• 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

Mobility

One year. 41 more conversations.

July 28, 2021

41 amazing people. 41 inspiring conversations.

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

These are the rockstars of my show.

Season Three starts soon …

Read the podcast transcript here

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Livable and Delightful.

May 19, 2021

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

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

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

Insights and Inspirations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eve: [00:09:24] That’s for sure.

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

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

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

Eve: [00:12:38] Yes.

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

Eve: [00:13:22] Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eve: [00:18:52] Right.

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

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

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

Eve: [00:22:14] Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image courtesy of Touchstone

I’ve been working on the railroad.

May 5, 2021

David Peter Alan has worked for decades as an advocate for rail transportation. For two decades, he chaired the Lackawana Coalition, an independent, non-profit organization that advocates for better service for New Jersey Transit riders. (This is all in addition to his day job as an intellectual property lawyer.) David’s expertise is widely recognized. He has served on multiple boards, councils and committees, and has testified at hearings, moderated panels and written extensively on transit issues for much of the last decade and a half. Now he’s a journalist part-time, writing for Railway Age, an industry magazine.

David has enormous passion for trains –  a mode of transport that is, sadly, fading. He has ridden the entire Amtrak system and about 300 transit providers in the U.S. and in Canada. Overall, pre-pandemic, he is pretty sure he has ridden every single system in the contiguous 48. And then some. But he does not hold out much hope for a resurgence in train travel. Infrastructure bills and federal dollars are pointed squarely at continuing the car culture in the U.S. This trend started in the 1960s, and public transit has been in free fall ever since.  “It’s a political thing,” he says.  If the funds were in David’s hands, trolleys would be installed to serve every corner of every city and neighborhood, 24 hours a day, rebuilding thriving main streets and giving access to everyone, not just those who own an automobile. 

But what it will take is everyone getting involved.

Insights and Inspirations

  • Rider advocacy groups are critical to keeping the issue of public transit alive.
  • David has three core arguments that he uses in support of the expansion of public transit. First, non-motorists deserve mobility – right now it’s a class system. Second, the business sector is suffering because mobility infrastructure is weak. And third, environmental benefits reaped from an extensive public transit system are enormous.
  • Two common (and tired) excuses that David hears against public transit — A majority of Americans don’t want public transit (meaning, I have a car, therefore I will vote for better roads and parking first), and why should we spend money on transit when so few people want it (often out of the mouths of politicians, many of whom have never taken a bus).
  • The new infrastructure bill is a step forward, but not even close to what our cities and urban regions need.
Read the podcast transcript here

Eve Picker: [00:00:21] Hi there, thanks for joining me on Rethink Real Estate. I’m on a mission to make real estate work for everyone. Real estate can help to solve climate change, can house people affordably, can create beautiful streetscapes, unify neighborhoods and enliven cities. So I’m on a journey to find the most creative thinkers and doers out there. I’m not the only one who wants to rethink real estate. You can learn more about me at EvePicker.com or you can find me at SmallChange.co., a real estate crowdfunding platform with impact real estate investment opportunities open for investment right now. And if you want to support this podcast, join me at Patreon.com/rethinkrealestate where there are special opportunities for my friends and followers. Today I’m talking with David Peter Alan, journalist, intellectual property lawyer and all-around public transit advocate. David has worked for decades as an advocate for rail transportation, serving on boards, councils and committees. For two decades, he chaired the Lackawanna Coalition, an independent non-profit organization that advocates for better service for New Jersey riders. His expertise is widely recognized. He has spoken and testified at hearings, moderated panels and written extensively on transit issues for much of the last decade and a half and currently for Railway Age. Not one to stop at writing and talking, David has ridden the entire Amtrak system and about 300 transit providers in the U.S. and in Canada. Overall pre-pandemic, he thinks he has probably ridden every single system in the contiguous 48 and then some. This is a passionate conversation. Listen in to learn about the current state of transit in the U.S. If you’d like to join me in my quest to rethink real estate, there are two simple things you can do. Share this podcast or go to Patreon.com/rethinkrealestate to learn about special opportunities for my friends and followers and subscribe if you can.

Eve: [00:03:03] Hello, David. I’m really delighted to have you with me today.

David Peter Alan: [00:03:07] Well, thank you for having me, Eve. It’s a pleasure.

Eve: [00:03:10] So I’ve read that you’ve written all of the trains in the Amtrak system and about 300 transit providers in the US and Canada, which is a big wow for me. I’ve got a lot of questions for you.

David: [00:03:23] Well, as far as I know, that’s the record. But, yeah, there may be somebody out there I don’t know about.

Eve: [00:03:29] That might get in the Guinness Book of Records yet, right?

David: [00:03:33] I think it deserves to be. And I’ve ridden every bit of rail except for one mile. I held the distinction for 77 days. And when I get out to the San Francisco Bay Area again, I’ll catch that mile from Sausalito to San Rafael, from Larkspur to San Rafael.

Eve: [00:03:53] That’s that’s great. So you’re an intellectual property lawyer and I want to understand how you got interested in transit from intellectual property law and how you how you got involved.

David: [00:04:07] Well, it happened the other way around, actually, chronologically. I am transit dependent due to a disability, which was does not interfere with my life in any other way. But it relegates me to going only where there is some kind of public transportation, because the cost of getting to non transit accessible places with a taxi, and let’s face fact here, Uber and Lyft are taxis. They have taxi fare structures. They’re just hailed by an app rather than a phone call. So. I am roughly 20 percent of American adults who are similarly situated. Can really only go where a train goes, where a bus goes, and that’s maybe two percent of the country. Fortunately, it’s the most interesting two percent, so it could be worse. And I went to an urban university, which I always wanted to do. I went to M.I.T. and when I was an undergrad, a friend of mine was a rail fan. He introduced me to rail. He went on to get an engineering degree and have a career in the railroad engineering field. I went on to get a science degree and through a very tortuous course, including an MBA and some entrepreneurial starts that didn’t work, and my legal background, I ended up practicing law, but I have been an advocate for better transit now for 36 years. Recently I’ve made the transition from straight advocacy into journalism. I am a contributing editor at Railway Age, a publication that has served the railroad industry since 1856. A lot of my work can be found on our website railwayage.com. Sometimes I write columns, sometimes I write news stories or features. And our editor, Bill Vantuono was very scrupulous about separating the two and I think that’s entirely appropriate. So I have come to be a rail oriented journalist through a very unusual path.

Eve: [00:06:28] Yeah.

David: [00:06:28] And that’s sort of what I am doing now that I am semi-retired from my law practice. That’s my senior career.

Eve: [00:06:36] Wow. So I want to get into the good stuff now. And I want to know what your favorite form of transit is and why?

David: [00:06:47] Well, my favorite form of transit is probably the heritage street cars that run in places like New Orleans and Dallas and now Memphis. San Francisco had them until the virus hit. And I hope that they’ll have they’ll come back soon. It’s something that’s a lot of fun. Streetcars bring people together. Locals love to ride them. Tourists love to ride them. People are friendly, it’s it promotes the city. It’s real mobility for people who need it. And I believe that is what transit should be about, bringing people together as they go to where they want to go.

Eve: [00:07:35] Yeah, I mean, that’s such a shame. Like, I grew up in Sydney, Australia, and we had street cars and they ripped all of them out, all of them, just gone. That still astounds me that that was permitted to happen and why it happened. Do you have any insight on that?

David: [00:07:53] Yes. At least in this country. It’s the automobile lobby, it’s the oil companies, it’s their allies and their ability to make things happen politically. Because transit today is in the public sectors and that includes Amtrak. Anything in the public sector is driven by politics, elected officials, virtually all of whom are motorists, don’t see transit as vital. They see highways as vital because that’s what they use. I think we have to face the fact and I should preface any opinion I give by making it clear I do not speak for Railway Age or any other organization I’m involved with. My opinions are my own. That’s made clear when I write columns, this commentary, but I need to be sure that you and your listeners understand that I’m speaking for myself and I’m not somebody else’s agent when I say this. A lot of politicians oppose government spending and government intervention unless that spending is for something they use themselves. That’s just the way people are.

Eve: [00:09:23] Well, it’s the way some people are.  There are some of us who want public transit, but…

David: [00:09:28] Of course there are. But we have to look at the the imbalance in the power relationships.

Eve: [00:09:35] Yes.

David: [00:09:35] And in the United States, the leading figure, and changing the entire American culture, from one that was comfortable with transit to one that is only comfortable with the automobile, was the chair of General Motors, Alfred P. Sloan. He literally changed the culture of America. There’s an apocryphal story that one day he was in Cleveland in 1922 and he saw the hordes of people leaving downtown Cleveland after work to get home on streetcars. And he decided then and there that he could never sell enough automobiles if people were satisfied with their transit. So he had to create a situation where people would be unhappy with transit. And as General Motors grew, he used the influence that the industry had, to buy up the street car companies, which were private corporations then, and when they achieved working control, they got rid of the street cars, replaced them with buses. In the short run, GM sold a lot of buses, thousands of them. In the long run, they sold millions of automobiles and created transit free places throughout the country, and I believe into Canada as well. And that started the automobile culture, which is scrupulously anti-transit to this day. Nobody writes or talks much about the prejudice against persons who depend on transit, but I’ve lived it for my entire life.

Eve: [00:11:29] Oh no, I’ve seen it, I’ve seen it. It’s astounding.

David: [00:11:33] Persons who depend on transit are the most diverse and discriminated against minority in America. We do have a preponderance of seniors, of persons with disabilities, persons of color, but we reach every demographic. Every age, every color, every part of the mix. But because we are diverse and not an identifiable minority, the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution does not reach us. We have no legal protection. None. So it’s really an uphill fight to even get the politicians to think about people who need transit. Maybe they will allow funding for some buses as default transportation for poor people to get to their low wage jobs, but they don’t think of transit as something people would ride by choice, yet rail transit is just that. People ride streetcars, light rail, trains, including Amtrak trains by choice. There are a lot of motor. You can’t get motorists easily to take discretionary trips on a bus.

Eve: [00:12:56] Unless you’re in another country, right? I’ve seen systems in other countries which are gorgeous and probably mimic light rail in the way they treat passengers, but not here.

David: [00:13:07] It’s interesting you say that, Eve, because I’ve heard that argument from transit providers. The busway we want to build mimics light rail. And my answer is, if it mimics light rail, why not build light rail?

Eve: [00:13:23] Yes, well, where’s the money, right? Where are the dollars?

David: [00:13:27] Well, that’s another problem. They’re putting money into infrastructure.

Eve: [00:13:31] Now’s a big moment in time for that. Right?

David: [00:13:33] But does that trickle down to the riders? And generally, the answer is no. Infrastructure directly helps motorists. It builds roads for them. It keeps highways in a state of good repair. Motorists are direct beneficiaries of all these programs. Transit riders are not, because it’s fine and dandy to talk about transit infrastructure. And here in New Jersey, in New York, they’re talking about the Gateway program. I believe most of it is unnecessary, built to serve peak hour commuters from the pre-Covid era who are not going to commute at peak hours anymore. Fewer of them will do it. We don’t need that much more capacity. We do need some improvements. But the problem is that you could end up with a situation where there’s fantastic transit infrastructure and yet the transit providers are going broke.

Eve: [00:14:36] I live in a situation like that so…

David: [00:14:38] Your transit in Pittsburgh has lived day to day on a touch and go for years. I know about the political situation in Pennsylvania, and you can’t live easily wondering whether you’ll have full time transit service next year or not. And a lot of people in cities have to live that way because as I said before, the politicians who decide how much money transit gets are all motorists. They don’t need it. They can live just fine without it.

Eve: [00:15:15] No, I mean, my experience here has been first of all, we have this amazing busway, which is really astounding. We live downtown and we can hop on a bus, which takes us to the airport, when it’s open, on a dedicated busway that no one else can use. And it’s extremely reliable and it’s, I think, two dollars and 25 cents. I mean, I’ve traveled all over the world and have really never experienced a more reliable connection to the airport.

David: [00:15:45] Well, let’s look at your east busway in Pittsburgh. That was a rail line. That was part of the main line of the Pennsylvania Railroad and Wilkinsburg was a stop on the intercity trains.

Eve: [00:15:57] Yes.

David: [00:15:58] They paved over a rail line to make a busway, which makes absolutely no sense when they had a functioning streetcar system. I remember the streetcars on Fourth Avenue, Fifth Avenue, downtown. They’re all gone now. All you have left are the two light rail lines, which are essentially inter-urbans. They used to have a lot more and they could have run street cars or put the light rail on what is now the expressway.

Eve: [00:16:31] You’re going to make me cry.

David: [00:16:34] And that’s been duplicated all over the country.

Eve: [00:16:38] Yeah.

David: [00:16:38] We had such a transit holocaust because of what Alfred P. Sloan and his allies did, that in the 1960s, there were only seven cities in the United States that had even one streetcar line. Boston, Newark, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, New Orleans and San Francisco. That was it. And only Toronto in Canada. And it’s ironic. I’ve been assigned to write an article about streetcars for Railway Age, and I’m working on it as we speak, but we’re up to about 40 cities and towns now that have light rail or streetcars. They are coming back. The virus put a dent in that, but I believe that when the dust clears, these services will come back.

Eve: [00:17:26] Good. Well, that’s really encouraging.

David: [00:17:28] I hope so.

Eve: [00:17:28] So what about other forms of transit? I was going to tackle this interview a little differently, but we’re really into the meat of it. So what about other forms of transit? Because I often think about the fact that, so I live in Pittsburgh, which is really a Midwestern town that likes to think of itself connected to the East Coast.

David: [00:17:50] I would agree with that.

Eve: [00:17:51] Yeah, but we’re really, and you can hear I’m not a Pittsburgher, so I suppose still after decades, an outsider, but I’ve sort of lived with that for years and watched it with great interest. And then on the other hand, you see all the interconnected cities on the East Coast and and how they have thrived, I believe, with the help of those transit connections up and down the east, the northeast corridor. I’m always really fascinated by how little external connections from cities are talked about. So in Pittsburgh, there’s always been a lot of talk about extra light rail, high speed bus line from Oakland to downtown, the dense working hubs. But I’ve always thought that economic development would be better driven by focusing on how to connect to D.C. or Philadelphia or those, you know, other larger cities with jobs, etc.

David: [00:18:54] I agree with you. The problem is, politically, the auto industry and its allies in the oil industry, the rubber industry, the highway construction industry, etc. have a lot of clout. And they can make the political campaign contributions necessary to get members of Congress to go along. The same with the airline industry. Look at the amount of money the airline industry was able to get, even though they are private corporations. And traditionally the rules of capitalism are if you can’t make it, you go out of business. But they can even change the basic premises of capitalism for their own purposes.

Eve: [00:19:39] Yeah.

David: [00:19:40] But rail is in the public sector. We are coming up on the 50th anniversary of Amtrak. It was formed in 1971 to relieve private sector railroads of any public responsibility to run passenger trains. And the first thing that happened is two thirds of the trains in this country went away.

Eve: [00:20:03] Oh.

David: [00:20:04] Now, for a while, Pittsburgh had two trains a day to New York. And that portion has still to this day, it has one train three times a week to Washington, D.C. It will soon, that train will run daily again a month and a half from now. But the, there is now only one train a day between Pittsburgh and New York and Philadelphia. It’s a daytime train. And I’ve ridden it many times, but it’s one train.

Eve: [00:20:37] You have to have the time. It is really a long ride. It’s not really competing with, you know, the freeway.

David: [00:20:46] That’s not true. Pittsburgh to Philadelphia, certainly rail could be time competitive, even with air, when you factor in the amount of time it takes to get to the airport.

Eve: [00:21:01] That’s true.

David: [00:21:02] Especially on transit from the downtown area. And the time you have to hang around the airport, wait for the plane, take the flight and then use the transit, even though in Philadelphia airport transit is pretty good, they have a rail line to get back to Center City to where you want to go. And in the meantime, I’ll tell you about an experiment I tried one time when I was an undergrad. I usually took the train home to New Jersey from Boston, and I took the Merchant’s Limited, their best train. And back in the day, left at five o’clock, got into New York at 9:15. One time, just to see the difference, I decided to take the plane. I had nine changes of vehicles to get home rather than taking two vehicles to get home. And I saved half an hour.

Eve: [00:22:02] And you probably got really stressed out, right?

David: [00:22:04] It wasn’t worth it.

Eve: [00:22:06] It’s very stressful flying and waiting.

David: [00:22:09] Yes.

Eve: [00:22:09] You know, I do this calculation often, but I think the frustration from Pittsburgh to the East Coast is the freight trains are on the same line. Well, really slow things down. And that brings us up to high-speed rail, right?

David: [00:22:23] Yes. But we’re not going to have high speed rail in this country because the private sector does not see it as a great investment, even though there are some efforts underway, Brightline in Florida wants to go up to Orlando, but their going to the airport, not to another destination. There’s a private sector effort in Texas, that one end would be in downtown Dallas, the other would be on the intersection of two highways 10 miles from Houston, that’s facing legal opposition from landowners in the area. Brightline, Florida also wants to build a high-speed rail line between Las Vegas and somewhere in Southern California, about 40 miles from Los Angeles. But if they can connect into downtown L.A., on Metrolink, which is their commuter rail system there, that could be viable. But by and large, you’re not going to see high speed rail because the infrastructure costs are just tremendous. I don’t see the private sector investing in that. And I don’t see the public sector investing in that either, because there are so many other needs for transit. That the money is just not going to be there. I see economic hard times coming from the virus. It’s going to take a long time to recover to where we were. Wall Street is doing great. Main Street is suffering. I see empty storefronts all over the place.

Eve: [00:23:59] Yes.

David: [00:24:00] And this is the untold story of the pandemic. The people at the low end are getting hit the hardest. The people at the highest end, Jeff Bezos is making a killing. And the wealth disparity and the income disparity in this country are probably worse than they have been since the 1930s. We’re not going to have the money for this. What would make sense would be a system of conventional rail, which is not as fast as high-speed rail. But I say two things about that. A friend of mine who, an advocate for Kansas City, once said high speed rail is the schedule the Santa Fe ran in 1962. And I’ve seen many times from riding trains, if your train is parallel to a highway and you’re going faster than the automobiles on the highway, you feel good.

Eve: [00:24:57] Yes, you do.

David: [00:24:58] If the automobiles are gaining on you, you feel terrible.

Eve: [00:25:02] Well, it depends if you’re on an old fashioned clackety-clack train just enjoying yourself. And that can be sort of a restful journey where you don’t care. Right?

David: [00:25:13] That’s not Amtrak. Those are tourist railroads. And very few of them are accessible without an automobile. So even the idea of just taking a train ride in many parts of this country for motorists only.

Eve: [00:25:29] Yes.

David: [00:25:31] Non-motorists are forgotten, we don’t exist.

Eve: [00:25:35] Well, there are a lot of last mile options emerging. I mean, aside from Uber and Lyft now, I suppose they’re all very urban centric, right?

David: [00:25:46] Well,

Eve: [00:25:47] Hubs, scooters, bike hubs.

David: [00:25:50] They are. And part of advocating for better transit, which I’ve done for many, many years, even though I’m now concentrating on my journalism, includes things like livable cities and towns. We all know about Jane Jacobs  and Lewis Mumford and their writings. And complete streets, which includes bicycle, pedestrian use of street furniture, furniture. And as far as I’m concerned, it’s only a complete screen if it has a street car around it. So, among the few complete streets in this nation are Canal Street in New Orleans and McKinney Avenue in Dallas. Market Street in San Francisco was but the street cars came off of the pandemic, so I’m hoping they’ll come back soon. But and historic preservation, too. But I, I bristle when I hear people mention Uber and Lyft so casually. Let’s get something straight here. Uber and Lyft are not transit. They are taxis. They charge like taxis. And the main difference is that they’re hailed through an app rather than through a phone call. And they are expensive. And they’re not affordable for the average working person. Really, the best last mile option is a bus line, even if it’s run with a body on chassis vehicle with a lower seating capacity, which also lowers operations costs, to connect with rail. And several cities, as they’ve built out their light rail systems like Dallas and Washington, D.C., have restructured their bus routes to feed the light rail. And that’s a very efficient way of running transit.

Eve: [00:27:39] Yeah, no, I agree. There’s also, of course, the sustainability issue and the fact that public transit can help reduce the impact of fuel on our climate. And it’s frustrating to see all these efforts to improve public transit stalling because they would certainly have an impact there as well.

David: [00:28:05] You’re absolutely right. But somehow, we in the advocacy movement have found that while the environmental benefits of transit are important to us, they don’t seem terribly important to the decision makers. I don’t even know many environmentalists through the Sierra Club and other organized environmental groups who are terribly concerned about transit. They’re more concerned with electric vehicles. And rail trails, which precludes the rail line ever coming back for passenger service. It has never happened. And I see that there should be natural, a natural alliance between the transit advocacy movement and the environmental movement. But except for a few individuals like Darrell Clarke in L.A. and Alan Drake in New Orleans and Molly McKay in Connecticut, it’s just not happening.

Eve: [00:29:14] So you must have heard that France is in the process of banning domestic flights that can be replaced with a train trip of under 2.5 hours. And do you think that could ever happen in the United States?

David: [00:29:34] Never is a long, long time.

Eve: [00:29:36] Ok. Is it likely to happen?

David: [00:29:39] I can’t imagine that I could live to see it, but then I’m a senior. I don’t see it. Let’s look at the new rule in France. It was watered down considerably.

Eve: [00:29:54] Yes.

David: [00:29:54] To please the airline industry and I’m not going to criticize it and say it’s bad. It’s a step in the right direction, but instead of a giant step, it’s a baby step. And who knows how much further it will go. It’s like the cities that have put in one streetcar line and say, we’re changing our transportation paradigm. No one streetcar line is a novelty. If it grows into a system, great. But their success of those new streetcar starts has been varied. Kansas City’s is doing very well and they’re planning to extend it. Detroit’s has been suspended since the pandemic hit. Cincinnati is still going, but it’s not as successful as Kansas City. We’re not talking about a place like New Orleans where people love their street cars and they use them and the tourists ride with the locals.

Eve: [00:30:52] Right, right. Right. OK, so what was the best train ride ever? What would you give a five gold stars to?

David: [00:31:02] That is a very good question. I would probably say VIA Rail’s Transcontinental Train, The Canadian, which is a land cruise. It’s not a train you can use to go somewhere because it only runs twice a week.

Eve: [00:31:21] You know, I’ve always wanted to do that one. That’s been on the top of my list.

David: [00:31:26] Well, don’t do it now, because today it only runs once a week between Winnipeg and Vancouver. It will again run to Toronto at the end of May. That was just announced yesterday. However; because of the virus, they are making people stay in their sleeping car rooms or in their seats, no lounge cars, you can have breakfast and dinner in the dining car. They will deliver your lunch to your room. So, this isn’t the time to ride. Wait until things come back. But…

Eve: [00:32:05] Oh, yeah, but it’s on my bucket list for sure.

David: [00:32:09] Of course, when they had a full service, and I rode one of the last runs and there were some friends of mine on it which made it more fun, just before the virus hit. I literally came home and five days later the world shut down. It was like rail travel of another era. They use heritage equipment, they had real food cooked in the dining car. You can’t get that on Amtrak anymore. And it’s, unfortunately, it’s not a train you used to go somewhere, it’s a tourist excursion. It’s a land cruise. Yes they, yes they have a coach and a few people ride it. But there are no buses going across Canada anymore. They’re finished.

Eve: [00:32:59] Wow.

David: [00:33:00] So there is almost no long-distance public transportation in all of Canada, outside of parts of Ontario and Quebec. Sure, you can still get a train between Montreal and Toronto and a few other places, but that’s about it. And yes, it could happen here.

Eve: [00:33:22] So, I’m getting depressed.

David: [00:33:27] I never promised that I would say things that we’d like to hear, but I did promise a straight story, at least in my opinion. We’re fighting to make it better, but we need a lot more help. The advocacy movement is not as strong as it should be. And I don’t know if the rail advocacy movement could still advocate for what we need if it took corporate support, and that’s always the problem.

Eve: [00:33:56] So what are the three most compelling reasons you would give for public transit.

David: [00:34:02] The most compelling is that non-motorists deserve mobility as much as motorists do, we do have a class system in this country, and if you’re a non-motorist, there are limits to how far you can go. I’m not your typical non-motorist. I have five degrees, four earned and one honorary and an elite subspecialty of my profession. And yet 98 percent of the country is as off limits to me as it is to someone who doesn’t have that level of education of professional skill. We deserve to enjoy. We who are not motorists still deserve to enjoy the benefits of living in America or living in Canada. And yet, to a great extent, we are very limited in where we can go. Another is APTA, The American Public Transportation Association had a slogan for a long time. Transit means business and they were absolutely right. The business sector is suffering because mobility is so weak for people without automobiles, they are losing out on having a great pool of labor talent. Both at the management and non-management levels, because non-motorists have so little access to the workplace. Back when I was in law school, I got interested in disability law. And this was this was before the Americans with Disabilities Act. This was in the 504-era. Protection against discrimination in the workplace does not start until you get to the workplace. So if you depend on public transportation and there’s no transit to get to the workplace, you’re out of luck. You don’t have a right to get to the workplace or anywhere else you want to go. So, the jobs available to persons without an automobile are limited.

Eve: [00:36:19] Do you by any chance know how many people, how many adults do not have automobiles?

David: [00:36:24] The estimates I hear are 20 percent of adults are non-motorists for whatever reason. Now, that includes…

Eve: [00:36:30] Oh, I think that’s low. I was expecting it to be higher.

David: [00:36:34] It may be. But that includes a lot of seniors who aged out of driving. And they have to depend on community transportation to get them to the mall once a week to shop or to get them to the senior center for lunch if they don’t live in a transit rich environment like a city. That’s all they have, and they need a lot more. Now, the third are the environmental benefits. It takes up an awful lot of space to have everybody taking up 10 by 20 feet or maybe 300 square meters just for their vehicle. It’s much more efficient to have people riding together on a train, on a streetcar, on the light rail vehicle, even on a bus. It is so inefficient to make automobiles the main conveyance, when we have four or five parking spots for each registered vehicle, I can’t imagine a less efficient use of space.

Eve: [00:37:48] And we have extra lanes on roads, and we have a lot of other expensive things, right?

David: [00:37:53] Absolutely. And this is what the infrastructure bill is going to promote, even though since 2004, motor vehicle use has gone down. The younger generation is more urban centered, they’re more transit oriented, they’re more environmentally concerned. And yet the people in power are still promoting autos, autos, and more autos. On top of that, it’s getting less safe. Two weeks ago, the National Safety Council reported that motor vehicle deaths have increased. I think it’s eight percent no, 13, 13 percent, even though vehicle miles traveled have gone down, and this was the greatest increase in the fatality rate since 1924, and yet the National Safety Council’s advice on their website never mentioned getting people off the highways and onto transit, which is much safer because it’s operated by professionals who are trained and certified. Self-operation of motor vehicles cost 40,000 lives last year.

Eve: [00:39:09] Right, so I’m going to offer you another really strong argument that I always think about, and that’s a real estate argument. We have such a dire need for affordable housing in this country. And when you build affordable housing away from transit, it means that the person occupying that unit will need an automobile, which means that you have to build a parking space and the person needs to pay for the automobile and insurance. And all of that means that the quality of the housing is lesser because there’s less money to put towards it. And so, for me, that’s a huge argument for public transit and for reducing parking lots in urban areas and replacing them with housing instead. Because that relationship between someone being able to live well and being able to get to work is so important and they cannot afford a car.

David: [00:40:05] You’re absolutely right, Eve. But we have to look at realities. Many towns have minimum parking lot parking spot requirements. In my town where I live, South Orange, New Jersey, on the Morris and Essex line of New Jersey Transit. So we have full, full service on our railroad. The building complexes that were built a block or less from the train station still have minimum parking spot requirements, one point six seven parking spots per unit. That’s not transit oriented development.

Eve: [00:40:40] No, it’s not. I think there’s change coming with zoning regulations slowly, but it’s not fast enough.

David: [00:40:47] I won’t live to see it, but it would be a good idea.

Eve: [00:40:50] We’re seeing things like ADU legislation which permits the second unit by right on a land in places where there’s already infrastructure. So it’s, I know it’s scratching the surface, but it’s a start.

David: [00:41:03] You’re absolutely right. An advocate of long standing, a man named Fritz Plous in Chicago, who’s kind of the dean of advocacy out there, a retired journalist, once called the auto dependent suburbs the slums of tomorrow.

Eve: [00:41:21] Yes.

David: [00:41:22] Because it will be filled with people who cannot afford to live in the gentrified cities where transit is good, and they don’t need an automobile to live.

Eve: [00:41:34] Yes.

David: [00:41:36] And yet policy favors the automobile. There’s one factor here that I haven’t mentioned yet. I think this may be the time. Transit will not prosper unless the federal government changes its policy to allow federal operating assistance for transit. Transit providers are going broke. States are going broke. Cities are going broke. All the infrastructure in the world is useless if a transit company, which is public sector, can’t afford to operate it. We had federal operating assistance briefly during the Carter era. Jimmy Carter was not strong on transit. His administration killed a lot of Amtrak trains. They tried to promote buses, which didn’t work. The Reagan administration killed federal operating assistance from transit. It came back temporarily in the Covid relief bills. And that’s what’s keeping transit going, basically on a month-to-month basis these days. And unless Congress somehow adds federal operating assistance for transit, I see a very dire time ahead both for transit providers and especially for the riders. And with the requirement of 60 Senate votes to pass anything except the budget reconciliation bill, I don’t see any prospect for it, unless they can somehow get it into the current bill. And it’s not in there.

Eve: [00:43:11] So what are some of the most common excuses you hear for not expanding or at least keeping afloat current transit services, like…

David: [00:43:21] One is a majority of Americans don’t want transit and don’t need it, why should we cater to a minority? Frankly, these remind me of the arguments that the white establishment made in the old South for segregating Black people out of the mainstream of life. Another is why should we spend money on transit, when so few people use it? We can run a few buses for low-income workers and get them to their jobs and that’s all they need, as long as they can get to their jobs, they don’t need a robust transit service. They can say, I’ve heard it many times, well, I have suggested that if motorists want to know what it’s like and get the flavor of depending on transit, lock your vehicle in the garage and live on transit for a month or even a week. I’ve never found one who’s been willing to take me up on that. To most motorists, riding transit is anathema because they see the bus. Buses are unpleasant, they’re slow. They’re environmentally terrible. You might get them onto a train to go into New York City. Because they know about the congestion and they don’t want to pay the parking fees, but they just keep saying we don’t need this, it’s not necessary. It’s an elitist argument. It’s an argument of superior class, inferior class, sometimes it has overtones of minority people use that we don’t want to cater to them. I don’t think any of these arguments are valid to a person who really knows what’s going on, but motorists, by and large, don’t know what it’s like to use transit. They don’t know where the bus stop is, they don’t know how long it takes to walk somewhere. They’re just oblivious.

Eve: [00:45:31] Interesting. Yeah, I grew up with transit in Australia and I went everywhere as a teenager on the bus. Even down to Bondi Beach, you know, it was my lifeline.

David: [00:45:42] Yes, and Sydney has transit. It still does, but it’s a big city.

Eve: [00:45:47] Yeah, it’s a big city.

David: [00:45:48] And trains, passenger trains in Australia are just about extinct. The India Pacific, the Ghan train, they’re land cruises with sleeping cars only.

Eve: [00:45:59] Yeah.

David: [00:46:00] You might have, still have a train between Sydney and Melbourne, but that’s a corridor.

Eve: [00:46:05] Yeah, actually, I used to catch the train from Sydney to the Blue Mountains. I think that one is still running. That was a fabulous train ride.

David: [00:46:12] And I’ve never been to Australia and I want to see it. I think they may still have a train up to Brisbane, too.

Eve: [00:46:17] So yeah, probably. Yeah. But this, you know, they’re very large polling cities and they’ve cobbled together. I mean, Sydney has better public transit than Melbourne, I think. And it’s a system where, like the eastern suburbs are very well served by buses, whereas the northern suburbs are better and the west is served by train. So it’s kind of a mixed bag, but it’s a huge city.

David: [00:46:43] There are a number of Melbourne’s trains ended up in this country. Trams ended up in this country, in Memphis and Dallas and places like that.

Eve: [00:46:52] What a shame. So, you’ve been involved with advocacy groups for years and how do they make change? How do they help?

David: [00:47:00] The main way they help is keeping the issues out in front of them. Through media contact, through getting the word out, through grassroots efforts where that’s possible. Just keeping the issues alive, and I’ll give you an example. One of our greatest successes, probably the high watermark of citizen advocacy in this country, occurred in 2010. There was a project called ARC, the Access to the Region’s Core. It was to get New Jersey Transit trains into New York City and improve capacity and improve infrastructure. Originally, when it was conceived in the mid 90s, one of the options was to go to Grand Central Terminal so New Jersey riders could go to the West Side, to Penn Station or to the East Side to Grand Central so they could get to almost all the offices in Midtown easily. We loved it. In 2003, New York State opted out of it. They just killed it dead. We were shocked when we got the announcement. So from then on, the project deteriorated. Amtrak couldn’t use it. It wouldn’t connect to Penn Station. It would only go to a deep cavern. 175 feet under Mason’s basement in Midtown. It became terrible. My colleagues at the Lackawanna Coalition and the New Jersey Association of Railroad Passengers and national organizations formed an alliance that covered 17 states and had two national organizations, the Rail Users Network Run, where I’m still on the board, and the National Association of Railroad Passengers, NARP. We got enough attention that when the governorship changed in New Jersey, Chris Christie, who was governor at the time and had a terrible reputation with transit, killed that project was probably the only good thing he ever did. And now they’re doing a different version of it called Gateway. And I don’t want to get started on that. But it’s it’s going to happen. And we can’t afford 30 billion, but we can’t afford five or 10 billion. So it’s just a matter of getting the word out. I have found in my experience, while the best means would be direct interaction with lawmakers in Congress and in the state capitals, that has met with varying levels of success. It’s advocates and other places have done fairly well in getting legislators to form rail commissions, study commissions. Actual improvements in service, they haven’t really come yet. In New Jersey, I have gotten absolutely nowhere with the legislature, so it’s it’s a mixed bag.

Eve: [00:49:56] Wow. OK, one last question for you, and that is, what would a perfect public transit world look like to you? Or city?

David: [00:50:05] I think of the city that, the theoreticians. Well, she’s not just a theoretician. She practiced what she preached like Jane Jacobs or Lewis Mumford would imagine. In the ideal city there would be transit everywhere. Rail transit, because rail transit represents a commitment to the neighborhood, a commitment to infrastructure, putting in those rails, bringing the electric wires, so you have a nice, quiet, smooth ride in non-polluting vehicles. And these streetcars would go everywhere throughout the city. There would be the kind of networks of streetcars that existed a hundred years ago. And there would be trains coming in from further points, bringing people into the city and circumferential routes to to connect the various rail lines. But transit would run frequently throughout a long service day, preferably twenty four hours, and it would be everywhere. And maybe there would be buses to go into the less dense last mile areas. But a person could go from one place in the metropolitan area to another without worrying about missing connections, without worrying about taking an excessive time to get there, and they could ride on a vehicle that was comfortable, that rode smoothly. And where people enjoyed riding rather than feeling like they were stuck on the bus because they were not fortunate enough to be permitted to operate a motor vehicle.

Eve: [00:51:48] Well, it’s been an enormous pleasure talking to you. And I hope you get to see that train dream come true somewhere.

David: [00:51:56] Well, I think another generation might. I think maybe today’s young people might have a shot at it, but they’re going to have to do something about the effects of climate change.

Eve: [00:52:08] Yes. And they’re going to have you to thank for it. And I will thank you, too.

David: [00:52:11] I hope so, Eve. And I hope the interview did take the turns you wanted to take as we went along.

Eve: [00:52:17] I think it was really, really fascinating. I have one more question for you, which I am going to throw in, and that is if, where should I take my next train trip for fun? You know, I’ve been on the Stockholm Bergen Railway, which is astounding. But let’s talk the United States.

David: [00:52:36] You’re in Pittsburgh, so if you start in Pittsburgh, I would go to D.C. on the Capitol Limited, just to enjoy the scenery along the Potomac River. Don’t forget to sit on the right side of the train when you’re going to D.C.

Eve: [00:52:52] Right side of the train. Okay.

David: [00:52:54] Now, have you been on the Pennsylvania train? Going to Philly and New York?

Eve: [00:52:58] I have. It’s been a while. Is there a special side to sit on there?

David: [00:53:03] No, it’s about the same on both sides.

Eve: [00:53:05] Actually, one train I’ve really enjoyed is the train from New York City to Beacon, New York.

David: [00:53:11] Yes. On Metro North.

Eve: [00:53:14] Lovely ride.

David: [00:53:15] Well, when it comes back and we can go to Canada again from New York, you should take the Adirondack up to Montreal. You get the Hudson River on one side of the train and then somewhere between there and Lake Champlain, you should move over to the other side of the train and see Lake Champlain.

Eve: [00:53:33] We could actually go from Pittsburgh to New York and then up to Montreal and then across the country.

David: [00:53:41] Well, you’d have to go to Toronto to get the Transcon rail. They’re only running three times a day there now, but Americans can’t go into Canada.

Eve: [00:53:50] Let’s talk about post pandemic.

David: [00:53:52] When the dust clears, you’ll be able to do it.

Eve: [00:53:54] Yeah, yeah. And then how do I get back from Montreal without that awful carbon footprint?

David: [00:54:00] The interesting trip is the Transcon from Toronto to Vancouver. It’s four-day trip. From Vancouver, if you want to get back by rail, you can go from Seattle, from Vancouver to Seattle. There will be trains again, that used to be two trains a day. Take the Empire Builder across the northern tier to Chicago and then you pick up the Capital Limited to Pittsburgh.

Eve: [00:54:27] Oh, perfect.

David: [00:54:28] Or you can go down to take the Starlight train from Seattle down to San Francisco. Spend some time there. And go to Chicago on that and you’ll get the Sierras, and you’ll get the Rockies.

Eve: [00:54:45] So how much time you would you give for a round trip like that?

David: [00:54:49] That’s a two-week trip.

Eve: [00:54:51] Oh, that sounds wonderful.

David: [00:54:52] That’s a vacation.

Eve: [00:54:55] That is a vacation.

David: [00:54:56] I have helped many people plan itineraries on Amtrak and VIA rail.

Eve: [00:55:01] I think you’re going to be hearing from some of our listeners.

David: [00:55:03] If you or your listeners wants some help with that…

Eve: [00:55:06] I’ll be back in touch about this. Yeah, that sounds absolutely wonderful.

David: [00:55:10] I’m glad to promote trains. Sometimes management does a great job, sometimes not as good. But I believe in trains and I believe that we have to get out there and use them. And I do the best I can, both with my remaining advocacy locally and through Run the Rail Users Network, our website is railusers.net and through my writing at Railway Age. And of course, I keep the two scrupulously separate. But our website for Railway Age is railwayage.com. I often write commentaries on the opinion side. Sometimes I cover a news story.

Eve: [00:55:52] Well, thank you so much for joining me and it’s been an absolute pleasure.

David: [00:55:57] It’s been great. Maybe I’ll see you in Pittsburgh or maybe you’ll see me around here.

Eve: [00:56:02] Yes. Thank you. Bye.

David: [00:56:16] Bye.

Eve: [00:56:17] That was David Peter Alan, rail advocate extraordinaire. David’s life has been built around public transit. He has enormous passion for trains, a mode of transport that is sadly fading fast. He does not hold out much hope for a resurgence in train travel. Infrastructure bills and federal dollars are pointed squarely at continuing the car culture in the U.S., started in the 1960s. Public transit has been on a free fall ever since. It’s a political thing. If the funds were in David’s hands, trollies would be installed to serve every corner of every city and neighborhood 24 hours a day. Rebuilding thriving main streets and giving access to everyone, not just those who own an automobile. But what it will take is everyone getting involved. You can find out more about this episode on the Show Notes page at EvePicker.com, or you can find other episodes you might have missed, or you can show your support at Patreon.com/rethinkrealestate, where you can learn about special opportunities for my friends and followers. A special thanks to David Allardice for his excellent editing of this podcast and original music, and thanks to you for spending your time with me today. We’ll talk again soon. But for now, this is Eve Picker signing off to go make some change.

Image courtesy of David Peter Alan

Women building collective muscle.

April 14, 2021

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

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

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

Insights and Inspirations

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

Information and Links

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eve: [00:07:41] That’s wonderful.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Libby: [00:11:27] Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Libby: [00:19:08]  Right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Libby: [00:19:58] It’s really big.

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

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

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

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

Eve: [00:21:47] Yes.

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

Eve: [00:22:09] It’s a great group.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eve: [00:33:24] Yes, that’s right.

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

Eve: [00:34:03] Right.

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

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

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

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

Libby: [00:35:19] Right.

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

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

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

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

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

Libby: [00:39:27] Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eve: [00:45:53] It’s great.

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

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

Libby: [00:46:13] Yes.

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

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

Eve: [00:46:52] It’s pretty big.

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

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

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

Eve: [00:48:50] Yes.

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

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

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

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

Image courtesy of Seifel Consulting/Libby Seifel

Urban economics.

December 14, 2020

Simply put, urban economics is the study of buildings and cities and why they develop the way they do. Urban economics help us to determine why certain places are so much more vital than others through the exploration of land-use, zoning, employment patterns, and the price of land.

Over the last century cities have experienced massive change. With the arrival of the automobile our cities transformed from the once walkable urban areas they were into soulless, car-centric cities surrounded by outlying suburbs. By the 1980s most of the real estate investment and development energy had shifted to business parks, malls and sub-divisions.

But now we’re back to wondering whether cars should be part of the equation. Cities and cars are an expensive mismatch and we can see that cars waste space. Several American cities are even considering demolishing highways to reclaim precious land.

One of the more recent additions to the toolbox for the urban economist is the measurement of walkability. Walkable neighborhoods are once again seeing a renaissance. They not only offer residents more convenience and character, but also a more active and environmentally friendly lifestyle. And we’re also discovering that walk scores can have serious economic consequences. Redfin, owners of the go-to application for measuring walkability Walk Score®, say that one Walk Score point can increase the value of a home by an average of $3,250. Hence an increasing number of new developments are being planned as mixed-use communities where residents can walk to all the amenities they need.

Christopher Leinberger’s fascination with cities started at an early age and evolved into an astounding career working on urban land issues as a strategist, teacher, developer, researcher and author. He was a member of the original board of Walk Score and continues to use the tool in his research at The Brookings Institute and George Washington University. With his latest endeavour, Places Platform, he’s building a “Sim City for real estate and place management and city management” by developing more tools and methodologies to measure economic, social equity and environmental conditions in cities and metropolitan areas.

If you’re a city lover, like I am, listen to my interview with Christopher Leinberger

Image courtesy of John D Norton

Learn some more …

« Previous Page
Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

sign up here

APPLY TO BE A PODCAST GUEST

More to See

Passive House Duplex.

November 20, 2024

The case for social housing.

September 18, 2024

Pittsburgh champion.

September 3, 2024

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

  • Real estate and women.
  • Oculis Domes.
  • Bellevue Montgomery
  • West Lombard
  • Swank Atlanta.

Search

Categories

Climate Community Crowdfunding Development Equity Fintech Investing Mobility Proptech Visionary

 

Copyright © 2025 · Magazine Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in