this sort of work to this region creates a real opportunity for folks to work in those jobs. There’s a sister nonprofit to Upriver Studios, called Stockade Works, that is training the 21st century production crew to be ready to take those jobs.

Laura Callanan: There’s also an economic multiplier benefit. There’s also a tourism benefit. People like to go to the place that they learn about on their favorite TV show. So, the real estate is crucial to all the rest of this working; to the training program paying off; for the graduates of the training program to have a place to work; to attract folks to come, in partnership with the tax credit; provide the access to the sound stages that will make people really want to come to this region. That’s an example of real estate, as I said, connected to a content-focused industry – TV and film.

Eve Picker: So, that’s a pretty sexy use. While you’re speaking, I’m thinking that also, I think, restaurants are creative.

Laura Callanan: Absolutely. We are working right now on a deep dive around sustainable food, as it pertains to the creative economy. Obviously, there’s a big focus, within impact investing, on food and agriculture. We’re not looking at the crop. We’re looking at what it is on your plate. As I was thinking about it earlier today, we’re not focused on the milk, but we are focused on the cheese, right?

Eve Picker: Yes, yeah … 

Laura Callanan: So, the cheese factory is an example. We’re not focused on the groceries as much as we are the recipes. Those recipes get turned into delicious dishes in kitchens … We see a lot of community kitchens and commercial kitchens that can support multiple small-scale entrepreneurs. So, absolutely. Then, the restaurant, as an experience – the setting, the location, the ambiance, the type of building that it’s in – it’s all part of thinking about food and eating as a form of culture and community, not just nutrition.

Eve Picker: So, I’m realizing we’re actually talking to someone who may be a neighbor of yours about a restaurant idea, which is really immersed in the community. They would like to open the door for investment at a very small amount – $250 per investor – because they really want to involve the community. That’s another interesting way to look at it. From what I understand, creative enterprises seep into a lot of different things. I have to remind myself from time to time what a creative enterprise is; probably, Small Change is a creative enterprise, because I’m trained as an architect. Do architects count, Laura? 

Laura Callanan: We see that a lot of creative people are creative in many ways. They get trained as architects, or painters, or actors, and they decide to start different enterprises. We don’t talk about creativity as a skill set or a mindset. We focus on creativity from an industry perspective. We think that’s the way that investors can understand best. We had to do a lot of thinking early on about how we were going to scope our focus, because you’re right, people can be creative in many fields. But in terms of the type of work we’re trying to support and that we’re trying to get impact investors to pay attention to – food, fashion, media, other types of creative businesses, and the sorts of real estate projects that we’re describing here that make it possible for those creative activities to take place.

Eve Picker: That makes a lot of sense. This is a general question I usually ask – do you think socially responsible real estate is necessary in today’s development landscape? I don’t know how much you know or are involved in just real estate development. Do you have thoughts about that?

Laura Callanan: Well, it’s something that people who think about arts and the creative sector can’t overlook, because, as I’m sure you think about often, creative people are pioneers in different ways, not just in terms of the work they do, but where they choose to live and do their work; often looking for affordable places to be to give themselves the flexibility and the capacity to experiment and take risks.

Laura Callanan: Increasingly, we see examples where creative people are in neighborhoods that are ripe for gentrification. There can be confused conversations about the role that the presence of creative people plays in stimulating or contributing to that gentrification. Obviously, I believe that gentrification is a problem that lands on the doorstep of the asset owners and the developers, not the residents and the renters in a neighborhood. The creatives are frequently, like other residents, in a renter capacity. 

Laura Callanan: We spend a lot of time looking at academic research and other reports about how the presence of artists and creatives in a neighborhood is not the precipitating factor for gentrification, but actually occurs after the gentrification has begun. We think a lot about what different paradigms could be that would enable residents in a neighborhood to benefit as the neighborhood strengthens; how they can be rewarded for being good neighbors, for sweeping their stoops, for keeping their sidewalks clean – all that stuff that makes the neighborhood inviting and habitable – and what the system could look like – where the folks who are responsible for growing the value of the real estate assets in a community can actually benefit, even if they’re not the owners, themselves.

Eve Picker: Yeah, I do think that there is also a piece of this that government is responsible for, because if there’s an open free market, then it’s very difficult to control, but there are ways to control gentrification that benefit everyone, if you think about it early enough. I’m wondering, are there any current trends in arts innovation that interest you?

Laura Callanan: We don’t think about arts innovation, specifically. We’re thinking about that larger creative economy; we’re thinking about the role that industry plays [cross talk] 

Eve Picker: -that’s Upstart Co-Lab, but I’m just wondering if there’s anything that fascinates you.

Laura Callanan: Anything that fascinates me … I’m intrigued by our hunger for experience, and this is something where creative people are playing a role. I’m sure that you’re familiar with Meow Wolf, the phenomenon that started in Santa Fe that’s spreading to Denver, and Las Vegas, and Phoenix, and Chicago, and Washington, and on, and on, and on.

Laura Callanan: This is something where artists have come together. They transformed – in the Santa Fe example – an abandoned bowling alley. They turned it into this funhouse; this art gallery; this community space. It’s a place that attracts folks of all ages. All economic, demographic, sociological backgrounds, come, and walk through, and participate in Meow Wolf and find it intriguing.

Laura Callanan: The appetite for these types of immersive experiences, I think, is a reflection of our very isolated, tech-enhanced daily life. I love it that creative people – whether it’s through a food experience, whether it’s through an art experience, a music experience – that they are at the heart of what people choose to do when they leave their laptop.

Eve Picker: Yes. I think probably Starbucks was one of the first companies that realized this and created an experience out of coffee, right?

Laura Callanan: Exactly.

Eve Picker: What should those of us who are not in the creative world be following? What of these trends do you think is most important for the future of our cities? 

Laura Callanan: There’s an important role in the creative future for diversity, equity, and inclusion. Put aside the moral and ethical imperative. There’s just an imperative in terms of what’s going to come out- what’s going to generate the most intriguing content, the most relevant experience, the most interesting food, or fashion.

Laura Callanan: As you know, heterogeneous groups of people have been shown to solve harder problems, better and faster. If you think of both challenges and opportunities as problems to be solved, the more engaged the broader set of actors can be in contributing to imagining what comes next, the better the results will be. From a serious point of view, it’s a more effective solution. From a more lighthearted point of view, it’s that beautiful, delicious, joyful, wonderment experience, right?

Eve Picker: Yes. 

Laura Callanan: That having a variety of perspectives, a variety of experiences, a variety of backgrounds, a variety of skills brought together to imagine what’s next will get us the best result.

Eve Picker: Yeah, I think you’re probably right about that. It’s just very hard getting there, isn’t it?

Laura Callanan: It depends. If you hang out with enough creative people, it can make you ridiculously optimistic, so … 

Eve Picker: That’s what I need to do, then … Because you have a very different point of view than many of the people I’ve talked to, who are developers, or work in the securities world, or are really focused on the built environment. You have sort of a more expanded view, I think. How do you think we need to think about our cities and neighborhoods so that we build better places for everyone? You may have just answered that.

Laura Callanan: Well, we think that the creative people and creative organizations, meaning arts- and design-type organizations, have some lessons that are useful to the rest of the economy. We’ve started to articulate values for an inclusive, creative economy. I can just share them with you because our hope is that we can transform; we can improve; we can strengthen the entire economy by sharing some of these lessons from the creative economy.

Eve Picker: Yeah, that would be great.

Laura Callanan: These are things that we’ve touched on already, but one is an orientation that’s open and experimental. So, openness and experimentation, I think, is crucial. It will help us to keep pace in our rapidly changing world. Continuous improvement, radical new approaches, that’s what we need. Incremental change is insufficient given the dynamism, the complexity of the world that we’re in. Sometimes, small improvements are just simply inadequate, and you need something that’s much more bold. 

Laura Callanan: You get that by being curious and having this learning orientation. Artists, designers, very much are built that way, and I think that’s a general approach that can benefit all types of businesses, all sorts of real estate projects, governments, philanthropy. I think everyone benefits from that approach. That’s the first value that we think the creatives can share with the rest of the economy.

Laura Callanan: The second one – diversity and inclusion – we’ve already talked about; the capacity to solve problems better and faster that comes when you’ve got diverse perspectives on the task. It’s not just that it’s the ethically right thing to do. It’s that there’s business value. There is a strategic advantage to approaching it in this way. Creativity simply can’t be optimized if you don’t have both diversity and inclusion at play.

Laura Callanan: The last idea is one around tradition and innovation and recognizing that communities have both – I’ll call it – knowledge and wisdom. With that, they’re able to learn from the past experience and apply that to what’s coming up next in the future. You know that creative people are always reacting to what came before. They might be building off of it. They might be rejecting it outright and trying to do something very different, but creative work is always in context, and it’s in context with what has preceded it.

Laura Callanan: The long-term thinking, the sense of stewardship that social-sector leaders and impact investors hold, I think, is very compatible with the way creatives do their work. I think creative take it even a step further; having a really deep respect and awareness of prior tradition, but not being restrained by that or being held back by that; using that actually as a launch pad to innovation.

Laura Callanan: Those are the three ideas that we think are crucial. Creatives just know this in their bones to be open and experimenting, to welcome in diverse perspectives and be very inclusive of various voices and to connect to tradition and innovation. We think that those are ideas and lessons that can strengthen the entire economy.

Eve Picker: I’m very honored that you asked to partner with Small Change and that we’re now highlighting creative economy projects on our site. I’m just wondering what you think equity crowdfunding- how you think it can play a role in building these special creative economy projects and communities?

Laura Callanan: I think it’s crucial as a way for projects like Upriver Studios that I mentioned a minute ago, or a Meow Wolf, that started in one community and is now expanding to the next six or so communities around the country. I think it’s important for these organizations, these enterprises, to engage the communities that they’re in, in an active way.

Laura Callanan: This is a way to signal that it’s not just building something for a small group of employees or a small group of investors. If you are a Mary Stuart Masterson and you’re launching something that you hope is going to really boost the economy of the Hudson River Valley, this is a way to say, “And you, my neighbor, can have a stake in this. You can benefit as we grow this thing together,” whether or not your $250 dollars, your $1,000 dollars, whatever the small bite size might be of investment that’s facilitated through Small Change … It’s a really clear communication to local folks that this is for them and that they’re welcome.

Laura Callanan: I think it’s a really strong indicator for larger-scale investors who want to test the morals and the intentions of a real estate developer. It gives them a really strong indication. If the developer is going to take the time and engage with the local community and allow them to participate through a crowdfunding structure, then they’re serious about boosting the local community. If they can’t be bothered, I think that is a real question mark about the intention of the developer.

Eve Picker: That also extends to planning departments and zoning hearings. If you can bring along a crowd of people who are supporting the project, that’s a very strong statement, I think, in many ways-

Laura Callanan: Absolutely.

Eve Picker: Where do you think the future of impact investing lies? I ask this because I’m afraid it’s still just a word that people use. I have yet to really believe that people will take a lesser return because a project is socially responsible. Perhaps that’s coming, but still hard to believe.

Laura Callanan: Well, I would disabuse you or anyone listening to this podcast that impact investing is asking people to take a lesser return. I know that 25 years ago, when I started to get into the impact investing space – when the space was very new and impact investing was not the term it went by – that there were a few early, less sophisticated, less professionally managed investment opportunities, and that might have been the story back in the 1990s.

Laura Callanan: I would say that we have Goldman Sachs, BlackRock, UBS, Morgan Stanley – all these large names, these premier financial institutions, participating in the socially responsible and impact investing sector, not because they and their clients are expecting to make less money. We can have a whole separate conversation about the whys and wherefores for this. We can talk about the risk management component of introducing social, responsible ESG factors into decision-making, but I would hate for anyone to hear this conversation and walk away thinking that they’re going to lose money by engaging in impact [cross talk] 

Eve Picker: I don’t think lose money but let me just pose the question a bit differently in what I see, and that is, in particular, affordable housing. As a real estate developer, when you work in an underserved neighborhood, it is very hard to get projects to pencil out; very, very difficult. That’s why there are so many subsidies around affordable housing projects, and that’s why it’s slow to build them fast enough.

Eve Picker: If you want to keep a project- an asset like that affordable for the next 15 or 30 years, it’s not an asset that will increase in value. It’s a difficult thing to invest in. Absolutely, investors in those types of projects will have to take a lesser return than if they invested in a more traditional real estate project. There’s a real differentiation there, and I would love to have this conversation with you- 

Laura Callanan: No, that suggests that each investment’s looked at in isolation, and an investor is looking at their total portfolio. There should be some things that are lower risk and commensurate return, and here are some things that are going to be higher risk and commensurate return.

Laura Callanan: When we were talking with investors about the New York City, the LISC New York City Inclusive Creative Economy Fund, we were talking to them about an eight-year note with full recourse to a AA-rated issuer that was paying 2.75 percent annual interest. As I talk to you today, in September of 2019, and we sit with an inverted yield curve, the 2.75 interest on a seven-, eight-year investment from a AA-rated issuer is looking awfully good. So, a lower-risk commensurate-return opportunity, which has a place in everybody’s portfolio.

Eve Picker: I see it- I’m not seeing it yet in my world, but I hope to see it. I think there’s still a lot of people who don’t think that way … Maybe we can convince them. There’s just some sign-off questions that I’d like to ask.

Laura Callanan: Sure. 

Eve Picker: What would be the key factor that makes a real estate project impactful to you?

Laura Callanan: Well, the community orientation, clearly, is something that we would probably both agree on. I see that- it’s not a surprise to me that a lot of the creative economy real estate projects that I’m aware of are deeply focused on their role in their community, whether it’s Meow Wolf, Upriver Studios … We haven’t yet talked about Greenbelt Hospitality, which is launching out of Phoenix. These are examples where the entrepreneurs behind the projects all are really thoughtful about their community, and real estate is core to what these businesses are all about. The businesses can’t succeed if the community is not engaged. I think that that’s fundamental.

Eve Picker: Yeah, I agree. If you’re looking at the real estate landscape in the U.S., which you see every day, if there were one thing that you could change to make it better, what would that be?

Laura Callanan: Well, I think there’s got to be a regulatory solution to the gentrification question. Obviously, improving communities is a good thing. The only reason that we have a term like gentrification that conjures up something that’s really, really bad is because when the community improves, there are winners and losers. I think there needs to be a regulatory fact or a solution that comes into play to close that gap, because the notion of keeping communities where they are already and not allowing them to strengthen is not an alternative. It’s not a solution to the issue.

Eve Picker: Yeah, I totally agree with you. Thank you very, very much. Thanks for spending the time with us. I really enjoyed the conversation, and I’m going to continue having conversations with you off the air, okay? 

Laura Callanan: My pleasure. Thanks, Eve.

Eve Picker: Thank you. Bye-bye. That was Laura Callanan of Upstart Co-Lab. She shared some powerful concepts with me. First, that strategy and focus are key to accomplish big goals, like the goals that Upstart Co-Lab has. Second, that creative endeavors can bring every bit as much to the economy as any other enterprise. Third, that artists, by nature, are suited to community development. Art is built on tradition, whether it embraces it or not. Expect to hear more about creative economy investment opportunities in the next few years, because that is what Laura is determined to do.


Eve Picker: You can find out more about impact real estate investing and access the show notes for today’s episode at my website, EvePicker.com. While you’re there, sign up for my newsletter to find out more about how to make money in real estate while building better cities. Thank you so much for spending your time with me today, and thank you, Laura, for sharing your thoughts with me. We’ll talk again soon, but for now, this is Eve Picker signing off to go make some change.

Photo of Laura Callanan by Helga Sigvaldadottir.

Advancing community development.

October 2, 2019

Joshua Lavrinc is a multi-disciplinary real estate professional with a breadth of experience in development and finance consulting, lending and investment, and fund management. He’s also a colleague and friend of mine in Pittsburgh,

What sets Josh apart is the type of funds and projects he is involved in. He’s carved out a little niche for himself in Pittsburgh, helping to raise and manage funds like the Strategic Investment Fund and Power of 32 Site Development Fund through his company, Callay Capital. Callay, a real estate investment advisory firm, was formed to advance economic and community development goals and that’s just what Josh does. And he’s an expert on alternative financial structures as well, like New Market Tax Credits and Opportunity Zone Funds. He sits on Novogradac’s national Opportunity Zones Working Group. 

More recently Josh founded Grow Community Development to explore the real estate development work he really loves. Some examples of the projects he is involved in are the recently opened the Oaklander Hotel and is working on impactful, mixed-use projects in Pittsburgh and Detroit anchored by co-working company the Beauty Shoppe. Josh’s education includes a B.S. in Accounting from Pennsylvania State University, a J.D. from the University of Pennsylvania and a Certificate of Management and Public Policy from the Wharton School of Business. 

Listen in to hear more about Josh and his thoughts on impact in real estate and Opportunity Zone Funds.

Insights and Inspirations

  • The capital markets can be squarely directed at impact investing.
  • There are some large and strategic impact funds that have been around for a while, like Pittsburgh’s Strategic Investment Fund.
  • Impact investing isn’t just one size fits all. It can serve projects of many shapes and sizes.

Information and Links

  • Josh is proud of the Oaklander, the first hotel development project he has co-developed with business partners Jim Noland and Concord Hospitality.
  • Josh loves the Rich Roll Podcast series which explores Rich’s plant-fueled feats of boundary-pushing athleticism and fuels Josh’s exercise routine. He likes this latest episode in particular.
Read the podcast transcript here

Eve Picker: Hey, everyone, this is Eve Picker, and if you listen to this podcast series, you’re going to learn how to make some change. Thanks so much for joining me today for the latest episode of Impact Real Estate Investing. My guest today is Joshua Lavrinc, a colleague of mine in Pittsburgh. Josh is the CEO of Grove Community Development, a real estate development and consulting company. He’s also the CEO of Callay Capital, a fund advisory and management company.

Eve Picker: While Josh started his professional life as an attorney, he pretty quickly moved into the capital-raising world and has stayed there ever since, but he shifted his role to developer, development consultant, and fund manager, squarely in the impact arena. What sets Josh apart is the type of funds and projects he’s involved in. He’s carved out a little niche for himself in Pittsburgh, helping to raise and manage funds like the Strategic Investment Fund and the Power of 32 Site Development Funds.

Eve Picker: In this podcast, we explore the inherent challenges in impact investing. Be sure to go to EvePicker.com to find out more about Josh on the show notes page for this episode and be sure to sign up for my newsletter, so you can access information about impact real estate investing and get the latest news about the exciting projects on my crowdfunding platform, Small Change.

Eve Picker: Hi, Josh, how are you?

Josh Lavrinc: Good morning, Eve. I’m very well, thank you.

Eve Picker: Josh, I know a lot about you, but our listeners do not. I would love you to just tell us a little bit about yourself.

Josh Lavrinc: Fantastic. Well, thanks for the opportunity to speak. I’m in Pittsburgh, as you are these days, working on real estate investment, in particular, for socially responsible mission-based investments, which we’ll talk about as we proceed in the conversation.

Josh Lavrinc: My background … I’ve lived in several places in the Northeast and went to college, undergrad, at Penn State, where I learned accounting, among other things; started my career as an accountant very briefly, before deciding to continue on to law school. After studying accounting and being in an accounting firm for a short while, I decided to proceed to law school, and went to the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia with my now wife.

Josh Lavrinc: We stayed there for about five years, through law school and practicing law, really in the areas- two areas – one, real estate finance and development and the other area, structured finance, working, in particular, on commercial mortgage securitization for large rating agency clients and large investor clients. Then combining that with a more traditional dirt practice, as they call it, on real estate development, and then representing banks, insurance companies on lending and investment, as well.

Josh Lavrinc: When it was time to have children – my wife is from Pittsburgh – we came back to Pittsburgh and here we’ve been since about 2005. I continued practicing law for a few years until the market crashed in 2008. I had left the law firm to start a development career and started, actually, a distressed debt strategy that was difficult to pull off, raising capital and sourcing distressed debt transactions as a way to try and acquire property at the right basis during that cycle.

Josh Lavrinc: With little resources to pursue that strategy, my partner and I at the time – he was also young with new children in the house, like I – we decided to look at residential real estate as an overlooked asset class; something that had been hit pretty hard by the financial crisis. We started a real estate development and construction company in Pittsburgh, which went on. After starting that up. about 24 months into it, I sold my interests and moved on to the mission-based investment fund management platform that I’ve grown and am part of now. I sold those interests, and he went on to become the largest owner of houses in Allegheny County, where Pittsburgh is located, in 2014..

Josh Lavrinc: I have a residential development and an investment background thanks to those couple of years, but I’ve moved back into commercial, which was much more of my professional training. I’m excitedly applying my skills for a particular mission rather than an array of clients, an array of projects, where I had responsibilities previously, just to execute on a transaction somewhat disconnected from the underlying projects. Now, I’m on the front side of the transaction, helping, assisting clients in figuring out how to finance those projects or actually providing the capital for those projects, and with a particular mission, as I was saying [cross talk] I can talk a little bit about that.

Eve Picker: Yeah. Can you tell us a little bit about the mission? That’d be really great.

Josh Lavrinc: My current partner, Jim Noland, had a mortgage banking firm back in Pittsburgh that he had started in the late ’70s-early ’80s. At some point, towards the end of that decade, some of the local union building trades came to him and said, “We’ve been investing in these national strategies with our local pension fund money. They will create financial returns, but they’re invested in projects at major metros that are very large, and they don’t really have any impact on us, here locally, so we would like to see if we can invest our money in local projects, create jobs, and create financial return.”

Josh Lavrinc: So, before it became popular to talk about responsible investments or mission-based investment, here was a fund that formed. Fast forward, that fund is called the Employees Real Estate Construction Trust. It’s a regional fund from Cleveland, Ohio, through West Virginia that has a collection of union, municipal and private pension fund investors, the majority of whom originally were local union building trades. There is a 100-percent union building-trade labor requirement attached to those funds for every investment they do, in order to create high-quality jobs through the union building trades and invest that money for financial return, locally.

Eve Picker: How much has been invested locally through that fund over the years?

Josh Lavrinc: It’s been, I believe, over a billion dollars at this point, although the corpus of the funds is in the $200 million range, a little over that [cross talk]

Eve Picker: -that’s pretty high impact, Josh.

Josh Lavrinc: Pretty high impact, and that’s not a track record I can claim responsibility for. There’s a great team. There’s a trustee of those funds, AmeriServ Bank. My partner, Jim Noland, and his company, Penn Trust Real Estate Advisory Services, Incorporated, of which I was part, has served as the real estate advisor, essentially in charge of origination, and execution, and servicing of all those assets. There are strategies within those funds – a debt strategy and an equity strategy. They’ve been very flexible in the market; able to do things a little more aggressively than conventional lenders and have built up a great reputation in the development community in this region, as a result of that, and their great, diligent, and friendly relationships.

Eve Picker: That’s how you dipped your toe in the water of impact and socially responsible developments. If you fast forward today, what other projects have you worked on or what other funds have you managed that fit that criteria?

Josh Lavrinc: Great. When I met Jim Noland on a nonprofit board he and I were serving on, he was pursuing a program with the State of Pennsylvania – the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, I should say – called the Building Pennsylvania Mezzanine Loan Program, trying to do support; provide gap financing to support commercial projects in promoting an economic development mission in the state. That program successfully was pursued, and we’ve used that a number of times, including to finance the Ace Hotel here in Pittsburgh. That’s one additional mission-based fund that we continue to manage from time to time.

Eve Picker: Be sure to go to EvePicker.com and sign up for my free educational newsletter about impact real estate investing. You’ll be among the first to hear about new projects you can invest in. That’s EvePicker.com. Thanks so much.

Eve Picker: We should tell people, the Ace Hotel in Pittsburgh is a pretty high-impact project, because it’s a hotel that was … The hotel actually re-utilized, renovated a beautiful old building that had been long vacant in a very underserved neighborhood that was quite poor at the time. It really did a number of amazing things. It’s not just an Ace Hotel. It’s an Ace Hotel that really made an impact, I think.

Josh Lavrinc: Yeah, it came at a time, just before this … Really at the cusp for … This neighborhood in Pittsburgh, East Liberty, had been, prior to that, fairly distressed. Certainly, the Bakery Square project and the folks at Walnut Capital helped to transform that neighborhood, among others, but our friends, Nate Cunningham and Matthew Ciccone – Matthew sort of envisioning that project …

Josh Lavrinc: A former YMCA associated with a church across the street; had been sort of mid-block. Not a hard corner. Not an easy site to see, and certainly, at that time, not a neighborhood where you thought about hospitality assets, nor a brand, in Ace, that lenders still to this day think about wanting to see a major franchise and the loyalty customer base of that franchise brought to bear. Difficult to do boutique hotel financing in this neighborhood, mid-block, in the conversion of a former YMCA, but it turned out beautifully. It has been a social magnet for that neighborhood and certainly part of the recovery, I think [cross talk] 

Eve Picker: So that’s what-

Josh Lavrinc: Interestingly enough, another- Oh, go ahead, Eve.

Eve Picker: No, you go ahead.

Josh Lavrinc: Interestingly enough, at that time, we also arranged senior financing, or I should say bridge financing, with a fund called the Strategic Investment Fund, which I now manage through our company, Callay Capital – a third fund in our portfolio of funds that we manage. At that time, we were doing servicing for this fund and had helped with origination. We weren’t formerly the fund manager, we were just a particular service provider, but it was a good fit for that mission.

Josh Lavrinc: That fund now has recently changed its mission a bit but was originally formed in the ’90s to revitalize downtown Pittsburgh in the wake of the collapse of the steel industry. I should say not just downtown Pittsburgh, but also industrial reparation of the river valleys, where so much steel job loss actually was experienced. The Strategic Investment Fund’s intent was to create economic development – primarily its focus – in those river valleys, but also to revitalize housing and make a vibrant downtown community in the Pittsburgh CBD, in particular. It was very active in financing residential, retail, some hospitality, and a lot of commercial in the region, but focused on those two strategies.

Josh Lavrinc: Again, subordinate financing, taking aggressive pieces of the capital stack that were unable to be financed by conventional lenders – second, third mortgages, bridge loans, those kind of financing. We now manage that. The strategy is shifting a bit. We’re looking at- now that downtown Pittsburgh has essentially become revitalized, although, perhaps not at 100 percent, it’s drastically different than it was even 20 years ago. The mission now is to try and spread that growth into other neighborhoods that have more challenges for resources and try and help those more challenged communities. There’s also a sub-mission to assist with the affordable housing crisis that we have nationally and trying to create affordable housing. We’re looking at affordable housing in well-resourced communities, as well as lesser-resource communities [cross talk] In the last-

Eve Picker: No, you go ahead. Go ahead.

Josh Lavrinc: I was just going to say the last fund that we’re managing currently, as an active fund, is the Power of 32 Site Development Fund. This was a fund in 2014 that we raised to assist in creating shovel-ready sites for our region to promote a land development and attract companies from across the globe to locate here in our region and create jobs.

Josh Lavrinc: It’s called the Power of 32, because there was a larger think-tank initiative trying to promote the greater Pittsburgh region, identifying with four states: Ohio, Maryland, West Virginia, Pennsylvania – 32 counties in those states – and really community development, broadly – rails to trails, and venture capital, and site development. A bunch of initiatives were discussed, and we were one of those initiatives was to do the site development and we were chosen as the fund manager and helped to raise and implement that fund. It’s been successful to date. We’ve raised about $50 million and have … We’ve done about $25 million of projects right now, and we’re continuing that investment.

Eve Picker: That, in itself, is a huge body of work, but I know you’re squarely involved in socially responsible real estate and finance in Pittsburgh, but I also know that you are working on your own real estate development projects. You and I have partnered to try and raise money for Opportunity Zone real estate, which I’d love us to talk about and the difficulties around that entire tax law and how it’s playing out. Do you want to talk about that?

Josh Lavrinc: Yes, absolutely. That’s the fund that has not been named yet-

Eve Picker: That’s right.

Josh Lavrinc: and we are … Eve and I have been actively involved since the tax cuts and JOBS Act of 2017 came out. In the wake of the announcement of the designated Opportunity Zones in April of 2018, or March of 2018, we’ve been actively monitoring this potential huge impact game-changer for socially responsible investment and impact investment. Maybe I’ll unpack that a little bit and just-

Eve Picker: I think that’s a great idea.

Josh Lavrinc: -how it’s set up.

Eve Picker: I was going to suggest that, yep.

Josh Lavrinc: When we talk about impact investment or social responsibility and investment, these all sort of have a categorical place, I think, in my mind, around certain missions. I think any time we’re talking about investment funds, there’s obviously a financial mission, but when we talk about socially responsible or impact investments, we’re coupling financial investment, without trying to compromise it, with some social mission and likely environmental; which might be part of social, but I would break out as a third category. So, financial, social and environmental missions; social sometimes is referred to as community.

Josh Lavrinc: I think that community development should and does occur in all communities. Most of the time, when we talk about community development, we’re talking about low-income communities and trying to help the communities with less resources, but really, there can be good community, positive community development. For instance, we’re pursuing right now an affordable housing project in Pittsburgh’s Strip District, which is a neighborhood that’s on fire for job growth, and retail development, and hospitality resources, adjacent to the CBD, and multi-family apartment, market-rate apartments, condominiums, office. All of the commercial real estate products are well represented there, but not affordable housing.

Eve Picker: In other words, it’s gentrifying very, very quickly.

Josh Lavrinc: Yes, and I think it was a fairly low population community to begin with, because it’s primarily industrial in nature, right? [cross talk]

Eve Picker: It was. That’s correct. That’s correct.

Josh Lavrinc: -there are concerns about displacement and gentrification throughout all of these conversations about responsible community development, but here’s a community that maybe did not have a large, low-income population, and we need to try and develop it in a balanced manner and help-

Eve Picker: That’s correct.

Josh Lavrinc: I think a key to creating affordable housing and creating a region, a strong region for all, is in those hot neighborhoods to try and remember the responsible uses, as well. We’re working on a project that I hope we’ll be closing on later this summer to create a significant amount of affordable units in that neighborhood. A slight digression there from our categorical discussion of impact investment.

Josh Lavrinc: Just one example of community development, though, is affordable housing, and most of the time, that market, whenever we have a use that doesn’t bring in rents that are sufficient to motivate investors on their own – hence the crisis we’re in, where we don’t have enough supply because there’s not enough financial investment incentive to attract investors and developers to create that product – there’s some subsidy or incentives. And in this case of affordable housing, obviously, there’s the Low Income Housing Tax Credit, and those-

Eve Picker: Well, I’ve got to interject here. You have said a couple of things now that I think are absolutely key. That is that there’s not enough financial incentive; that we’re trying to do socially responsible projects, while at the same time keeping the financial returns the same. That, I think, is the crux of the issue. I think that perhaps we’ve all gotten a little bit too greedy, but it isn’t- it isn’t always possible to keep the financial return in the 20-to 25-percent internal rate of return arena for a project that is socially responsible. Yet you and I have not … I think we both don’t believe that we have investors really ready to invest for less. They really want both. Am I right? They want the financial returns, and they want [cross talk]

Josh Lavrinc: Yeah, they do. They do [cross talk] and it’s tough to deliver both. It’s tough to deliver both, especially when you get into … When you get into a structured product like the Low Income Housing Tax Credit, you’ve got rent restrictions – for good reasons – that go on for sometimes upwards of 20 years. That’s difficult to project a financial return on sort of … All real estate is perhaps a depreciating asset, other than their land value, that require repair and reinvestment over time. If you have a challenged underlying land value because it’s in a less-resourced community, you have a restriction on the income potential of that property, it really becomes a very specialized, niche investment opportunity [cross talk] like most other investments.

Eve Picker: -yeah, because the asset value can’t increase over time because it’s restricted. Typically, investors- or often investors are looking for some return over the years and then some share the upside at the end, when the project is sold. But the upside on an asset, on a building that has been restricted, is just not going to be there.

Josh Lavrinc: That’s right. Sometimes, it is. Obviously, on the margins, there are exceptions. When you have something in a rent-restricted unit to a project in a rapidly, or even not rapidly, but a neighborhood that changes over the course of 20 years and becomes very valuable at the end and you lift the restrictions. That’s no longer developed for the same mission. That then, perhaps … The value becomes in converting that to another use. I think the silver lining to all of this, interestingly … How do we reconcile financial return and investment? You hit the nail on the head. There requires some compromise, in the absence of other incentives. I think the Opportunity Zone program or incentive is potentially one of the solutions that can really spur new impact investment in communities. The reason I say that- oh, go ahead.

Eve Picker: No, I was going to say for our listeners who don’t know what Opportunity Zones are, they were introduced as part of the 2017 JOBS and Tax Act. I think there are over 8,000 of them. Am I right, Josh? 8,000 [cross talk]

Josh Lavrinc: -25 percent of all eligible low-income census tracts in the United States were delegated to the state level to be selected by the chief executives in each of those states, and then they designated 25 percent of those. It is a large number, as you said, Eve, across the country. There has been a lot of focus on this program, about whether it’s really a program. I’ve used that word a couple of times. It’s an incentive, for sure, but it is different than a tax-credit program or other incentive program that we’ve seen in the past in that only those with capital gains can directly benefit by investing into an Opportunity Zone – one of these designated low-income census tracts.

Josh Lavrinc: The benefit is in a short-term deferral of a prior capital gain. If, meeting the qualifications, you can maintain that capital gains investment in an Opportunity Zone for a whole period exceeding 10 years – a long-term investment -then you would receive a step up in basis for that capital gains that was reinvested into a new investment to the fair market value of that investment at the end of that hold period [cross talk] has the potential for tax exemption, essentially.

Eve Picker: That’s correct. I think it’s actually a great program. It could be a great program. It has a couple of really, I think, serious flaws, and it’s inequitable in the fact that only someone with capital gains can really take advantage of it. That already skews it towards wealthy investors. Secondly, in the selection of these census tracts, one can only imagine how much politics was involved, because you and I know that the tracks that were selected in Pittsburgh, particularly difficult, and they were selected for the right reasons, because those really need the most investment. But other states didn’t really think about it that way, or other cities. They selected tracts that already had investment and they thought they could attract more dollars to. Even the selection of the census tracts has been inequitable. I don’t know what you think about that, Josh, but …?

Josh Lavrinc: Yeah, I think it may have been equitable in that everyone every state was participating, and every leadership group had discretion to choose the census tracts that made sense for their for their states. But when you do things equitably, it doesn’t necessarily always result in an equitable distribution of resources after that. I think, unfortunately, there will be … With our real estate lens, thinking about it in a real estate investment perspective, over the past 18 months, as we have … When I say ‘we,’ I mean all of us; all of the thought leaders on the investment, accountants, lawyers, investment professionals coming together, talking about Opportunity Zones.

Josh Lavrinc: There has been concern about how will this come about? What is the financial impact of this incentive? Will it really be a game-changing flow of capital to all the Opportunity Zones? Obviously, I left out, in that conversation with the communities and economic development trust professionals across the country, who are hoping that this is a new resource to help revitalize their communities. There is certainly, when looked out through the lens of investment capital, in projects out, real estate projects out, there will be some lowest common denominator that attracts capital to the primary market.

Josh Lavrinc: Rather than changing a capital flow from Silicon Valley to Pittsburgh, which may have been the original intent of the program, and I think was, based on the political leadership that have spoken about it, if there are qualified Opportunity Zones, designated Opportunity Zones in Silicon Valley, in New York, in L.A., then those folks that are already investing in those communities don’t have to look very far to find another opportunities. In fact, West Hollywood, and East Palo Alto, and portions of New York City – of course, they have low-income communities and have been designated Opportunity Zones..

Josh Lavrinc: If there’s a competition among Opportunity Zones across the country for limited dollars, there will not- the problem necessarily won’t be solved by the Opportunity Zone designation, itself. But I think, and reflecting on it 18 months in, I think the real change that can come through Opportunity Zones is the operating business incentive. This doesn’t just apply to real estate projects. The Opportunity Zone benefit applies to capital gains of any type, with some exceptions – some very nuanced tax exceptions – but operating businesses are squarely within the regulations that have come out from the IRS.

Josh Lavrinc: I think that when we see greater investment in operating businesses … There are already folks saying that private equity shops looking to invest in venture capital, looking to invest in companies; Company A is located outside an Opportunity Zone. “Why don’t you just move down the street to an Opportunity Zone, and we’ll make an investment, because it’ll be more tax advantaged for us.”

Josh Lavrinc: When that flow happens, when we see venture capital, private equity, and investment, and operating businesses start to prefer Opportunity Zones, I think that tide – that’s a trend that can occur throughout the Opportunity Zones, not just isolated … When that happens, we’re going to see real businesses relocate, real jobs relocate, real homes relocate. That will attract more jobs, more retail, more housing, and start to really revitalize a community in a fundamental way that I think we talked about revitalization, which is putting dollars into a community.

Josh Lavrinc: There may be adverse impacts of that, if we don’t use those dollars responsibly by providing for affordable housing in those communities, along- maintaining affordable housing at a high quality, for instance, as a community is revitalizing, but hopefully, those jobs that are moving down the street initially … Although the people in those jobs may or may not have come from the target Opportunity Zone community, new jobs that are attracted to that new company, whether they are community goods and services, like retail, or strategically associated companies with the original company that moved, or some other service in the community that has more demand, those hopefully will be employing folks in the community, and is such that, hopefully, the gentrification that happens is inclusive and participatory, so that we’re not seeing a series of outsiders coming into this community alone, but that there is a strengthening of the existing community that may not touch and concern every person.

Josh Lavrinc: Therefore, there’s a need to make sure we’re thinking about responsible community development goals, like affordable housing and investing in social services. That program, creating new businesses in an Opportunity Zone and the downstream impact of a new business locating in a community, I think, is the opportunity to bring together financial return and impact investment, social responsibility, because we’ll then [cross talk]

Eve Picker: -where does that leave real estate in the equation?

Josh Lavrinc: That’s the downstream effect. I think that it only takes one company moving into East Liberty, for instance – Duolingo moving into East Liberty; Google moving into East Liberty – to suddenly revitalize that community. There are much more real estate- many more real estate projects taking place in that community as a result of those business moves..

Josh Lavrinc: If we can continue to see more businesses move into Opportunity Zones that will beget more real estate investment, and folks that say, “We’re going to invest in this community … We wouldn’t have otherwise, because we were worried about compromising our financial return.” But then, when we combine the incentives for capital gains with the Opportunity Zone incentive with the potential transformation of this community over 10 years – transformation meaning revitalization; hopefully, appreciation – now we have a large enough financial return to incentivize us to invest and in this particular community. That’s what we’ve been trying to accomplish all along.

Josh Lavrinc: Obviously, there is place-based responsibility. Just investing in a low-income community is helpful, but it’s also subject-based, use-based responsibility. What are we building in that area? We’re building commercial real estate to support jobs. That’s a that’s a version of social responsibility. If we’re doing it to support housing, that’s a version. Obviously, we want to consider the environmental impact, which I’ve kind of left out of this conversation about financial incentives and social responsibility. All of those things can be serviced. We’ll still have, however, a need for some segment of the market to support the under-resourced portion of the community through other affordable housing, or social services. I think [cross talk] role of responsible tax management and those kind of things for the governing bodies, in addition to charitable and private efforts.

Eve Picker: But also, there’s people in the community who want to invest, as you know, right? I do believe that equity crowdfunding can play a huge role in the revitalization of communities, because now, if you have a business that moves in, or a building that is revitalized, the people in that neighborhood can actually invest in it. That’s a really important piece of building wealth within a community for the community, not just making it better for the community and leaving them on the outside. Difficult, as you know.

Josh Lavrinc: I think that’s a great point that the community, itself, with new financial tools and e-commerce, information-age tools, like crowdfunding and the regulatory predicates of crowdfunding that you’ve harnessed with Small Change, bringing not just capital into these communities for financially viable projects, but also on tapping neighbors, and neighbors, perhaps in a colloquial sense, that might be stretching across the globe that are motivated about something that compromises financial return in order to accomplish impact. That’s a real experiment with social capital [cross talk] can be accomplished. That story hasn’t been told yet, entirely.

Eve Picker: In my time in Pittsburgh, the thing that has had the biggest impact on me is – this is true throughout the Rust Belt, I think. I’m not sure about other cities, but certainly many places I’ve been – how much people love the cities they live in, and how much they want to be engaged in making them better. It’s a pretty astounding phenomenon..

Eve Picker: Give them an opportunity to invest $500, $1,000, $2,000, or whatever, in the place they live, rather than put it in a mutual fund, where they don’t know where it’s going to go, that circulates money locally, and it gives them an opportunity to share in making that place better. It’s an amazing opportunity. Now we just have to educate investors, right, Josh?

Josh Lavrinc: Of course. Yeah, that’s right. Not to mention the bite-sized piece of the investment that you’re talking about. The other power of this is we would all like to own the local restaurant, or the local general store, or name any other part of the community that you utilize and would like to support or own. Without a large amount of resources, it’s practically very difficult to accomplish that.

Josh Lavrinc: This allows, through fractional ownership at very humble investment levels, the opportunity to make a change and invest in something that … Whether it’s financially motivated, or more community motivated, depending on the mission of that particular project or fund, crowdfunding certainly is a powerful tool to try and unlock investment and change for the masses.

Eve Picker: Yeah. Moving away from Opportunity Zones, what other current trends in real estate development are you seeing that you think are really important for the future of our cities?

Josh Lavrinc: I think I would focus on the word ‘community.’ What  by that is I think we’re defining the way – in particular, in cities and urban environments – the way people come together, and live, work, and play. Those are terms popularized by commercial real estate development to try and identify or put a friendly face around mixed-use projects and make them simple to understand, but fundamentally, there is a big social change there of trying to make productive and as accessible a community as possible.

Josh Lavrinc: I was listening recently to another podcast with the co-founder of WeWork, talking about their perspective on co-working, how that came out of a desire to create community. I’m involved with a co-working company here, locally, called The Beauty Shop, in Pittsburgh, where we’re trying to develop similar communities, but growing that community outside of just an office space. Their first thought, back right around of the time the financial crisis, was that people working in isolated environments can be more productive, more happy, more engaged, and feel more appreciated and better-served by those around them that are similarly motivated; similarly making sacrifices for their businesses, if they are put together in a community.

Josh Lavrinc: When you combine that and expand that into residential real estate, can those people perhaps live in environments where they feel more supported and have more of a social fabric? I think this comes along with trends on isolationism and depression that are plaguing our country these days. Those are growing problems for our nation. This is one way to tackle that social problem is bringing together community.

Josh Lavrinc: Obviously, it can extend into other parts of the community, where instead of spending time isolated, commuting to your job, you might be able to create an entire ecosystem around your business, or your apartment, or your entertainment venue, and have that all in one … Obviously, that’s what a city represents [cross talk] extending that community into a broader scale about technology, connectedness, and resource- infrastructure resources in a particular city – all of these things are really the same concept, at a different scale.

Eve Picker: I can’t help but think it’s the modern-day version of the kibbutz [cross talk]

Josh Lavrinc: Yes, right, and-

Eve Picker: -the kibbutz probably got all of this right a long time ago.

Josh Lavrinc: That communal living is exactly what is perhaps needed to get people back, attached, especially in the age of digital devices and the connected-with-ness we have, and yet, perhaps, the over-connectivity that’s coming with that, without having perhaps enough emotional and human support with that connectivity. Definitely, it’s funny [cross talk]

Eve Picker: It’s also affordability, because if you share resources, whether it’s a shared kitchen or whatever it is, then your living costs are going to go down. I think that’s also part of the reason why co-housing options are being explored.

Josh Lavrinc: That’s right. You’re right, when we talk about the impact of an urban environment, or it doesn’t necessarily have to occur just in an urban environment, the community, generally, there are social health and well-being aspects. There are business aspects, and there are certainly affordable aspects of the development that can be brought to bear as a result of the sharing of a common amenity base and spreading those costs across many uses.

Josh Lavrinc: That’s one of the focuses of my current development in addition to fund management and the structured finance consulting, new markets, tax credits, historic tax credits that I work on in my primary business, I also spend a lot of time on commercial real estate development; in particular, recently, anchored by coworking, but has molded that into a strategy around community, where we are looking at secondary and tertiary cities, not primary markets, to try and create these full-scale communities in urban environments. Although I think suburban environments are a huge untapped market, as well, to try and bring together a greater sense of community and all of those benefits that come with it – the social, the financial and the affordability.

Eve Picker: Probably in suburban markets, people are even more isolated.

Josh Lavrinc: Exactly, exactly. When we talk about commute times and disparate destinations for live, work, and play, bring those things together into a town center, into a real Main Street … Revitalizing the main street. Obviously, there are a lot of Main Streets programs across the United States. It’s a very similar theme for community development. But bringing an urban spin to it, with a responsible amount of density and set of uses, I think has a lot of power, and I think we’ll see a lot of that coming up.

Josh Lavrinc: Hopefully, we’ll see that happening in Opportunity Zones. I think if we can bring together Opportunity Zone development and businesses locating in those Opportunity Zones and then try to develop more community, then we’ll see some pretty significant change in the next decade of real estate, business, and real community development conspiring together to implement improvement or accomplish improvement.

Eve Picker: Given all of this, where do you think the future of real estate impact investing lies?

Josh Lavrinc: Well, I think that it probably is the future. I think that the days of solely focusing on financial returns are probably starting to narrow, and it seems that the aware, responsible person is going to make more decisions. As we provide more information and more connectivity to individuals to not only their investments, but to the world around them, and their neighbors, and the people in the communities around them, they’re going to make more conscious decisions to better … To increase their efforts to deploy what investment funds they have into those things that help people around them and the environment around them.

Josh Lavrinc: Whether it’s crowdfunding, whether it’s an Opportunity Zone fund, whether it’s a tax credit incentive, there are … We are seeing a growth in responsible investment, in mission-based investment, and for good reason, because, fundamentally, we aren’t robots. We’re humans, and we have a moral compass, and we have emotion, and emotional intelligence that directs our activities to things that we favor for reasons other than purely financial. The closer we can get to combining financial return – which is almost a third-party neutral arbiter, selecting return responsibly for our good of our income and wealth in the future – if we can start to align that financial return, even more strongly than just the Opportunity Zone, with responsible investment, I think I think we’ll get there.

Eve Picker: We have, in fact, lived through the era of green-washing, and we’re heading into the era of good-washing, right?

Josh Lavrinc: Yeah, that’s an interesting way … Hopefully, it’s not washing at all, but you’re right. You’re right that there’s been popularization, perhaps over-popularization and overuse of terms around, for instance, green. I think we’re getting into a period, an enlightenment, if you will, where individuals are receiving information about their investments, receiving information about what’s happening in the world around them, and then are given opportunities to vote with their own dollars in projects that have real meaning to them and to the people around them that they care about.

Eve Picker: I have three sign-off questions for you that I ask everyone. I’m wondering what your answers are going to be. The first one is what’s the one thing that makes a real estate project impactful to you?

Josh Lavrinc: The impact for me, although I skew towards economic development, I would say it’s serving the people. Keying in on that community that we have spoken about here, we could easily talk about the environmental crisis that we face as a globe. We could talk about the lack of social services and the need in our community for the poor. But I think that cutting across all of those for impact, in my mind, is assessing whether a project is responsibly targeting its community.

Josh Lavrinc: I’m not inventing anything new with that response. When you think about the New Markets Tax Credit program and what community development enterprises across the country look at, when they’re assessing projects, one of the first questions they ask are what are the community’s plans? Does the community have a development plan? Is there community support for a proposed project, prior to awarding a subsidy or incentive? I think there’s really good wisdom in that practice. It doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re getting the best project, or necessarily a particular outcome, but it does mean that you’re considering what that community’s needs are and trying to address it responsibly. That’s how I would answer that.

Eve Picker: The second question – other than by raising money, how do you think crowdfunding might benefit the impact real estate developer?

Josh Lavrinc: Well [cross talk] obviously-

Eve Picker: These are not trick questions.

Josh Lavrinc: No, no, I think … Obviously, I think, when we think about influencers, and social media, and the power of marketing in our current environment, crowdfunding has a way of making something more popular, more highlighted, and can be a great marketing tool, and perhaps a vote of confidence from the community. It might be a third party, whether those people are local to the community or outside, it’s a third-party validation of whether this investment is responsible, or desirable for whatever- depending on the purpose of the crowdfunded group, that it’s meeting their mission. I think there could be strong marketing efforts as a result of the crowdfunded opportunity, but I’m sure there are a couple of other [cross talk]

Eve Picker: -in effect, a community engagement tool.

Josh Lavrinc: That’s right.

Eve Picker: Yeah, yeah. Final question – what one thing in real estate development do you think would improve … I’m going to ask that question again. How do you think real estate development in the US could be improved by just one thing?

Josh Lavrinc: I think that if we could … We can work hard to tie together our incentives, make sure they are aligned. We have a lot of … All of the real estate industry is motivated fundamentally by financial return. We have folks whose livelihood is based on their development project, their construction project, their leasing of the project. That is a powerful tool to impact activity, to create activity financially, for each one of us.

Josh Lavrinc: The more we can align incentives, like the Opportunity Zone, to create the outcomes we want and make sure that those incentives are narrowly tailored to really accomplish what we want … For instance, I think there are some great things about the Low Income Housing Tax Credit, which is an area I don’t practice a lot in – although we’re investing in affordable housing, regionally, that’s not a national practice that I participate in – I think that we see the competition over the program; the structure of a program that tries to compensate with fees, given the lack of value creation. Those fees then create outsized projects that maybe are more expensive than they need to be, or more inefficient than they need to be.

Josh Lavrinc: If we can go back and fix programs to address the value equation differently and think about the model we’re setting up and the downstream impact of that model to be more efficient and more effective for our goals, I think that would have perhaps the most profound effect, because you’re not … Instead of trying to change the fundamental capitalistic income-driven goal of a professional, which I don’t think we can change – other than to redirect it through incentives – and if we can align those incentives with what we think currently are the crises facing our country, which are probably the social isolation, the isolation of resources, so that everyone has access to good education, and training, and jobs, and economic advancement of themselves, and healthcare, and all the rest of those basic needs, and hopefully in a way that’s aligned responsibly for the environment, long term … We have a lot of great rapid change happening there, obviously, with autonomous vehicles and renewable energy. The more we can align these programs into creating a community that’s hitting on all cylinders across both of those major programmatic missions, I think that the better our commercial real estate market will be, the better our professionals will be in accomplishing those goals and the end result for the community.

Eve Picker: Yes. Agreed. Well, Josh, thank you very much for talking with me today. I really enjoyed our conversation, and I’m sure we’ll be talking again soon. Thanks so much-

Josh Lavrinc: I did as well. Thank you very much, Eve.

Eve Picker: Bye.

Eve Picker: That was Josh Lavrinc. Today, I learned that the capital markets can be squarely directed at impact investing. There are some large and strategic funds in Pittsburgh that have been doing this for quite a while now. Impact investing in real estate spans the spectrum from tiny projects, some of which we’ve listed on Small Change, to large funds that focus solely on impact.

Eve Picker: You can find out more about impact real estate investing and access the show notes for today’s episode at my website, EvePicker.com. While you’re there, sign up for my newsletter to find out more about how to make money in real estate while building better cities. Thank you so much for spending your time with me today, and thank you, Josh, for sharing your thoughts with us. We’ll talk again soon, but for now, this is Eve Picker signing off to go make some change.

Image courtesy of Joshua Lavrinc

How to leave places better than you find them.

September 4, 2019

Josh McManus is a problem-solver working in post-industrial cities with entrepreneurs, corporations, and foundations to help people positively transform the places that they love. Josh’s experience spans 20 years as a serial social and business entrepreneur. An innovator in entrepreneurial ecosystems, creative economic development and combating population loss, Josh is obsessed with place-based change. An autodidact learner on subjects ranging from invention laboratories to neuroscience to game theory, Josh designs and implements projects that aim to disrupt how people in places think of themselves and their community and maximize the potential of all citizens who reside there.

Previously, Josh worked with the Rock Ventures team in Detroit, helping to buy and renovate many millions of square feet of empty downtown space. Rock Ventures is the umbrella company that serves and connects Quicken Loans Founder and Cleveland Cavaliers Chairman Dan Gilbert’s portfolio of more than 100 companies. 

Nationally, Josh is a Marshall Memorial Fellow and a Next American Vanguard. Locally, he has helped found multiple organizations and has served on a variety of institutional boards in his collection of adopted hometowns including Chattanooga, Tennessee; Detroit; and Bar Harbor, Maine. His thoughts have been featured by Forbes, Fast Company, The Economist, Entrepreneur, GOOD, USA Today, The Huffington Post and Garden and Gun.

Listen in to our fascinating conversation.

Insights and Inspirations

  • Josh believes we are on the precipice of the democratization of finance
  • All segments of the real estate market are innovating and  transforming rapidly, right before our eyes.
  • Just as we’ve lived through a wave of green-washing, we are now in a wave of good-washing. 
  • The sharing economy is flexing its muscles in real estate – office sharing, AirBNB, revenue sharing in lieu of rent, co-housing – and there is more to come.
  • Real estate in the US would be radically improved through the rapid re-writing of zoning laws.

Information and Links

  • Josh’s purpose in this world is to be a trim tab. He spends most of his time working to hack capitalism and building on work that started in Chattanooga, TN.
  • And Josh loves Avalon Bakery, in Detroit.
Read the podcast transcript here

Eve Picker: Hey, everyone, this is Eve Picker, and if you listen to this podcast series, you’re going to learn how to make some change.

Eve Picker: Thanks so much for joining us on this podcast. I’m Eve Picker, and my life revolves around cities, real estate, and crowdfunding. In this podcast series, we’ll be digging deep to discover how we can build better cities by building better buildings.

Eve Picker: My guest today is friend, and colleague, Josh McManus. Josh describes himself as a problem solver, strategy implementer, and idea activator, and I know all three to be true. He works in post-industrial cities with entrepreneurs, corporations, and foundations to help people positively transform the places that they love. He’s obsessed with place-based change. We have that in common.

Eve Picker: Previously, Josh worked with Rock Ventures’ team in Detroit, helping to buy and renovate hundreds of millions of square feet of empty space in downtown Detroit. Rock Ventures serves and connects Quicken Loans founder, and Cleveland Cavaliers Chairman Dan Gilbert’s portfolio of more than 100 companies.

Eve Picker: Nationally, Josh is a Marshall Memorial Fellow and a Next American Vanguard. Locally, he has helped found multiple organizations and has served on a variety of institutional boards in his collection of adopted hometowns, including Chattanooga, Tennessee, Detroit, Bar Harbor, and New Orleans. His thoughts have been featured by Forbes, Fast Company, The Economist, Entrepreneur, GOOD, USA Today, and The Huffington Post.

Eve Picker: If you want to know more about Josh after you’ve listened to this podcast, please visit EvePicker.com, where you’ll find links and other goodies on the show notes page and where you can subscribe to my newsletter on all things real estate impact.

Eve Picker: Hi, Josh. How are you this morning?

Josh McManus: Doing great.

Eve Picker: Thank you so much for joining me. I know quite a lot about you, but our listeners don’t. I know that you’re always moving, and I’m wondering what and where you’re working right now.

Josh McManus: I am in Dearborn, Michigan this morning. I’m fortunate to have spent a lot of time in Detroit, and Dearborn over the last 10 years. My work right now is mostly to support Ford Motor Company, as they transform from a past that has been just about cars to a future that’s about movement and mobility, overall.

Eve Picker: That’s pretty innovative stuff. Your background has been- you’ve been involved in a lot of real estate recently in under-served cities. Do you want to tell us a little bit about that?

Josh McManus: Sure. I actually realized recently that it goes back to my childhood. I grew up in the shadows of a Goodyear plant in Georgia, and the life and death of that little town came and went with what was going on in that factory, so I’ve spent the entirety of my career working in post-industrial places. One of the best tools for changing the trajectory of a place is re-imagining real estate. I’ve worked in Chattanooga, Cincinnati, Akron, and then spent a lot of time in Detroit. With each passing set of interventions, have moved up and up in the scope of ambition of the projects that I’ve worked on.

Josh McManus: In the last 10 years, I’ve been very fortunate to work on some really large-scale projects. I got to serve with the team at Rock Ventures, which has amassed over 14 million square feet of real estate in downtown Detroit – over 100 buildings – and I’ve been party to taking most of those buildings from low, or no occupancy to full, or near-full occupancy.

Josh McManus: In the recent work with Ford, I was also very fortunate to be party to helping make the announcement of Ford’s return into their home city of Detroit, with the acquisition of Michigan Central Station, which is really turning into a living laboratory for the future mobility. It was this iconic abandoned structure that’s now getting new life and will be online and operational in 2021, I believe.

Eve Picker: That’s pretty big and exciting stuff. What’s your background, and what path led you to what you’re working on now, and this real estate reinvention?

Josh McManus: Actually, I also had the revelation recently that I come into real estate rightly so. My paternal great grandfather, and paternal grandfather were in the real estate business in Georgia and had some commercial and residential transactions and holdings. Then I spent this blended upbringing, where my dad was a CEO, my mom’s an artist, and I was torn between those two polarities of doing beautiful and good things for the world and doing business things.

Josh McManus: I went on to get business degrees, both undergraduate, and graduate, but most of my work focused on how to leave places better than you found them. I eventually came up with this reconciliation, I call it, for purpose – instead of for profit, for purpose – which is attempting to work at the intersections of moral imperative, and market imperative.

Josh McManus: All of my work in real estate is very much in that direction, which is how do you make places both humane, and maximization machines for human potential, but how do you also make them fiscally feasible, so that you can do the projects again, and again, and at scale. It’s a fine line to walk, but it’s really where my interests are is how do we build for-purpose places that serve people well, serve communities well, and serve capital interests, to the extent that they have to?

Eve Picker: I love the idea of leaving places better than you found them. It sounds easy, but it’s- probably the most difficult thing about it is that people have different ideas about what ‘better’ is, don’t they?

Josh McManus: Yes, absolutely. Real estate redevelopment is a very loaded subject right now [cross talk]

Eve Picker: It certainly is.

Josh McManus: -national conversations on things like gentrification, which are understandable; while, at the same time, there’s national and global conversations about economic stagnation. People are very clear on things they don’t like – when people get pushed out, or when people can’t stay in a place, or can’t thrive in a place …

Josh McManus: That in-between space of how do you make places work for everybody is oft talked about, but very little delivered. I think that’s why I’ve had such a consistent interest in it – how do we build places that maximize the potential for all that are able to retain talent that already exist there, but to attract new talent at the same time? I feel like it’s one of the few things that could be a lifelong pursuit, because it’s complex enough, it’s going to evolve. I know you feel the same way. It’s the problem that I’ll never solve, but I think I’ll always love working on it.

Eve Picker: Be sure to go to EvePicker.com and sign up for my free educational newsletter about impact real estate investing. You’ll be among the first to hear about new projects you can invest in. That’s EvePicker.com. Thanks so much.

Eve Picker: Yeah, I think you’re right … The interesting thing about my interviewing, people I’ve interviewed so far, they’re all tackling the problem from a different angle. It’s absolutely fascinating. Their backgrounds have led them to a different place where they have different skills, and they may be able to help in a different way. I don’t know how you get them all together. It’s very difficult, and it is, as you said, very loaded. Developers are not very popular at the moment, although they may be the answer, in some ways, somehow.

Josh McManus: Actually, I think there’s a new- there’s an emergent field. This has been one of the hard things for me … Going back to when I think you and I met, probably a dozen years ago?

Eve Picker: Yeah, it was a long time ago.

Josh McManus: We met in sort of this ‘island of misfit toys’ faction – the old gatherings of CEOs for Cities. What was fascinating about that is that you had … I was an early social entrepreneur. You were doing both that place-based change, and development work. Then there was a mix of other people that really shouldn’t have intersected with each other.

Josh McManus: What I’ve felt since then is there is this emergent field. I guess my resume would say that I’ve been proxy to a lot of development. I, by no means, would consider myself a developer, and I don’t know that I ever will, but it feels like, to me, that there’s an emergent field that is something slightly different from developer that needs a name. It doesn’t have that name yet.

Eve Picker: Yeah, that’s interesting. Something to ponder. What is real estate impact investing, from your perspective?

Josh McManus: Overall, I think that we are on the precipice of democratization of finance in a way that’s really- that we’ve certainly not seen in our lifetimes. It may have happened in certain ways in the past, where you opened up finance to more people, but the impact falls in this overarching democratization of finance wave that is impending.

Josh McManus: What I mean by that is I’ve always … In some of the economic-theory stuff that I’ve read, there’s this notion of perfect capitalism. A lot people right now are talking about post-capitalism. I’m still talking about perfect capitalism. It would be where supply and demand met each other in real time and worked its way towards efficiencies.

Josh McManus: Impact real estate investing, to me, is just the opening of the capital markets for good projects to meet good capital at a cost that’s sustainable. This is being equipped and enabled by technology, by new modes of thinking, and by measurements that are no longer single bottom line, which I think is totally appropriate.

Josh McManus: The arms race we’ve had towards single bottom line returns, since Milton Friedman economics set in, is very problematic. This return to impact, to me, feels like a return to understanding our core biological instincts, which are self-preservation. Impact finance, to me, feels like a return to what’s right and the pursuit of more perfect capitalism.

Eve Picker: I agree with you on that, but I have to wonder whether it’s really working that way yet. At the moment, I feel that impact investors are seeking the good, as well as the return. We know what it looks like to put together an impactful project in a soft market. The returns are never going to be that great. If you offer bigger returns to investors, that works its way down to the occupant of the building, who might be an affordable-housing tenant. I don’t know. Do you agree that, somehow, this great divide between the haves and have-nots is not just about the money they have, but also the expectations for the money they have? I’m not sure I’m describing that-

Josh McManus: No, no, I follow. I think there’s a couple of forces in play. One is, just as we saw a wave of green-washing over the last 10-15 years – where now everything is organic, and you can’t tell whether organic is good or not – we’re in a great period of good-washing right now. It seems that every way I turn right now, everybody’s an impact investor, because that is fashionable.

Josh McManus: But, then, if you look at the core of some of these folks’ beliefs and return expectations, they truly are willing to receive returns that are multiple bottom lines. Then there are some people who have just good-washed and expect the same arbitrary financial returns that they saw under other boom times that have advantaged capital over everything else. I think that’s an issue.

Josh McManus: I also think that we are, like you say, on the precipice, but not there yet with truly unlocking all capital with all risk orientations. The work that you’ve been doing on Reg-CF, with Small Change, is absolutely fascinating to me, because bringing folks who are holding capital that they’ve only been able to see microscopic returns on, for any sort of lower-risk opportunities – people that have only been able to see a money market account or CDs, these things that have been low, low single-digit returns – allowing those folks to bring capital on that they will now, all of a sudden … Six-percent returns, to them, looks really good compared to what they’ve seen in the past.

Josh McManus: I just think we’ve still got a lot of capital that’s yet to be unlocked that has a different return prospectuses on it. I think we’ve got to be patient in getting all capital onto the playing field and then getting it liquid enough that it can move in the directions of projects where those folks are going to see a proper risk-adjusted return.

Josh McManus: I think, in you guys’ shoes, over in what you’re doing with Small Change, what’s got to be tough is it’s a little bit Wild West, right now, so you can’t tell … It’s hard to tell the difference between who’s good and who’s good-washing, and it may take a period of time before that sorts itself out.

Eve Picker: No, I think it is going to take some time, for sure. How much, I’m not sure [cross talk] but we’ll try to be patient. When you look at cities – you travel a lot; you go to a lot of cities – do you think socially responsible real estate is necessary in today’s development landscape?

Josh McManus: Yeah, I think socially responsible everything is necessary in every landscape [cross talk].

Eve Picker: That was a loaded question.

Josh McManus: -throughout time. I am an avid consumer of a lot of historical information. The times when we put our self in great peril is when we are socially irresponsible. My dad, the CEO, raised me as a capitalist with one caveat. Every time he would remind me that I was a capitalist, he would also remind me that unbridled greed is the Achilles heel of capitalism. Unbridled greed is not socially responsible. It’s also not sustainable. We have to have a system that can allow returns on capital, but can allow returns on … I call them the other ROIs – the returns on individuals. Can individuals maximize their potential? In addition to return on investment, return on individuals.

Josh McManus: Then, also, ROIs in return on ideas. Are we rewarding and testing new ideas? This is especially problematic in the real estate business, because things all too often get too formulaic, too templatized. You and I share a friend in Jonathan Tate, who’s looked at the structure and form of multi-family housing units. There is a big problem there, in that it becomes templatized. The capital gets comfortable with that template, but then that template stops serving people in the way that needs to be. I spend a lot of time [cross talk]

Eve Picker: -that, to me, I think is the crux of it all. We need innovation in cities and innovation in place-making, and our financial institutions are not built to be innovators. They [cross talk] looking at real estate development that perpetuates the same, just in the way you said. It’s a very difficult cycle to break out of. Yet, I see so many creative developers coming to me with the most amazing ideas. How can we unleash them all and finance them all? I think we would have better cities, right?

Josh McManus: Right. The marketplace has to be there, and then we’ve got get … In all of this post-industrial city work I’ve done, I’ve worked a lot with large and small foundations, some national, some place-based. Foundation capital is interesting to me, because I think it can and should be the most risk-oriented capital in the whole world.

Josh McManus: An evergreen foundation that throws off five percent of its corpus every year, and that annualized return rates are adjusted over time, that means that that corpus is evergreen. We allow that in the tax code, because we see a benefit; that there should be a benefit to humanity and the society. That most risk-oriented money should be going into a lot of these real estate projects, especially for model-testing purposes, and that’s not totally the case right now. We’ve started to see some of that happen with some foundations, but they …

Josh McManus: The weird thing that happened, where foundations would get hit up for a lot of capital campaigns; so, then they categorically said, “We’re not going to be in the real estate business anymore.” I completely understand not building another wing on to a museum or building another dorm room at a college or university, but we need to go back and revisit that amongst the philanthropy crowd to say we probably shouldn’t be in the rote real estate business, but we should be in the real estate innovation business. The foundation capital being the most risk-oriented should be the ones that are trying the highest likelihood of transformation efforts on affordable housing.

Josh McManus: It was interesting to me to see the announcement … I don’t know if you saw it or not, from Google, last week. They said they’re going to put a billion dollars into affordable housing in the Bay Area. There’s a crazy statistic out there; I think it’s in the last 10 years, for every 12 new jobs that have been created, only one unit of housing has been created at the same time. You have these incredible pressures … You see Google putting a billion into that, and that’s a survival metric for them. They’re not going to be able to retain and attract talent, if people can afford to live.

Eve Picker: Right.

Josh McManus: I think that philanthropic money should be thinking the same way. If you’ve got a broken real estate market in a community, you may be the intervention of last resort, and you’ve got to fix that positively or negatively. I’ll just give you one example of how we thought about that.

Josh McManus: The work that I did with Rock Ventures is now carried on by a team that’s led by a lady named Laura Grannemann. They have gone very, very deep in working to figure out how to stop the blight machine that exists in the Detroit city limits. That has required not just investments in blight reduction, but significant investment in education of homeowners, so that the foreclosure process is slowed and eventually stopped. It’s required investments in rehabbing some houses for stabilization purposes – full neighborhood-sized interventions.

Josh McManus: I think that’s a good example of the level that philanthropy will have to intervene at to get markets back to operational. Once that happens, maybe they can move on, or maybe they can move to commercial, but we need risk-oriented money in the mix, for sure.

Eve Picker: Yeah. Foundations can invest in lots of other ways that aren’t necessarily bricks and mortar but end up being place-making. There are many zoning codes that need to be looked at, for an example, and changed to permit density in a way that they’re not written.

Eve Picker: One example that I’ve watched with interest is in the city of Melbourne, in Australia, where, maybe it might be as long as 10 years ago now, but a few years back, they introduced density zoning overlay along all the major corridors in the city, because those are transit corridors. They were trying to really implement density without the need for adding more cars. It’s been really interesting watching that emerge. It’s an interesting thesis that’s a little tinker with the zoning code to really make development happen in a different way. I’m fascinated by that.

Josh McManus: Yeah.

Eve Picker: In Pittsburgh,  I had a little non-profit, and built a tiny house, which in itself, was plenty of work and interesting, but the most interesting outcome, to me, was that several years later, just last year, the City of Pittsburgh actually created an overlay district for that little under-served neighborhood, so that they could build an experiment with ADUs, and tiny houses, which are really not part of the zoning code. To me, that was an absolutely wonderful outcome of this little $200,000 project. There’s ways to experiment and innovate, I think, that go beyond just building something.

Josh McManus: You’re bringing attention to something … One of the things that I’ve wanted to see created or to help create that I haven’t had time is what I describe as this [inaudible] from municipal policy innovation.

Eve Picker: Oh, that’d be fabulous.

Josh McManus: It’s under the realization that … It’s funny, because I watched a little bit of the Democratic debate last night, just to see what’s going on in that world. I had the realization, studying American history, there was a time when federal policy was the be-all-end-all for impacting local life in America. When we were debating major social, major fiscal policies, then the federal policy was where it’s at. The debates that we have on federal policies right now do have local impact, but they don’t have the local impact that they did all the way through the 1800s.

Josh McManus: At some point, the game really moved to the states, and state policy started to have a large impact on whether you have state income tax or not, or how you fund education, how you think about crime. During that period, governors were where it was that for impacting day-to-day life at a neighborhood level.

Josh McManus: Today, it’s really down to a place where I think your mayor matters a lot more than your president. That throws a lot of people off, because of the drama that’s happening on our national policy stage right now. The truth is, I travel so much, and the quality of life at the neighborhood level is much more greatly impacted by the policy choices of a city’s mayor than by the president, nor Congress.

Josh McManus: Now, if you follow Twitter all the time and watch TV all the time, you might think otherwise, but the actuality of it, of what your access to transportation is, what your access to parks and public places are, what the quality of your local education offerings are … The folks that have their hands in that are local politicians, much, much, much moreso than national, or state politicians.

Josh McManus: I think this game of sitting around saying, “Well, when is the state or the feds going to help us fix this stuff?” is completely wrong-headed, and the game is really transforming at a local level, in a lot of cities. My time in Detroit … I think my biggest fear for Detroit, right now, is that they went unregulated during the bankruptcy period. There was very low regulation on a lot of development activities and other things.

Josh McManus: Now, they’re turning back on the development regime that’s really dated circa 1950. I think  there’s folks that are working hard to try to update some of that, but these communities that have these leftover enforcement regimes that are from times that are no longer here and didn’t really deliver results that were optimal for all people, this is highly problematic [cross talk]

Josh McManus: -we need to be scrubbing local zoning issues. The way that you’re zoned, from a density standpoint, has a very fast waterfall effect to what’s going to happen with education, and transportation. I think a lot of the citizens don’t realize that, and they fall into a default NIMBY setting, which is ill-advised, because it means that you make decisions that don’t impact your kids, your surrounding neighborhood, your surrounding businesses.

Eve Picker: Right. Well, if you start your school, count me in, because I think [cross talk] I’m always astonished at how much power politicians have and how little they know about urban design, planning, architecture, and the impact that it can have on place, so I think that’s really important. Do you think there are any current trends in real estate development that are really important for the future of our cities?

Josh McManus: Oh, yeah. My observation is that we’re seeing the radical transformation of the three primary forms of real estate right before our very eyes. These are things that have, at least in the US, have held true almost since our foundation. I’ll unpack that a little bit.

Josh McManus: On commercial real estate, we’ve existed off of a owner-broker model that was predicated on square feet, and years. If I wanted to lease office space for my commercial offices, then I went and met with a broker who represented a property owner, and we had a debate and discussion about how many years and how many square feet I needed for my offices.

Josh McManus: Due to the demands of the property owner and also to the inertia of the whole situation, we typically had a very long-term discussion. The property owner, and the broker really wanted to get me into five years, and they wanted to get me into as much square footage as possible, at as high a leasehold rate as they could get their hands on [cross talk]-

Eve Picker: Both for different reasons, right? One, because the broker is incentivized to do the biggest deal possible, because the way the broker gets paid is on a percentage-commission basis, right?

Josh McManus: Yes.

Eve Picker: Which is also a really broken piece of this all.

Josh McManus: Yeah. What I see happening right now – again, with technology democratization, and ability to understand real-time supply and demand – is almost this continuously variable financing of real estate. You see it manifest the best in things like WeWork, because whereas the CBREs of the world are still out there going, “Well, how many how many square feet and how many years do you want this for?” WeWork is saying, “How many desks do you want, and how many days do you want them for?”

Josh McManus: That’s the transformation of the pro forma, because at CB Richard Ellis, they wanted me to rent that space, and they wanted me to put one person per every 300 square feet, or 350 square feet – as much room as I would sign up for, that’s what they wanted to get me to. By changing the pro forma around and by aligning the interests of the broker-owner – now that’s kind of collapsing into the same thing, sometimes – WeWork says desk and days, and what they don’t talk about as much is square feet, because now, if you go into a WeWork office, there’s one desk per every 75 square feet.

Josh McManus: What’s fascinating about that is that it’s a healthier performing pro forma; it’s also more environmentally sustainable, because you’re conditioning less space. It has a higher energy level to it, so people who work in those spaces feel a different level of energy. You can also shift the pro forma to have more amenities, because you’re spending less money on just bare space and conditioning of that bare space [cross talk].

Eve Picker: -it really supports startup, and small businesses who can’t really find the time to put all the necessary utilities, and the managers together for themselves, so there’s an added bonus, right?

Josh McManus: Well, it also allows them … It’s continuously variable, if it’s priced based upon risk. I may price your desk rate higher, if you’re a more risky client, or if you want more flexibility. Essentially, what you’re paying for is optionality. It also allows you, if you’re a startup, to be like, “Well, this month, I have 12 employees, and next month, I have 17. Then we went through a down cycle, and I’m at 11.”

Josh McManus: It’s more pay-to-play than this encumbrance that so many companies have been so scared of, which is this five-year lease with these ridiculous guarantees, and [cross talk] I think it actually accelerates the economy, because it gives people more options to play the way they want to, when they want to [cross talk] for the landlord and the broker, because they’re pricing risk into it. Their margin is still there-

Eve Picker: Josh, early on in my real estate career, I was known as the only developer in Pittsburgh who would actually lease out space for a year at a time. I have some buildings that have smaller office spaces, and I would find these startup tenants, and I would take a risk. They’d stay for a year, and then, they’d stay for another. Some of them ended up staying for 20, maybe because I understood who they were, because I was like that myself. I couldn’t find anyone to help me find tenants, because it wasn’t worth their while. I love that the internet is producing new models and helping make that happen [cross talk]

Josh McManus: That’s commercial, and then what you’ve got happening on retail-

Eve Picker: Oh, that’s huge.

Josh McManus: -is similar. I mean retail, both in the displacement of some retail to online, but the retail that’s persisting is highly experiential. I think that you’re seeing a lot more revenue-share rents at the ground level. It’s aligning the interest of the landlord and the lessee.

Josh McManus: You’re also seeing a lot of things like food halls. The way those are working out is the landlord, the broker, and the lessee are sharing costs differently. If I’m in a food hall, the property owner, or the property manager may be the one who’s buying some of that back-of-house equipment and carrying the debt, or the cost of that equipment. What that does is create lower barrier to entry for more localized, more authentic offerings to going to place. Then, when that those offerings perform very well, both the landlord and the lessee are sharing in those outcomes [inaudible]

Eve Picker: -co-working for food, right?

Josh McManus: Yeah, totally. The final transformation that I’m watching in real estate is the residential side of it. If you look backwards, if I need to stay a night – I’m in a Marriott, right now. If I needed to stay a night, I would go to a hotel. If I needed to stay for a week, I’d stay for an extended stay. If I needed to stay for three months, then I would go to some corporate housing that had furniture in it. If I needed to stay for longer than that, I could stay for 12 months, or 24 months, but it had to be a fixed increment.

Josh McManus: Now, that’s all collapsing. I moved my family down to New Orleans over the winter, and we actually went on Airbnb, and did a long-term rental … Longer-term rental, so it was more like a 90-day. The algorithm there brokered some adjustments to say, “Hey, you’re staying for a longer time. That’s good for you; that’s good for the landlord. Let’s get the economics of this right.”.

Josh McManus: This foreshadows, for me, that you’re going to have this optionality in the future on a small number of platforms – whether I need to stay one night, one week, or six months – that I’ll be able to do that, and the data will help you understand what the right pricing is for both parties. It’s democratizing that, and de-risking it. I’m extremely excited, because I think what you’re seeing is this melt into something where supply and demand can meet each other in much greater fashion, faster fashion, with more transparency and more benefit in both directions.

Eve Picker: That plays into financing these things, which are all new, and innovative, and financial institutions often don’t understand. I have a building that is now a co-working building. I moved from traditional office spaces to getting rent, as the building owner, from desks. I have an operator who manages the building, much like a hotel operator.

Eve Picker: I’ve been paying my mortgage on time on that building at least 13 years, never missing a payment, and went to them for a credit line to make some improvements, and couldn’t get it financed, because they just didn’t understand where the income was coming from. We’re back to the first issue we talked about, which is the financial institutions really, for whatever reason … It may not be their fault. They have all their regulations to deal with … They’re squashing the innovation out of the cities. These innovations are happening regardless, and there’s going to have to be different financing tools [cross talk] banker is listening here.

Josh McManus: I couldn’t agree more, but I don’t- I think that wishing for bankers to figure it out … Bankers always follow the lowest common denominator [inaudible] path. I did have some insight in working for Rock Ventures. That’s the holding company that sits next to Quicken Loans. Quicken Loans, in some ways, is in that traditional banking category, but in most ways is not. What I learned in that world is that a lot of people look at that as fin-tech rather than finance-

Eve Picker: That’s true.

Josh McManus: I think that there is a major opportunity in the way that this is likely going to get handled at scale, as you’re going to see the development of a capital class that’s called REfin-tech, real estate fin-tech. I think that’s the exact money that is financing things like WeWork, right now. If you look at WeWork, it’s not your traditional- it’s more your soft banks. It’s your folks that understand that data has value; that technology has inherent value, but that you also need to finance large amounts of physical property. It’s a blended- it’s not just tech. It’s physical property and tech living together side by side.

Josh McManus: I think this is going to come off of a completely new capital class, and that, as you start to see exits, it’s going to be really interesting to see what happens with the IPO of WeWork. If that goes well, that probably forms the foundation of this REfin-tech capital class that will subvert the banks. Once, it subverts the banks, then the banks will try to figure out how to get in that game.

Eve Picker: Yeah, I think that’s right. I’m going to shift gears a little bit, because we’ve been talking a long time, but I want to know the answer to this. You started your- well, I don’t know if it was the beginning, but when I first met you, you were doing quite a lot of community engagement work. I’m wondering what community-engagement tools that you’ve seen or used that you really believe work?

Josh McManus: Around the time- well, probably around the time that we met was the time that I got involved in conceiving and driving what we thought, and what we still think is the world’s largest community visioning process. We got over 26,000 people to participate in Ideas for the Future of Chattanooga Tennessee.

Josh McManus: That was fascinating for me, because all the assumptions were totally wrong. We thought it would happen mostly online. It happened 80 percent on paper. We thought that folks would be single-issue voters, and they turned out to be very dynamic in what their interests were in the community. We thought that when you were faced with the issue of vision that people would have really, really wild ideas, and really, en masse, the community had incremental ideas. If you’re looking for breakthrough ideas, I learned that big survey processes were not the way to go for it [cross talk]

Josh McManus: After all this time of doing it … I did that, and then I’ve done a lot of other approaches. I believe in what I call humanity-centered design. I’ve got a process that I’ve developed for it. What it says is don’t build nor design things for what you believe is a community, build and design things for what you know is a community.

Josh McManus: Any intervention you build should be with the deep observation of the issues that you’re trying to understand and intervene on. What I mean by that is if you want to intervene on affordable housing and you don’t have a lot of people involved, who have lived in, are living in, and are currently pursuing affordable housing, then it’s going to be really hard to get it right..

Josh McManus: Just as human-centered design has put people in hospital beds, when you’re trying to innovate in hospitals, this humanity-centered design says I’ve got to take it more than just innovation on behalf of the patient. I’ve got to find innovation on behalf of the entire patient base. I believe in this humanity-centered design. I believe in feedback from the people. I believe in that in two different ways. I think if you need to understand what consensus is, then you mass survey, and representative sample. If you need to look for innovation, you actually have to do constrained dreaming.

Josh McManus: What I mean by that is we did the world’s largest community-visioning process, and people wanted a little cleaner, a little less traffic, a little better amenities. Then we did this other process that was called City R&D, where we said, “We’ve got downtown, we’ve got the mall area, and we’ve got the new giant auto factory – we need to connect these three together. What are your wildest ideas for connecting these things together?”.

Josh McManus: When you constrain the problem like that, the imagination became really much more bold. People had public art ribbons, and rubber-tired trolleys, and all these different ways that you could connect these assets together that they didn’t come up with, when they were just asked to imagine a better community and describe it. I think that community process has to be selective around are you trying to figure out what consensus is, or are you trying to figure out what innovation is?

Josh McManus: The last thing I want to mention is my friend, Mark Wallace, who runs the Detroit River Conservancy, I feel like he really stumbled into, or intentionally drove into new territory from a community-input standpoint with the new park that they just announced on the Detroit riverfront.

Josh McManus: What he did was actually go get a representative sampling. I think it was 21 folks, real people from neighborhoods – mom and her kid, a set of retirees – and these are people that were not your usual suspects in public participation. Then what he did is put them on a plane, and they went to the best parks in the country-

Eve Picker: Oh, that’s really cool.

Josh McManus: Yeah. They experienced those parks, and then they came back and worked with the designers to say what they wanted in their park. Instead of [cross talk]

Eve Picker: That’s really cool.

Josh McManus: -surveying, he found his representative sampling of the community; made sure that they were unbiased, because they weren’t the usual suspects and participants, like people that are in the know. Used their input to come up with a plan that I’m super-super-excited about. I think that may be a next practice, too.

Eve Picker: That’s pretty cool. I’m gonna have to interview Mark-

Josh McManus: Oh, yeah, he’s great.

Eve Picker: One last question – where do you think the future of real estate impact investing lies, in summary?

Josh McManus: In summary, I think that all of us that care about real estate impact investing have to continue to drive for policies, tools, and patrons, for that matter, who are committed to the democratization of finance. When the controls are in the hands of the commons, instead of in the hands of a small few who may make choices that were based on that unbridled greed that is this Achilles heel of capitalism, that is problematic. Anything that we can build, that we can do, that we can advocate for, that allows finance to further democratize to allow all people to participate in it, and to participate in ways that are fair and just, I think that’s what the future looks like.

Eve Picker: Okay, that’s great. I do have three sign-off questions that I’m asking everyone because I’d like to tabulate the answers in the end. The first question is what’s the key factor that makes a real estate project impactful to you?

Josh McManus: I’ll tell you a quick story. There was a time when everybody was talking about Denver. They’re like, “Denver’s changing. Denver’s changing. You gotta go see Denver! Denver is changing!” Then you went to Denver, and it was three blocks-.

Eve Picker: Yes, I remember that.

Josh McManus: Yeah, yeah [cross talk]

Eve Picker: -you could say the same about Corktown. You know that, right?

Josh McManus: Yeah, yeah, totally, totally. Absolutely.

Eve Picker: Where is Corktown? Oh, it’s this block …

Josh McManus: Yeah, that’s … my friends, the Cooleys, and they started with the BBQ shop. That does get to how I measure these things. A project that is so impactful that people start to talk about a place, because that one project … It’s happened with a place called The Flying Squirrel in Chattanooga; incredibly designed; really smart bar that really accelerated the south side of the city. That’s what I’m looking for in transforming real estate.

Josh McManus: Does the project have the ability to play above its fighting weight, because it becomes contagious? Does it cause adjacent development? Does it get written up because it has particular aspects of it, like Jonathan Tate’s odd-lot work that he’s done down in New Orleans? Does it set precedent? Does it challenge people? Does it change the status quo? Do you come back to it in 10, 15, 20 years and all sorts of other stuff has happened around it, because it was that compelling unto itself?

Eve Picker: Yes, okay. Then, other than by raising money, how do you think involving investors through crowdfunding could benefit the impact real estate developer?

Josh McManus: When I speak of the democratization of finance, the disassociation of capital and community that happened since the 1950s is very problematic. What has the potential to happen now … Before we got on the line, I was working through a small investment in a place-based development out of my IRA- a self-directed IRA investment that’s in my neighborhood in New Orleans. What that does is reconnect me, my capital, and my community together. I think that’s what’s to come for the investor is to no longer be a spreadsheet jockey who is just sitting there looking for returns, but to actually participate in the true active community, by the utilization of your capital, to deliver things that include returns for you, but include a lot more.

Eve Picker: Right. Okay, if you could think of one thing that would improve real estate development in the US, what would it be?

Josh McManus: One thing that would improve real estate development in the US would be a rapid evolution of understanding of zoning, because I feel like this is … The municipal boundaries of most communities were formed at a time of horse and carriage. Most of our zoning requirements still date back to times when heavy industry and light industry were really different from each other. Heavy industry had machines that could suck people into them, and cause major problems, and had major health concerns.

Josh McManus: I look at additive manufacturing, experiential retail, multi-family affordable residential, and I know, in the future, we’re going to have to have all of those on the same block with each other. Accelerating to standards that allow for that to happen seems really important to me.

Eve Picker: Yeah? Okay. Josh, it’s been really lovely talking to you. I thoroughly enjoyed it. I can’t wait to hear about what you’re next working on. Thank you so much for your time.

Josh McManus: Thank you. I enjoyed the conversation, Eve.

Eve Picker: That was Josh McManus. I hope you enjoyed listening to him as much as I enjoyed talking to him. Josh gave me three great takeaways. First, he believes we are on the precipice of the democratization of finance. Second, all segments of the real estate market are innovating and transforming rapidly right before our eyes. Third, just as we lived through a wave of green-washing, we are now in a wave of good-washing. We need to be patient for investors to catch up. What did you learn?

Eve Picker: You can read more about Josh on the show notes page for this podcast at EvePicker.com. While you’re there, please consider signing up for my newsletter to find out more about how to make money in real estate while making some change. Thank you so much for spending your time with Josh, and I, today. We’ll talk again soon, but for now, this is Eve Picker signing off to go make some change.

Detroit, image by Eve Picker

Embedded in community.

August 7, 2019

Brian Murray is the CEO and Founder of Shift Capital, a Certified B-­Corp impact real estate group headquartered in the Kensington neighborhood of Philadelphia, and focused on aligning capital and philanthropy with underserved communities.

Brian didn’t start his career in real estate. He started his career at Pricewaterhouse-Coopers as an auditor and quickly moved into the technology space where he helped found two start­ups. A stint in the Peace Corps, building community in Bulgaria, and an MBA from the Yale School of Management, followed.

While in graduate school Brian observed the growing interest in impact investing. At the same time he made his first real estate investment and discovered the importance of socially ­minded development. And with this his journey into real estate was complete. He fell in love with the process of developing real estate where it matters. All of these things come together in Brian, a man focused on doing well by doing good.

Together, on this podcast, Eve and Brian explore the challenge of developing real estate for purpose.

Insights and Inspirations

  • Brian proves that it’s possible to have a robust real estate business focussed on under-served neighborhoods.
  • Community engagement really means embedding yourself and becoming part of that community.
  • Finance is at the core of making change.  We need financial institutions and the philanthropic world to step up and make it possible to build much more real estate in neighborhoods that need the investment.

Information and Links

  • Shift’s latest inclusive project is Jumpstart Kensington a real estate accelerator for the Kensington community.
  • RevErie, staged by Shift, an event at the nexus of art, citizenry and community designed to uplift and inspire. 
  • The Reimagine Storefront Challenge is an inclusive development strategy to reactivate storefronts on Kensington Ave.
  • Urban Action: Kensington Gateway, a collaboration with UPenn, Penn Praxis, Olin, New Kensington CDC and Hinge Collective seeks to activate a severely challenged intersection with thoughtful, community-informed designs for public open space.
Read the podcast transcript here

Eve Picker: Hey, everyone, this is Eve Picker. If you listen to this podcast series, you’re going to learn how to make some change. Thanks so much for joining us on this podcast. I’m Eve Picker, and my life revolves around cities, real estate, crowdfunding, and change. In this podcast series, we’ll be digging deep to discover how we can build better cities by building better buildings.

Eve Picker: I’m excited to have Brian Murray as my guest today. Brian is the co-founder of Shift Capital, an urban real-estate group focused on mission-oriented projects in under-served Philadelphia communities.

Eve Picker: Brian didn’t start his career in real estate. He started traditionally at PricewaterhouseCoopers as an auditor, and then helped found two startups. The itch to do good was with him, so he joined the Peace Corps, and found himself in Bulgaria on the ground doing community development work.

Eve Picker: The journey into real estate was completed when, once back stateside, he invested in a real-estate project in Philly, and fell in love with the development process. All of these things come together in Brian, a man focused on doing well by doing good.

Eve Picker: If you want to know more about Brian after you’ve listened to this podcast, please visit EvePicker.com, where you’ll find links and other goodies on the show notes page, and where you can subscribe to my newsletter on all things real-estate impact.

Eve Picker: Welcome, Brian and thank you very much for joining me. I wanted to start by just diving into your background a little. I know you have a company called Shift, and I’m really wondering what led you to this point in your life?

Brian Murray: Sure. First off, thanks for having me, and Shift on. We’re really excited to connect with you, and share more so. I guess, background, I started off as an accountant. I graduated college and went to work for PricewaterhouseCoopers. I left that very, very quickly, knowing that that’s definitely not what I wanted to do with my life, and went into the tech world.

Brian Murray: It was 1999, and 23 was a well-seasoned age to be in the tech world at that time. I had a venture that- my first venture went belly up, and I decided that I wanted more out of life, and didn’t want to be chasing- just to be chasing dollars. I joined the Peace Corps. I spent a few years in the Peace Corps in Eastern Europe, in Bulgaria, and got introduced to a few core concepts that have really underpinned where I am today.

Brian Murray: One is that the Peace Corps is one of the most incredible organizations at putting people on the ground in communities, embedded in communities, listening to communities. Really got a understanding of how trust needs to happen on the ground level.

Brian Murray: I also learned what does economic-development planning look like when it actually gets to the ground? That was a little eye-opening to see the disconnect between a lot of dollars flowing through the non-profit, and international-development space, and then what happens actually on the ground.

Brian Murray: The third piece, I was introduced to social enterprise. I was volunteering with an organization that launched the first social-enterprise program in Eastern Europe. I really fell in love with the idea of doing well, and doing good.

Brian Murray: Came back to the States; went back into the tech world for a few years before heading off to business school to try to marry my love for entrepreneurship, and my love for social change, and positive social change.

Brian Murray: I thought I was going to go into the impact-investing space, so I went to work for an organization called Acumen Fund, which is a non-profit venture-capital group that invests in businesses serving populations in India, Pakistan, East Africa. We invested in entrepreneurs that were providing solar-powered lights, clean water, healthcare.

Eve Picker: Was introduced to this growing world of impact investing, which is the dollars that want to make a return, but also to do good with that return. Exactly at that time – I’m originally from the Philadelphia area – when I was in business school, I was approached to invest in a small real-estate deal in Philadelphia, which I did as a side project.

Brian Murray: We invested in a neighborhood,  A lower-middle-class neighborhood in Philadelphia. We bought a note from a bank; a 30-unit building that was completely run into the ground by what I’ll call a classic slumlord … I apologize. You want me to restart there?

Eve Picker: No, no. I was going to interject, and say that was the beginning of the end, right?

Brian Murray: I fell in love with-.

Eve Picker: Yes! I knew that was coming.

Brian Murray: I fell in love with, and really understood the power of real estate in people’s lives. On one hand, I realized what kind of  capital usually flows through these neighborhoods, and realized that if I could wake up every day, and be a good landlord, I would be doing the world a good service. I jumped in with two feet, at that point.

Eve Picker: Be sure to go to EvePicker.com, and sign up for my free educational newsletter about impact real-estate investing. You’ll be among the first to hear about new projects you can invest in. That’s EvePicker.com. Thanks so much.

Eve Picker: I’m not surprised. That’s a great story. That’s a pretty interesting road that got you there. I suppose the next really big question I have is do you think socially responsible real estate is necessary in today’s development landscape? What have you observed, overall, now that you are a developer, and a landlord?

Brian Murray: I would say that 95 percent of the capital that moves through the under-served communities that we work in is exploitative capital, and exploitative in a economic model that is slightly upside down, that does not incentivize even folks who probably want to do some good in the right ways.

Eve Picker: The importance of capital that is thinking about community, working with community, thinking about different ways in which capital can be layered to make it more effective, I think, is critical, in an age right now, where it feels a little bit like feast or famine; gentrification or poverty. There’s not a lot of discussion of anything in between. This is a role that I think this type of capital, and this type of impact developer needs to really …

Brian Murray: Not only do we need to bring it to the table, but we also need to raise/grow/nurture/support the next generation of real-estate developers, with a particular emphasis on, I think, developers of color, women developers, developers that are coming out of lower-income communities, because they are the ones that know their communities best, and are best suited to tackle needs, and challenges, and be aligned with communities.

Eve Picker: I’d love to drill down into that. Do you have an example of a good use of capital flowing through those communities, and maybe another example of a bad use? I’m sure you’ve thought about this, Brian.

Brian Murray: Yeah. Well, let’s talk about the bad first. In the neighborhood we work in, in Kensington, there was a portfolio of properties that blew up. These are housing – probably about 300 to 400 units – that were owned by someone who was literally called the slumlord millionaire.

Brian Murray: He was taking appraisals- creating fraudulent appraisals, and borrowing money, and then not putting it into the housing, and renting them out in their condition.

Eve Picker: Wow.

Brian Murray: This is a larger example, but there’s a lot of small examples of this on a daily basis. In neighborhoods, in Philadelphia, where we have the highest poverty- we’re the highest-poverty big city in the country, and we have housing where the comparable sales on a three-bedroom/one-bath is about $50,000. When you’re that low, it’s very difficult to renovate, and do the right thing, or to incentivize the capital markets to do the right thing in those neighborhoods.

Eve Picker: Yeah.

Brian Murray: On the good- on the right side, those who are investing the right way, and are renovating the right way are starting to see – again, in the neighborhoods we’re working in – that people are willing to pay more for a better house.

Brian Murray: Even though we’re talking about lower-income neighborhoods, and even though we’re talking about maybe 60 percent of adjusted median income, a hundred dollars more for home, in terms of rental, allows that landlord to get a lot more done; to add air conditioning, for example; add newer bathrooms, and kitchens.

Brian Murray: People in these communities do still recognize value, and higher quality. Although it’s still significantly below 80 percent of AMI, for example, when you deliver a better product out into even lower-income communities, people really respond to that. We’ve seen that firsthand on a small level, and we’ve seen that firsthand in even the commercial world, as well. I think that’s a market opportunity.

Eve Picker: Yeah, I agree with you. 300 units that are being abused in a neighborhood is quite a large block of units, and can have a really terrible impact. I thought maybe you could tell us about a current project you’re working on that you’re excited about that moved the needle in the right direction? I gather you work solely in this one neighborhood in Philadelphia, is that true?

Brian Murray: We have a fund that we’ve invested in two neighborhoods in Philadelphia, both along public transportation. Everything we have acquired, and are developing are within a five-minute walk to one of five subway stops.

Brian Murray: We just closed on financing for the one project that I’m super-excited about. This was a building in the Kensington section of Philadelphia, near the Tioga Station, for those of your listeners who might be familiar.

Brian Murray: It’s a project called J Central. It’s a 140,000-square-foot building. It sits right on the main commercial quarter, called Kensington Avenue, which has had its challenges with the opioid crisis, in particular. We are creating the first multi-family in the neighborhood. It will end up being 130 units with a full first floor of retail on the bottom floor, and maker spaces.

Brian Murray: What’s exciting about this project is that our ambition is for this to be the most civically engaged building in the country. What that means is we are going to be providing any person who rents from us in this building with a rent rebate, for every four hours a month that they volunteer in the local community.

Brian Murray: We’re setting up a whole series of programming, and volunteer opportunities within probably about five or six organizations that are not only locally located, but also driven by local issues, and local challenges.

Brian Murray: On the front end, we’re definitely filtering folks who are going to come in this neighborhood who want to be a part of such a program. Then, this building, on a monthly basis, should be delivering hundreds of hours of volunteer hours into the neighborhood.

Brian Murray: Our goal with this, and this is on the residential; the commercial’s another piece … The residential, what’s exciting about this is one of the challenges of investing in lower-income communities is trying to responsibly create mixed-income communities.

Brian Murray: We do need people who have discretionary income to spend dollars with local businesses, so that we can support that type of work. At the same time, many neighborhoods have had the trouble of having a complete communication disconnect between what’s called the new, and the existing community.

Brian Murray: This is a fantastic way, we think, to break down those barriers on both sides, where people coming in now get to know their community better, and the community gets to know them better; hopefully building a level of trust on the residential side. On the commercial [cross talk] go ahead.

Eve Picker: I was going to say that on the residential side, we did an offering on Small Change in Chicago, with a group that- they created something called Innovation Houses – I think I need to introduce you to Jay – where they give neighborhood volunteers reduced rent in exchange for services in the neighborhood, but they’re also really trying to create sort of the next generation of leaders in that neighborhood, which is a pretty remarkable ideas. Thinking along the same lines, slightly differently.

Brian Murray: I love it. I would be happy to connect with them. The commercial side of this building will also house a Vietnamese coffee group that we’ve home grown in our other building, but also the IF Lab. It sounds like this is very similar to Chicago.

Brian Murray: This is an incubator, and a business-services space on the ground floor that is targeted on under-served businesses, and specifically trying to put that kind of incubator mentality … Instead of having it in Center City, have it in the neighborhood, as well.

Brian Murray: The group behind that has had- it’s an incredible multimedia agency here in Philadelphia that has, in the past, launched something called the Institute of Hip Hop Entrepreneurship, which was also a incubation-style programming. We’re going to try to bring that all into the community, as well.

Eve Picker: It sounds fabulous. I hope I get to see it when you’re finished. It sounds really great. Of course, this only is the tip of the iceberg, right? What would you hope that we trend towards in the next 10 to 20 years?

Eve Picker: We’ve seen gentrification take hold of neighborhoods really rapidly in many cities. San Francisco is having especially difficult issues right now with many people being priced out of housing. It seems almost too big to solve. I wonder if you have any thoughts about that?

Brian Murray: Yeah, we think about it every day. I’m not sure that we have full answers, but I think we do have a number of ideas behind that. I believe that the work that you’ve done, and what’s going on nationally with Opportunity Zones has made these discussions even more important.

Brian Murray: One, going back to what I said before, I think we really need to focus on developing bridges, and doors for developers of color, and women developers. I think that that’s absolutely critical to the future.

Brian Murray: I believe that we need to bring more powerful tools into communities, and financial tools, specifically. We are working here in Philadelphia on creating a Neighborhood Trust to go alongside our work, where we’ll start to also buy up properties that will allow some of this capital to not only stay in the neighborhood, but then be used to help the neighborhood.

Brian Murray: I believe we need to be more aggressive in cities that are not San Francisco, or D.C., or New York in providing cities and public/private partnerships with more tools to aggressively buy up housing while we can. Those tools-

Brian Murray: The foundation world has been sitting on the sidelines. They have endowments, and they have lots of capital to bring to the table, so we’re very much pushing for trying to move the needle on trying to bring more financial tools, concessionary capital, other types of capital that can perform differently, and act differently than the marketplace.

Eve Picker: Personally, I also think that there’s some governmental work that has to happen. Often, gentrification is sort of the last step in numerous things that have happened over decades. Most cities are really not thinking about that, 20 years prior.

Eve Picker: Just one of the examples I think about often is the way that properties are taxed. Certainly, if you’re in a neighborhood – if you’re aging in a neighborhood – and that neighborhood suddenly has much more value, and the property values are being reassessed every year, or every two years, and all of a sudden you have a really hefty bill, that’s a problem for someone who wants to stay in place, or age in place, who’ve lived there for a long time.

Eve Picker: I think there are ways to think about that differently so those people can stay. It’s just one little tool, but I think there are other ways beyond finance that we could think about these problems before they happen. You’re right, maybe more aggressively in cities where it hasn’t happened yet.

Brian Murray: This is where the opportunity is, and you’re right, the public-policy side of it around protecting homeowners, providing homeowners with more micro-tools to renovate in place, I think, are all part of a more comprehensive strategy that … At this point [inaudible] the federal government here, it really needs to happen on local levels. H

How we go about- where that leadership comes from, it could come from the private sector. It could come from the community development sector, but it really should … A lot of this needs to be really spearheaded by the government sector; really, they’re the ones that should take that 10,000-foot view, and be looking at all pieces of it.

Eve Picker: Yeah, I think it’s very easy, at the end of the day, to say gentrification is the developers’ fault, but developers come in all shapes and sizes, like you, me, and other ones. Developers also have to take opportunities.

Eve Picker: I’ve seen this happen often. By the time developers step in unthinkingly into a neighborhood that is already transitioning up, it’s too late. They’re there because it’s already worth more. I just think we’ve got to step back decades to really understand what’s going on. Anyway, that’s my personal thought.

Brian Murray: Just to build on that, one of the things that we’re working on, and hoping to push out to the world is this idea of, okay, let’s talk about the adjacent neighborhood. We’re talking a lot about Opportunity Zones, and the opportunities to try to stem the gentrification in those neighborhoods, but, to your point, we need to start looking out 10-20 years in advance.

Brian Murray: Some of the tools that we need are for those neighborhoods that the typical developer is not looking at. I think the other thing that is really important to us is measuring impact, because we all … We’re guilty of it, and the community development community is guilty of this, and even the hardcore real-estate community is guilty of mislabeling what is gentrification.

Brian Murray: As a result, we have some communities that there’s a strong NIMBYism going on, and it’s a opportunity to educate, and think deeply about what change means, and who gets to participate. I think that measuring impact of change in neighborhoods, it’s critical to us to understand what’s going right when- on the economic-development front, on the wealth-building front, on the inclusion front. Then being honest about what is not going right. We paint a very broad brush when we just, “Oh, that neighborhood gentrified.”

Eve Picker: That’s right. I’m thinking of a couple of examples in a neighborhood I know well, where after a developer had- before a developer had built a new house in that neighborhood, the neighboring property was probably worth $20,000. The woman who’d lived there for decades, and had very little value in that asset, she really couldn’t- it really wasn’t worth putting a new roof on it.

Eve Picker: After the house was built on the vacant lot next door, it was worth- her asset was worth a lot more money, so that added value in the neighborhood; did something good for the person who’d been sort of struggling in this neighborhood that was basically disenfranchised. That’s the good side of- I wouldn’t even call that neighborhood gentrified, but the good side of increasing values in a neighborhood that we don’t talk about.

Brian Murray: That’s right. We did a study of thinking about the type of equity wealth-building that would happen in the neighborhoods we’re working in. There’s a home-ownership rate of – depending on the block – anywhere between 40 and 50 percent in these neighborhoods.

Brian Murray: To your point, the house that, on paper, is worth $20,000, well, if we do this work, and the neighborhood becomes safer; even if we see an increase of value in a typical row home, from $20-$30,000 to $100,000, homeowners in this neighborhood will be building $400 million of equity.

Brian Murray: Now, I think you pointed this out before, there needs to be real policy interventions when it comes to what does that mean for increase in property taxes, and other components that could be problematic?

Brian Murray: If we look at what happened, in particular, in the African-American community, it’s been pretty well-documented that the wealth-building opportunities that white America had, as it fled to the suburbs … I’m a family that benefited in this way. That was what got me to college, for example.

Brian Murray: Thinking about how we educate urban communities about building wealth, and what it means, and how does it work … Providing the opportunity for them to make the choices that make sense for them, I think, is just so critical to this conversation about gentrification.

Eve Picker: It’s a very complicated conversation, and I think, too often, it’s just painted with one immediate response, which isn’t always accurate. Very, very difficult. You also talked about community engagement tools that you learned early on, when you were in the Peace Corps. Community engagement’s really tough, and I’m wondering how you go about it for your projects, and what you think works?

Brian Murray: I guess what we’ve done, and tried to do is to build engagement up and down our entire ecosystem. We do our own property management. We do our own development. We do some of our own construction. We have hired local. We talk about engagement with everyone from the guy we send out to fix the toilet to the guy, or woman running our construction team.

Brian Murray: The opportunities for engagement are as simple as being in the street, listening; learning and understanding what are some of the daily problems of the community, inasmuch as it is, in a more traditional real-estate way, when we engage the community on a variance we need when it comes to a project, and what that might mean, and the input that we need …

Brian Murray: Those are just some of the basic underpinning philosophies of Shift, but beyond that, then we really try to put it all to the test, in reality. In the last probably 24 months, I can share with you probably four or five different projects; I’ll just name one or two.

Brian Murray: One most recent is that we engaged the local charter school to actually … As part of their curriculum, they are doing art projects on plywood that we’re using to board up vacant housing in the neighborhood. They’ve used it to tell their own stories about the trauma that vacancy has brought into their neighborhood. It’s just been absolutely eye-opening.

Brian Murray: We also launched a program called Jumpstart Kensington. Jumpstart Kensington is a real-estate accelerator for people in the community. The argument, or the challenge that I keep going back to is who gets a chance to participate in the upside of a neighborhood? When a community understands that their neighborhood is changing, do they have the tools, the access to capital, the knowledge to go out, and start perhaps buying, renovating, renting, building equity in their own way?

Brian Murray: We created a program; it’s a real-estate accelerator, where we provide a series of workshops, mentorship, and now, with the help of our nonprofit partner, and J.P. Morgan, we have funding available. We’ve brought 65 people through our program to date, of which probably about 90 percent are a person of color, and a woman.

Eve Picker: That’s a pretty fabulous. That’s a really great outcome. Have any of them had success with real-estate projects in the neighborhood, or are they coming from other neighborhoods, or are they solely from the ones you’re working in?

Brian Murray: Just like life, it’s a [inaudible] everything. It’s a little bit more complicated to paint a broad stroke, but what I can say is that yes, yes, and yes-

Eve Picker: Okay, very good.

Brian Murray: There’s some who come from other neighborhoods. There’s some that are just getting some properties up and going now. We’re trying to figure out the right cadence to help support them.

Eve Picker: That’s great. The other thing you talked about was wealth-building in the neighborhoods. I’m wondering if you think that equity crowdfunding can play any sort of role in building communities for everyone?

Brian Murray: Absolutely. I think there are real opportunities within almost any neighborhood project, and it could be small; it could be large, and meaningful, but I think that the-

Eve Picker: Hold on a second, small can be meaningful, Brian!

Brian Murray: Oh, absolutely … I meant … Sorry, thank you for correcting me there.

Eve Picker: Don’t apologize.

Brian Murray: I would say financially meaningful for the project.

Eve Picker: Yes, that’s correct.

Brian Murray: Both of them have roles. I was going to argue that especially the small amounts are educational opportunities. They might not necessarily always be wealth-building opportunities for the community, but they’re certainly an exciting way in which to bring people into the process; understand the process; understand what happens behind the scenes in a real-estate project. Then, of course, have some pride, and ownership over their own community.

Brian Murray: Whether it’s really truly, again, financially rewarding work with the psychological side of it, I think both of them have an unbelievable power when it comes to the type of work that you’re doing, obviously, and we’re doing, too.

Eve Picker: Then, the next question is where do you think the future of real-estate impacting … Impacted … Sorry, I’ve got to say that again.

Brian Murray: Sure.

Eve Picker: Where do you think the future of real-estate impact investing lies? I’m asking this because I hear- my personal experience is that I hear a lot of people … Perhaps pretty startling statistics, like 85 percent of people who have managed portfolios are now looking for some sort of impact, or social responsibility in their portfolio. That’s a really big number, but I am still to be convinced that impact investors will actually accept a lower return.

Eve Picker: That really complicates things, in my mind, for neighborhoods like the ones you’re working in, and, actually, most Opportunity Zones, where it is really difficult to find – if it’s really, truly an under-served neighborhood, which was the intent of that legislation. It’s very difficult to find a project that can really return to a bigger-pocket investor the sorts of returns they typically expect.

Brian Murray: I deeply- I don’t want to say troubled, but I think you’re right. My experience has been that even among the “impact-investing group” there is not yet a strong desire to increase risk at potentially decreasing returns slightly.

Eve Picker: Yes.

Brian Murray: I believe that- I think that there are a few reasons for that, and part of that’s my own experience here. People who traditionally had- people who are real-estate investors – I’m painting a really broad stroke here, but it’s not that far off – have typically been real-estate investors in the past. Either their family has been; they were in the business; they know the business very well.

Brian Murray: Impact investors don’t know real estate well. They are just starting to dip their toes in on platforms like your own, and it’s hard to discern what is risk in real estate, and what is risk …

Brian Murray: There’s lots of levels of risk in real estate, as we all know but now we are adding an additional risk here, which, I’ll be frank, having now been doing what we’re doing, I think that there’s more risk, as a real-estate investor, investing in Center City, downtown high-end rental markets than there is in working in lower-income communities, where demand drivers are just absolutely enormous-

Eve Picker: I agree with you. I agree with you.

Brian Murray: It’ll just take some time, I think, for us, and I mean that in this very collective ‘us’ of, as you know, lots of really great, fantastic groups doing this work on the ground to continue to educate, to do what you’re doing, by providing this access to these incredible projects, and really continuing to push that education process.

Brian Murray: Also, growing these type of value-driven developers, and making sure that we’re continuing to prop them up, give them- make sure that the light is getting shined on their work – good and bad. Sometimes, it might not always work out, but I think we all have that duty to do that. That’s where I think we all need to go as a group.

Eve Picker: I agree with you. I’m going to end this conversation with three sign-off questions that sort of, I suppose, summarize what we’ve been talking about. The first one is what do you believe is the key factor that makes a real-estate project impactful?

Brian Murray: A project that the community has a real say in; that the community has access to the process, and, in the best-case scenario, where the community has a benefit from that project, as well.

Eve Picker: The second question is, other than just raising money, how do you think involving investors in crowdfunding might benefit impact real-estate developers? Can the crowd do more than just raised money for projects?

Brian Murray: Wow, that’s a fantastic question, and I would turn that back to you. I think you’re … I don’t have an immediate reaction on that, except for, yes, I believe that there are probably ways that investors can play a … Investors connecting to projects through crowdfunded sourcing can probably crowdsource other resources that could help developers, and specifically their projects. I think it’s a great idea.

Eve Picker: One think I think about, just as an engagement tool for someone like you, if you crowdfunded a small portion of a project in your neighborhood to the people in the neighborhood, now you have a pool of people who are really standing behind you, and what you’re doing.

Brian Murray: That’s right.

Eve Picker: Maybe that helps at a zoning hearing, or maybe it helps in some other way that we haven’t thought about. I think that was my idealistic goal in Small Change is that … You and I have seen, in cities like Pittsburgh, and Philadelphia, how much people want to be involved in the place they live in, so this was a way to give them access beyond just talking about it. I don’t know. I’m sure there’s more that I hadn’t thought about but-

Brian Murray: No, I think that’s great.

Eve Picker: Yeah, and then, finally, and this is the really big question, which you probably have thought about, is how do you think real-estate development in the United States should be improved?

Brian Murray: We need to work with the banks to mandate, and improve ways in which real-estate financing happens, so that it’s not just the usual incumbents that have access to the type of capital that these projects need.

Brian Murray: Singlehandedly. I think there’s a systematic problem with access to financial markets, to the networks that create opportunities to raise equity. That circle is very small, and it’s very difficult for new developers, new entrepreneurs, to access- to break in. It’s just too high of a barrier of entry.

Eve Picker: I totally agree with you, and that, again, is why I’m doing what I’m doing. I hope there’s a friendly Philadelphia banker out there listening to this, who might start some process that helps the developers your training. In any case. I really enjoyed this conversation, and thank you so much. I’m sure we’re going to talk again soon.

Brian Murray: Thank you, Eve. It was great. I love what you’re doing. I love what it represents for the industry, and I just want you to keep doing what you’re doing.

Eve Picker: Okay, thank you, bye. That was Brian Murray. I hope you enjoyed listening to him as much as I enjoyed talking to him. Brian gave me three great takeaways. First, it’s possible to have a robust real-estate business focused on under-served neighborhoods. Second, community engagement really means embedding yourself, and becoming part of that community. Third, finance is at the core of making change. We need financial institutions, and the philanthropic world to step up, and make it possible to build much more real estate in neighborhoods that need the investment. What did you learn?

Eve Picker: You can read more about Brian on the show notes page for this podcast at EvePicker.com. While you’re there, please consider signing up for my newsletter to find out more about how to make money in real estate, while making some change.

Eve Picker: Thank you so much for spending your time with Brian, and I, today. We’ll talk again soon, but for now, this is Eve Picker signing off to go make some change.

Image courtesy of Brian Murray, Shift Capital

« 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