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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cover photo by Kevin LEE on Unsplash

I love Toronto. It's my favorite city. And every so often, there will be a moment that explicitly reminds me why I love it so much. That happened yesterday when I walked down a laneway off College Street to find a somewhat hidden sushi spot called Oroshi Fish Co. Right away I was delighted by the combination of the small street and the mix of uses housed on it. But then, I walked inside to find two guys manhandling the carcass of an enormous bluefin tuna, and that's when I really said to myself, "man, Toronto is awesome." The sushi is some of the best you'll find in the city.

Here are a few photos.

Solar energy's share of total US electricity generation was only about 3.9% as of 2023. So it's not powering all that much today. However, the cost of PV modules continue to come down and installed capacity is growing very quickly. Here's an excerpt from a recent post by Brian Potter about solar energy:

By some metrics, solar PV has been deployed faster than any other energy source in history, going from 100 terawatt-hours of generation to 1,000 terawatt-hours in just 8 years, compared to 12 years for wind and nuclear, 28 for natural gas, and 32 for coal. In the US, solar PV projects are by far the largest share of planned new electrical generation capacity.

And here's a chart:

It's also interesting to look at which US states have the highest "capacity factors." The average for the entire US is 23%, which means that, on average, solar panels produce 23% of what they would if the sun were shining 24 hours a day. You might also think that the "sunshine state" would be one of the highest. But in fact, the top states are Utah and Arizona:

I'm highly interested in solar and we want to deploy it as much as we can on our projects going forward. If you're also interested in solar and want to learn more, Brian's post is an excellent place to start.

Images: Construction Physics

Last week, we spoke about affordable housing in Paris. Today, let's talk about tourist rentals in the city. The city of Paris and Greater Paris (i.e. la Ville de Paris and la Métropole du Grand Paris) recently commissioned Apur (which is a non-profit that I regularly follow) to do two studies on this topic. The first was for Paris proper and the second was for Greater Paris. What they found is super interesting:

• In August 2024, Greater Paris had 149,936 tourist rentals, of which 124,988 were available for immediate booking. This represents an 84% increase compared to August 2023, which is a massive number, but maybe not entirely surprising given that Paris hosted the Olympics last summer.

• Paris proper had 97,975 listings in August 2024 and 90,299 in December 2024. Overall, the city sees fairly muted seasonality. It's also worth noting that 31% of these listings belong to hosts that own multiple properties (that is, at least two).

But let's put these figures into context. Here's a map showing the density of Airbnb listings:

Here's a map showing the number of Airbnb listings compared to the number of principal residences:

And here's a map showing the percentage of unoccupied homes in the city, which totalled 268,500 as of 2021:

The report defines an "unoccupied home" to be any home that is not used as a household's primary residence. So in addition to flat out empty homes, it includes homes that are used sporadically throughout the year for pleasure and/or for work. And as you can see, there are large sections of the center of the city where "unoccupied" and second homes make up over 28% of the total housing stock.

These areas also closely mirror the areas where tourist rentals are most popular, and where Airbnb listings make up over 20% of the housing stock. (See the second chart above.) And as far as I can tell, these are mutually exclusive classifications, meaning there are sections of the city where a large percentage of the housing stock (perhaps up to half?) is either a short-term rental or a second home.

This tells you a lot about the housing market in Paris, especially when you compare it to other global cities:

NYC, for example, is shown here as having 8.8 million people, compared to 7.1 million people in Greater Paris. And yet Greater Paris has about 4x the total number of short-term rental listings. The number of available listings (where the property was available for at least one day of the year) also increased by 84% from August 2023 to August 2024 in Greater Paris; whereas it dropped by 16% in NYC, likely because the city basically banned short-term rentals.

The two reports can be found here and here (note they're in French). And they're rich in data if you'd like to learn more about some of the dynamics impacting Paris' housing market.

Cover photo by Kris Atomic on Unsplash

Over the last few years, there's been growing concern around institutional buyers (namely "Wall Street") buying up too many single-family houses and then renting them out.

But as we spoke about last year, the number of homes owned in this way is actually quite small. The vast majority of homes are owner occupied. And the second largest share of owners is what you might call "small landlords." That is, people who own somewhere between 1-9 homes.

So if the specific concern is that people are out there buying houses and then renting them out, the more fruitful target would be these small landlords. But nobody seems too fussed by them, which leads me to believe that this is an instance of symbolic politics theory. In other words, it's the association with the big bad Wall Street that people don't like.

Whatever the reason, here's the data on the largest single-family house buyers in the US last year (2024) via SFR Analytics:

Here are the metro areas where they transacted:

And here's this same data in heat map form:

The largest buyer was Opendoor, which is a so-called iBuyer. We've spoken about this company a lot on this blog. They don't actually want to hold any of the homes they buy. Instead, they buy, renovate, and then resell as quickly as possible.

The second largest was New Western. They are a wholesaler or "double-close buyer." These buyers want to own for an even shorter period of time and sometimes never actually own the home; instead they just assign their contract. What they're trying to do is buy at a discount and then immediately turn around and sell for a profit.

Note: SFR Analytics believes that New Western's count might be meaningfully understated in the above data. The company uses lots of different LLCs and acquisition strategies and so it's hard to aggregate the data. Assigning a contract also doesn't show up in any county records, so it's kind of impossible to track these. It's just like assigning a pre-construction condominium agreement.

Even still, what this data suggests is that single-family rental funds aren't as dominant as some might think. The overall counts for all of the largest buyers also remain relatively small. Last year, over 4 million existing homes (including condominiums and co-ops) were bought and sold in the US. And this was a nearly 30-year low.

Cover photo by Michael Tuszynski on Unsplash

Back when Elon Musk was running Tesla, he was known for saying that LiDAR technology (basically laser beams that measure distances) was not needed to create full self-driving cars. And that's why their cars instead use a bunch of cameras to monitor the outside world.

Now, I'm not an engineer, but this never made much sense to me. Cameras can only see so far and they certainly can't see at night. So wouldn't laser sensing technology that can see 250-500 meters out — including at night — be greatly preferable when it comes to human safety, even if it costs more?

I'm reminded of what I said to my eye doctor before getting laser eye surgery many years ago: "This is not a transaction where I'm looking to be price sensitive. Get me the absolute best." And that's exactly how I feel when it comes to self-driving cars. I don't care if cameras are pretty good most of the time; I would prefer to have the best.

So which is the best? Damned if I know, but here's an interesting and also hilarious video by YouTuber and engineer Mark Rober where he compares the two technologies: cameras (i.e. Tesla) vs. LiDAR. I won't spoil it for all of you, but his last test is the "Wile E. Coyote test" and it's awesome.

At the time of writing this post, the video already has more than 11 million views and it seems to have been incredibly helpful to Luminar's stock price:

But now the internet is filled with speculation that he deliberately used the video to mislead people regarding Tesla's Full Self Driving capabilities and maybe even to pump's Luminar stock. (Full disclosure: I own a few shares, but this post is in no way any sort of investment advice.) I don't know if this is true or not. But I do think that the cars of the future will all come equipped with LiDAR.

Cover photo by Vlad Tchompalov on Unsplash

The silver lining to the US starting a trade war with Canada and regularly threatening annexation is that it has forced this country out of complacency. Indeed, I'm hard pressed to think of a time, at least in my lifetime, when patriotism and nationalism has united so much of Canada.

According to a recent survey by Angus Reid, the percentage of Canadians expressing a "deep emotional attachment" to the country jumped from 49% in December 2024 to 59% in February 2025. And as further evidence of just how unifying this moment in time is, the province with the biggest increase in attachment to country was Québec.

What it means to be a Canadian is sometimes lazily defined according to who or what we are not. But this precarious moment in time is seemingly reminding us who we are. Of course, it also begs the questions: Where do we want to go from here? And do we have the leadership to take us there?

Let's start by looking at some, but of course not all, of the things that we have going for us as a country:

• Second-largest country in the world by land mass.

• World's longest coastline, with access to both the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, and increasingly the Arctic Ocean.

• Third-largest proven oil reserves in the world (estimated at close to 300 billion barrels), behind Saudi Arabia.

• World's largest producer and exporter of potash (which is a key component in fertilizers).

• Energy independent and broadly rich in resources (see below diagram).

• A fifth of the planet's surface freshwater.

• Bilingual country — a quarter of the country reported using French at work in 2011 and, as of 2010, Canada had the 5th largest population of Francophones in the world (behind Morocco).

• Multi-cultural country — over 20% of Canadians are foreign-born.

• Robust immigration system that attracts top talent from around the world.

• Highly-educated workforce with some of the world's best universities — over 60% of Canadian adults have a post-secondary education which is one of the highest rates globally.

• Average life expectancy of 82.3 years (2023 data), which is about 5 years higher than that of the US.

• Leader in AI, quantum computing, green tech, and space robotics — Canada produces more AI research papers per capita than almost any other country and the Stanford AI Index (2023) ranked Canada 4th behind only the US, China, and the UK.

Here's some of our bounty (via the Financial Times):

And yet, we are not a global superpower.

Worse, we are lagging behind our G7 peers in GDP growth, we are plagued by declining productivity levels, we are not investing enough in new business creation and entrepreneurship, and we have one of the worst affordable housing shortages in the developed world, among other things. We have been complacent for far too long, and a big part of this is because we have, or at least had, the world's largest economy next door demanding our goods.

As of 2024, 61% of all imported oil to the US came from Canada. And US refineries are specifically setup to refine our crude and viscous varietal. This is good for them. They buy our goopy oil at a discount, refine it, and then sell it for a profit. But now the US is clearly saying there's nothing they need or want from Canada. They've also demonstrated through their actions that, under the current administration, they can no longer be trusted as an ally and trading partner. So it behooves us to evolve. It behooves us to take matters into our own hands.

Here are some ideas:

• Firstly, Canada should become a republic. For me, this is less about the monarchy being outdated (though it is) and more about the fact that a sovereign superpower like Canada should have its own head of state, and not a foreign King.

• Canada needs to increase defense spending and exert much stronger sovereignty over its Arctic lands. For fiscal year 2024-2025, defense spending is projected to reach 1.37% of GDP. This obviously falls short of NATO's 2% target.

• Remove red tape and unleash the Canadian economy. Last year, Canada exported more to the US than between its own provinces and territories. Huh? By some estimates, our economy could grow by up to $5,100 per capita simply by eliminating internal trade barriers.

• Barriers also need to be removed from the delivery of new housing. Canadians have been over-indexing on housing because of eroding affordability. Our current market environment is an ideal time for market reforms. Here's just one recent post that offers a few concrete suggestions for how to do this.

• Grow the Canadian population to 100 million people by 2100. Obviously there are two main ways to do this: We can help Canadians have more babies (more affordable housing certainly assists with this) and we can continue to attract the smartest and most ambitious people from around the world. As of 2022, Canada's fertility rate sat at 1.33, which is below the OECD average of 1.5 births per woman. (The above population target is the focus of a charitable organization called the "Century Initiative.")

• Create a sovereign wealth fund akin to what Norway did. Today, Norway has the largest sovereign wealth fund in the world (based on assets under management) and it translates to over US$325,000 per Norwegian citizen and one of the highest GDPs per capita on the planet. Canada also has abundant natural resources as we know. The revenues generated from these resources should (1) accrue to the Canadian population and future generations and (2) steer the global economy toward a more sustainable future.

• Invest heavily in new infrastructure. This includes everything from high-speed rail to oil pipelines. In 2020, Canada exported 82% of the crude oil it produced, with most of it going to the US via pipeline from western provinces. If the US no longer wants this, then we ought to find some new customers.

• At the same time, we cannot let our abundant natural resources become a curse (see "the paradox of plenty"). We need to be a leader in the new economy. As I've written about before, I find it shocking, for example, that Canada is not stepping up more when it comes to new technologies like crypto. Vitalik Buterin, who is one of the founders of Ethereum and its most prominent figurehead, grew up in Toronto. He went to the University of Waterloo. We should be leveraging this homegrown talent to become a capital of crypto. And this is just one specific example.

• Do everything we can to spur more innovation, more risk-taking, and more private investment. It's one thing to have great Universities that publish a lot of research, but ultimately we need to turn this into thriving companies that employ Canadians and generate wealth for Canadians. Here's a post I published in 2023 called, "Canada has an existential productivity problem."

This is obviously not a comprehensive list of all the things that Canada should be doing as a country. And invariably, some or many of you will disagree with some or most of what I have put forward here. But hopefully we can all agree that now, more than ever, we need a strong Canada. We need to start thinking of ourselves as an emerging global superpower.

Cover photo by Juan Rojas on Unsplash

We just did a complete overhaul of the landing page for Parkview Mountain House.

If you're a new reader, PMH is Globizen's "creative retreat" in Park City, Utah. We completed it and opened it up for reservations at the end of last year.

If any of you have feedback on the new page, I'd love to hear it. It was a lot of fun rummaging through all of the photos that I have taken there over the years during development and construction.

And as much as I love snowboarding, I also really enjoy visiting during the summer months. It's a close second. This year my plan is to get down there for some road biking.

This month's issue of Monocle magazine is a special edition focused on property. And that's because this month was also the annual MIPIM festival in Cannes, which is apparently the largest real estate boondoggle, I mean conference, in the world.

One of the development projects that is featured in the special is Culdesac Tempe (which is located just east of Phoenix). This is a development that has received a lot of press over the years, including here on this blog, as it was developed as a car-free neighborhood in a city region known for the opposite.

But to be fair, it does have some parking.

There are 150 parking spaces (all surface) for 760 homes. So a parking ratio of just under 0.20 spaces per suite. This is still a remarkably low figure compared to what I would expect in Phoenix, which would be something closer to 1 to 1. I'd be curious to know how it's leasing/performing.

The entire development was also designed to be responsive to Arizona's climate. The buildings are close together so they shadow the circulation spaces, and no asphalt was used anywhere in the project in order to minimize heat retention. The architect for the project, Dan Parolek, refers to this as "desert responsive urbanism."

I'd love to visit one day, but until then, there's YouTube. Here's a full walkthrough by Kirsten Dirksen.

Cover photo by Joe Cook on Unsplash

In August 2023, when Waymo first launched its self-driving vehicles in San Francisco, the market shares of Uber and Lyft were 66% and 34%, respectively.

By the end of last year, these market shares had dropped to 55% and 22%, respectively, with Waymo on equal footing with Lyft. (These numbers specifically refer to rides that start and end within the boundaries of where Waymo operates and do not, for example, include rides to the airport.)

So the result was low double-digit losses in market share for both companies. This is not all that surprising given that autonomous vehicles are a novel thing and that Waymo's cars seem to be nicer than most Ubers and Lyfts. But it also shows that there maybe isn't a great deal of customer loyalty between the various platforms, that is, as long as the wait times are reasonable.

I think the more difficult questions remain: What does the ride-hailing space look like as AVs become more ubiquitous across our cities? Who is going to own what? And will individual car ownership fall?

We've spoken before about the peak load problem that Waymo faces as a result of owning its own cars. It's expensive to manage a fleet like this, especially relative to Uber's variable supply model. So one scenario remains a close partnership between Waymo and Uber, where Uber handles any above-base spikes in demand with actual humans.

But another scenario might be a hybrid approach where some of the AVs are owned by a ride-hailing company and some are owned by individuals who just contribute them to the network when they don't need them. This is what Tesla has been promising and, who knows, maybe it'll actually happen someday. Reilly Brennan recently wrote about this over here.

Personally, I would love to not own a car. It's also hard to imagine being able to make much money off a car that only goes to work during peak times, when the other robots are too busy. So I'm not convinced of this model. But I can see why Waymo is gaining market share. Privacy and a nicer cleaner vehicle are desirable features.

Cover photo by gibblesmash asdf on Unsplash