What Amazon’s Brick-and-Mortar Mission Means For Retail

Virtually, Amazon is as daunting as the river it shares a name with: by total sales and market capitalization, it’s the largest Internet retailer in the world. Having begun its run in 1994 as a modest online bookstore, the tech giant has expanded rapidly to offer consumer electronics, apparel, furniture, cloud infrastructure, and even streaming services with original movies and TV.

Now, Amazon is expanding its raging waters from the online space into brick-and-mortar retail. After opening a bookstore in Seattle in 2015 and two more in San Diego and Portland, Amazon will reach the east coast later this year with a new store in Manhattan, NY. According to the Wall Street Journal, the 4,000 square-foot Midtown location will be located in the Shops at Columbus Circle just south of Central Park.

The company is also considering a location in the new Hudson Yards development, which would be slated to open in 2018. This is alongside other plans for Amazon Books locations in Chicago and Denham, Massachusetts.

It’s an interesting time for retail to be certain, especially since we’ve seen the mass closing of malls, department stores, and small businesses in recent years. What is it about Amazon that will succeed in a physical space, especially in a world where ecommerce is only slated to rise? And does their move into brick-and-mortar bode well for the world of retail, or signify its demise?

As always, we can only speculate about the answer to these questions. But one certainty about Amazon Books is that it has a future-forward approach to shopping. Instead of listing prices, shoppers use their phones to find the best price online and read reviews. This necessitates that shoppers download Amazon’s app, yes—but on the bright side, doing so gets you the best price possible, and unlocks reviews by real readers instead of just literary critics on the back cover.

Shoppers can check out and search the store for inventory virtually, and are even recognized for being Prime members. It’s the best of both worlds when it comes to book shopping: the convenience of tech plus the physical pleasure of rifling through pages (plus occasionally sniffing them for that classic new-book smell).

Amazon Books is also revolutionizing retail by basing their merchandise on online data culled from sales. According to National Real Estate Investor, “Books in the physical stores are stocked based on titles that have garnered the best sales, popularity on Goodreads, high customer ratings and many pre-orders, according to the company’s website.”

All of this is to say, Amazon’s retail is different than retail of the past, and this may just be the key to retail’s future. Luckily for Amazon, they don’t have to compete with ecommerce because they are ecommerce, but if other brick-and-mortar stores want to get in on the action they may need to take a leaf or two out of Amazon Books.

Integrating mobile devices into the physical shopping experience is one way other retail stores can recreate Amazon’s model, whether through apps or beacon technology. Stores might also consider using data to create a more user-friendly (and Internet-friendly) experience for shoppers. For retailers, embracing technology may be the only way to make Amazon’s presence less stifling, and truly run with the flow of innovation’s ever-moving stream.

By |2018-10-31T18:17:39+00:00May 16th, 2017|Culture, Technology, Urban Planning|

How Minecraft Democratizes Urban Design

There’s a reason young people love Minecraft. Called a “sandbox” video game, Minecraft is a blank slate that enables players to build brand new worlds using only building blocks and the contents of their imagination, then take on three-dimensional adventures from there.

If this sounds like paradise for the future architect or urban planner, you’re not the only one that thinks so. The United Nations’ Block by Block program operates based on the notion that, since urban planning is a community effort, community members young and old can take part in public redesign projects. According to their website, Block by Block uses Minecraft as “a community participation tool in urban design and fund the implementation of public space projects all over the world, with a focus on poor communities in developing countries.”

The beauty of Minecraft, in this regard, is its ease of use. Young people with big imaginations take to it easily, but so can adults, whether or not they are familiar with similar software. In Haiti, for example, a group of fishermen with no computer experience—let alone reading or writing—successfully designed a seawall to prevent flooding at Place de la Paix, complete with public toilets, and presented it to architects.

Block by Block is a partnership between Mojang, Minecraft’s maker, and UN-Habitat, the UN’s program for sustainable cities. UN-Habitat is determined to upgrade 300 public spaces in the next three years with its Global Public Space Program, of which Block by Block is a part.

Democratizing Urban Planning

With cities and public places specifically, a democratic, collaborative approach makes sense— because it’s something everyone has a stake in, and which everyone will use and share.

Public spaces include parks, marketplaces, and public squares; they are the shared areas where people are free to walk, relax, and mingle. Public space adds to the health of a city, and in developing countries can make a huge difference since foot traffic stimulates economic growth.

New York City has made public space a priority (in fact it’s currently comprised of 60% public space). Other cities can take this example to expand public places with the input of locals. Technology like Minecraft is one way to get the public engaged and involved in planning the future of the communities they live, work, and entertain themselves in.

According to the Guardian, “Governments are…waking up to the idea that the public are not only users, but also a powerful resource – and that engaging them online is easier than ever before.” Technology like Minecraft is one way communities can be a force for change in their own neighborhoods.

More generally, tech and new media are providing tools for the public to offer up ideas, point out issues, and connect to advocate for collective needs. From apps, to crowdsourcing platforms, social media and augmented reality, emerging new media and digital technologies invite the public to take part without significant limitations. In other words, innovation levels the playing field.

Minecraft and Beyond

Minecraft is unique in its appeal to younger individuals, and its ability to gamify urban planning, making it attractive to a wide range of people regardless of experience level. With Block by Block, citizen players, architects, and government workers can walk around the virtual space and make important decisions together. In this way, it truly democratizes the important job of urban design.

But Minecraft is far from the only technology opening urban planning to the public. There’s Zooniverse, an online platform that organizations can use to launch citizen science projects, and the US National Archives’ Citizen Archive dashboard, which lets citizens transcribe and digitize handwritten documents. Then there are more city-specific projects like FixMyStreet, which lets locals flag problems in their neighborhood digitally.

According to the Guardian, “It’s examples like these, where governments use technology to bring communities together, that demonstrates the benefit of embracing innovation.”

Indeed, the mutual benefits are clear when citizens get involved in public efforts to improve either specific communities or society at large. As the saying goes, many hands make little work. Well, many blocks can make big, monumental changes. Perhaps the urban planners of the future will look back and wonder how and why it was done any other way. 

By |2018-10-31T18:13:55+00:00May 1st, 2017|Culture, Current Events, Technology, Urban Planning|

If We Live in a Simulation, Let’s Hope We Never Prove It

Odds are, you’ve pondered off-hand the nature of our shared and individual reality. Am I real? Is anything real? To most mature, sober adults, the consideration seems absurd. But there are some that think this a possibility not only worth pondering, but investigating. Believe it or not, many philosophers, physicists, and futurists think there’s a good chance the answer to both queries is “no.”

You may have heard of simulation theory before. It’s been most notably depicted in the Matrix Trilogy, wherein Keanu Reeves’ Neo discovers that his reality is a computer simulation created by sentient machines that control humanity. Simulation theory is basically that, but without a robotic antagonist and human bodies in pods. If human consciousness can be simulated, the theory goes, we could be all be characters in a virtual reality and never even know it.

The case for simulation

Why on earth(s) would this be the case? This is where the sci-fi element gets a bit more plausible. The first rationality is statistical. Assuming it is possible for humans to simulate reality in the future, post-humans would have the ability to run countless simulations, potentially of their ancestors (us), all at once. Statistically, then, it would be infinitely more likely to be part of one of these simulations than not.

Considering the rate of improvement in video games and virtual reality—by which we’ve gone from “Snake” to photorealistic VR in half a century—it seems unlikely that humans won’t someday reach this point. If you are a technological optimist and think humans can and will create simulations down the line, you’ll have to accept the probability that it’s happened already, and here we are. This belief also lends itself to the theory of nested realities, by which people in simulations create more simulations, forming a chain of virtual worlds.

Some scientists have equated the realization (if it could ever be proven) with Copernicus’ discovery that the Earth moves around the sun. Once you get it, everything else becomes simpler. If we are indeed part of a simulation, it may explain why, against great odds, we evolved from ooze into conscious beings. If this rare and miraculous evolution happened just once, trillions upon trillions could relive it in simulations. It could also explain why the universe is based on mathematical laws, and why objects are only measurable once they are observed.

The hypothesis was first laid out by Oxford philosopher and futurologist Nick Bostrom in 2003, but has since piqued the interest of prominent scientists. Elon Musk, for his part, thinks that there is a billion to one chance we are living in base reality. He also says we should hope we are, because if not civilization could be near its end. NASA scientist Nick Terrile agrees. “If one progresses at the current rate of technology a few decades into the future,” he tells the Guardian, “very quickly we will be a society where there are artificial entities living in simulations that are much more abundant than human beings.”

Is it possible to test such a hypothesis? Two Silicon Valley billionaires, for their part, have enlisted scientists to try and figure it out. Some things to look for would be irregularities, finite points that prove the universe isn’t endlessly expansive, or evidence of a creator “cutting corners.” But perhaps the only real solution would be to succeed at simulating reality and consciousness. In this regard, we have a long way to go.

What it would mean—and should we worry?

The greater question is, if we are to accept simulation theory (or somehow prove it), does it even matter? Is it good for the world, or bad? The revelation might inspire a sense of purpose in some, causing them to do more to make things interesting for the game-maker. This seems like a stretch—personally, I can’t imagine a collectively positive reaction in today’s day and age.

Casting a tidal wave a doubt over the world’s religious billions, for starters, would the extinguish (or at least badly damage) the moral purpose of huge portions of the population. People would question the meaning of their day-to-day lives and struggles, and be embittered by the idea of a mortal creator watching for amusement. If there were concrete proof of a simulation, humanity would doubtless attempt to make contact, or cause enough of a commotion to merit intervention. This would be a recipe for mass anarchy.

Lest I end this on a dark note, it’s worth taking a moment to realize that whether or not we are in a simulation, the odds of us proving it any time soon are miniscule. And there are perfectly good reasons to disbelieve the theory entirely. Simulations rely on physical properties, after all, and it boggles the mind to think of the time, space, and effort necessary to create a perfect, mammoth simulation that grasps the minuscule details of reality so expertly. Think of it this way: if simulated water tastes and hydrates just like water, is it a simulation anymore, or just water? Further, there is no evidence yet that computation can replicate consciousness on any level.

There will probably be no real answer to this question in our lifetime, and simulation theory is in this way kind of like religion. If believing in it drives us to be better people, and strive for an improved, advanced humanity, I may still call it creepy, but I won’t knock it.

If the concept alone drives us to mayhem, well… it wouldn’t be the first time belief in a higher power led to war.

By |2018-10-31T18:11:36+00:00April 5th, 2017|Technology, Urban Planning|

Social Media is Ruining the Art of Storytelling

What does it take to tell a story? And more importantly, what does it matter?

These days, a string of tweets suffices as a story. Try telling Hemingway or Proust that a “tweetstorm” of 140-character blurbs, prefaced with THREAD (1/13), is a good story, and they’d laugh you out of your compute chair. Try telling Ansel Adams that a selfie on Instagram tells a valuable story, and so would he.

It makes sense that people would take advantage of the Internet and the new tools that come with it to express their stories: both the everyday kind and the artistic kind. But is doing so to anyone’s benefit, really? Or is it just eroding the types of stories we’ve come to cherish and connect with each other?

On very human level, I think social media serves more to diminish the power of storytelling than enhance it. Whether it’s Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram, social media has a bad tendency to reduce real stories to very basic bits of baloney, to put it bluntly.

I think there are several main problems. The first is that social media is a fast-moving vehicle for limitless content, which happens instead of being told at the expense of actual depth. Feeds of updates, photos, and blog posts communicate stories differently than one-on-one time: they pile up, reduced to pixels; they’re stripped of sentimental value. The casual user can take it or leave it when they see it, and when they choose to absorb it, do so at an arm’s length.

After all, you can poke or like someone through a screen, but actually touching someone through it is much harder—especially when there’s so much more out there at the scroll of a mouse.

This problem permeates all areas of digital storytelling: journalism, blogging, social sharing, you name it. The nature of social media feeds showcase quantity rather than quality, and amidst all the noise, indulging wholly in a story–let alone deriving value from it–is a lofty goal. Second-long “impressions” may be well and good for Verizon Wireless or Coca Cola, but when was the last time you enjoyed anything in one glance?

This is what happens when brands begin to act like people and people, like brands. It all appears the same: gimmicky, cheap, and a little exploitative. Most of all, it extinguishes the element that really makes for good stories: intimacy.

This brings us to the second issue: the necessity of intention and willing engagement when telling a story. Storytelling takes nuanced intention and a willing audience. The better defined these areas are, the better the story. When we use social media, these aspects become nebulous quickly. What is the intent of a picture of a person at the beach? Who is the audience? The story becomes less “I went to Mexico and had a great time and I missed you” than it is “Everyone look my bikini.”

Good stories make people feel good, or evoke emotion–even if the story isn’t a happy one. Social media has proven to do the opposite: it’s isolating, and all but forces us to compare ourselves with one another as we sit around waiting for likes to roll in. It minimizes emotions and maximizes appearances. Worse, it all but erases strife as we carefully curate our lives to look better than they actually are.

When it comes to storytelling, the best stories happen organically. They strengthen human connections, friendships, and relationships. On social media, not so much. Why bother catching up with a friend you haven’t seen in awhile if you already know what he’s been up to, thanks to social media? Why call your sister to tell her about your life if she saw a hackneyed version of it on Snapchat already?

Real stories–whether written or spoken–communicate raw and complicated truths instead of spewing filtered sunshine into a crowd of self-centered busibodies. Keep it up, and a time may come when you don’t have much of a story to tell anymore because your phone was in the way the whole time.

Social media isn’t going anywhere, and while I do think it’s doing some damage, it’s not all bad. My advice is not to delete your account, but to place less value on what you consume and share there and invest more in real life relationships. Ask for stories and tell stories in person, because if a picture’s worth a thousand words, half of them are probably lying. Only intimacy can dig up the fascinating specifics.

And perhaps most importantly, continue to experience things that can’t be encapsulated by social media (by keeping your phone in your pocket). When you really and truly share your story, it might actually mean something for a change.

By |2018-10-31T18:09:54+00:00April 5th, 2017|Culture, Technology|

How NYC’s Public Sector Is Tackling Innovation

In New York City, the goal to merge innovation with government is apparent on various fronts. This objective has been about a decade in the making, and while we’re only scratching the service of its potential, NYC has made great strides.

For various reasons, the public sector often lags behind when it comes to technology and innovation. While some of such reasons are valid, the tendency can be overcome. Opportunities aplenty lie in wake, especially on a city level where governments have more autonomy.

Partnering with the private sector is the best strategy thus far for bringing innovative solutions to public sector issues. Following are some of the most notable ways NYC’s public sector is bringing innovation into its governing, and what this means for the future of city government.

NYC’s Office of Tech and Innovation

In 2014, New York City’s Mayor’s Office of Tech and Innovation (MOTI) was launched. According to their website, the office “facilitates citywide coordination and collaboration on technology issues, serves as a catalyst for and advises agencies on innovation, and interacts with the wider New York City technology ecosystem.”

The office was started by Mayor De Blasio, who made it his mission to help New York City become the most innovative city in the world. Whether you love or hate De Blasio, this initiative has already made a measurable impact in its creation of tech-driven public initiatives.

The idea, according to the Mayor’s office, is to “expand economic opportunity and reinvent government for the 21st century.” MOTI’s website continues, “We will continue to attract the top talent to New York City, deepen our efforts to grow and foster local talent through education and workforce development programs.”

It should be mentioned that New York City has been leaning into private-public partnerships long before De Blasio. As one example, NYC BigApp competitions have been happening annually since 2009, challenging “developers, designers, and entrepreneurs to create functional, marketable tech tools that help solve pressing civic challenges.”

Innovative Projects

What BigApp has been accomplishing for seven years is similar to what MOTI is currently undertaking in different city departments. The city puts out calls for innovation (CFIs) and accepts proposals from individuals, startups, and companies.

CFIs are “an open solicitation of ideas and proposals that aims to help define the urban challenges facing our city.” There are currently several CFIs: two from the New York City Housing Authority, seeking solutions for electrical and heating issues, one from the NYC Department of Education, seeking data models for public schools, and one seeking ideas to bring broadband internet to all New Yorkers.

Besides from CFIs, MOTI has over a dozen innovative projects underway already. One of these is LinkNYC, “a system of 7,500+ high-tech public communications structures that….will each provide completely free, ultra-high speed encrypted Wi-Fi service (up to 1 Gigabit in speed) out to a radius of 150 feet….[and] provide free domestic phone calls, free emergency 911 calls and non-emergency 311 calls, and free cell phone charging stations.”

Other projects include the Department of Transportation’s Midtown in Motion, a program meant to improve traffic using sensors and data collection; the NYPD’s IdeaScale pilot project, which allows neighborhood residents submit issues they want addressed by their local precincts; and the Department of Education’s Short Cycle Evaluation Challenge, which lets educators pilot new edtech products.

Looking to the future

As we push further into the future, technology is quickly, and inevitably, following suit. We will all be in good shape is the government stays as up-to-date as possible. When innovation is saturated in both the public and private sector, and the two work together to public benefit, the economy and people will thrive as a result. NYC is a great example of this theory in action, and hopefully other cities will follow its example.

By |2021-06-21T19:05:11+00:00March 21st, 2017|Culture, Technology, Urban Planning|

5 Startling Ways Humans Are Completely Phone-Dependent

Smartphones have become a crutch–a portable hub–for many users in our permanently plugged-in society. Although they can make our lives infinitely easier, the control and influence they exert over our habits can be alarming. The limitations of current technology (battery life, for examples) impacts us in an exaggerated fashion.

I’m often put out when I see people checking their phones during dinner, for example; it’s as if basic etiquette has been erased by a base desire for connection. It’s true that smartphones have some great qualities improving society and humanity, but they are also driving mass dependence.

Here are five surprising ways in which people rely on their smart phones.

1. Information Directory

Many people use their phone as a kind of external hard drive for the storage of vital information, like phone numbers and other contact information. Your phone may also store passwords and house other critical access information, as phones are often used in money management and health monitoring.

Even something as simple and powerful as your location can be monitored by your phone and used to personalize directions for your convenience. If your phone dies while out and about, you could lose directions to where you’re going and not know what number to call to let your friends know.

According to research by Canadian psychologists published in Computers in Human Behavior, “those who think more intuitively and less analytically when given reasoning problems were more likely to rely on their Smartphones (i.e., extended mind) for information in their everyday lives.” In other words, offloading information to technology erodes our ability to think intuitively, effortfully, and analytically.

2. Internet Access

Some people rely on their phone for internet access, choosing to forgo service from internet providers like Fios, Comcast, or Time Warner in favor of a simple cellular data plan. In this case, your phone serves as a conduit to the vast and increasingly vital data stream that is the internet. Like an umbilical cord, this option makes it almost impossible to disconnect.

Separation from phones, then, can lead to a perceived loss of information. According to Psychology Today, “having virtually any fact available at our fingertips creates an enriched environment that may make it more difficult to process information when we’re cut off.”

Our realities have been so changed by access to the Internet — whether it’s Google or SnapChat — that loss of Internet has become akin to loss of a sense like taste or smell, without which the world is totally different.

3. Communication

For all that smart phones now offer a dizzying array of ways to connect–via phone, video conference, text, email, social media and do on–they also seem to serve as a buffer for face-to-face communication. People rely on their phones more and more to communicate virtually, in many cases minimizing in person interaction. And people are handling increasingly intimate and delicate via these digital channels.

The inevitable impact of this effect is evident but the extent remains to be seen, as does the root cause. Maybe phones offer too many communication options. Or maybe people opt to connect with more people via these channels than they could reasonably do in person. Maybe people prefer these channels because they offer more superficial or deeper connections than in-person meetings.

Whatever the case, the ability to communicate digitally has had a measurable effect on people. The way we talk has changed, and studies have found that mobile communication correlates with an increase in face-to-face social anxiety among school-age children.

4. Digital rather than Physical

Just as virtual interaction has increased with the presence of smart phones, so have the online alternatives to physical chores, like shopping. The convenience of the smartphone makes it easier to order something online than to visit the actual store. Thus, the burgeoning digital network is reducing humans’ physical footprint.

The impact of this is manifold. It may seem like an oversimplification to claim it’s made us lazy, but the sheer amount of mobile services available supports this assumption: people can use their phones to delegate errands, order food, buy groceries, tour houses, acquire movies, music, and entertainment, all without leaving their couch.

That doesn’t mean we’re literally dependent on our phones for these things, but it does make physical shopping feel like an inconvenience.

5. Camera

Although virtual reality is now possible with your phone, looking at everything through the camera lens is its own kind of virtual reality. As phones became an increasingly essential part of everyday life, the camera came along for the ride. Now built into almost every smartphone, the camera creates a filter for reality, a Pokémon Go-like overlay, a digital portal.

With a camera accessible at almost all times, pictures, videos, and live streams became an increasingly important stand-in for real life, fueling the immediacy of social networks. When you go about daily life with a camera in hand, you end up looking through a certain kind of lens that can prevent you from fully partaking in the moment. You may even end up conflating your memories of an event with the media context of event records.

Altogether, it’s clear that mobile technology has become a phantom-like limb with new senses that we’ve become very accustomed to. While in some contexts this may seem like a superpower, we’d all do best to keep in mind that there is more to life than tech — and if our dependence level is high enough, we might be missing it.

By |2018-10-31T18:07:53+00:00March 13th, 2017|Culture, Philanthropy, Technology|

6 Stats About Millennials, And What They Mean For Business

We hear a lot about Millennials in the news, and not all of it is flattering. But as one of the older members of this generation—the largest generation in the workforce, and the largest alive—I think it’s time we stop complaining, stop pandering, and start understanding what forces Millennials have set into motion. This could not be truer anywhere than in the corporate world: for many businesses, Millennials are both a key source for employees and a vital customer base.

Businesses shouldn’t treat them like nuisances and children, nor should they expect them to be the same as Generation X or Baby Boomers. This is the connected generation, after all, and these digital natives are highly informed and educated. We have different ideas about everything from careers and politics to shopping. We’re going to impact every facet of the business world, present and future.

I occupy a unique position in the generational breakdown—post-Generation X, nearly pre-Millennial, and part of the overlapping and oft-overlooked Generation Y. As an entrepreneur in the NYC real estate industry, I find this gives me an advantage in business, especially since so many Millennials are renting in the city. For companies without insight on the Millennial end, however, research can be a useful barometer in deciding how to adjust to better suit this generation.

Here are 6 stats about millennials, and what they mean for business. The first three highlight Millennials as consumers, while the last three focus on Millennials in the workplace.

1. Millennials own, on average, 7.7 connected devices

And we use 3.3 of those devices each day. Millennials are ultra-connected, and if they’re not checking email on their smartphone, they’re reading the newspaper on their tablet, or working on a spreadsheet on their laptop. In their free time, they’re watching cat videos on their smart TV or playing an MMO game on their desktop. Or, running successful startups and other businesses (don’t forget, if we’re not your boss now, we will be someday).

The point is this: Millennials are connected across multiple channels all the time. To reach them effectively, businesses must be prepared to go wherever they are, which means creating marketing content that can do just that.

Noz Urbina, a global leader in content strategy, describes this kind of content as adaptive content—or a “content strategy technique designed to support meaningful, personalized interactions across all channels.” Such content is born, brainstormed and built around the context, mood, and aspirations of the customer. In real estate, having engaging and mobile-friendly websites is a must, not to mention complimentary apps like Zillow, and I expect this is similar in other fields of work.

2. 93% of Millennials Read Reviews Before Making a Purchase

Millennials want to hear what unbiased buyers have to say about a product before they go purchase it. This explains the rise of sites like Yelp, TripAdvisor, Google Reviews and others. Studies also show that they tend to trust personal recommendations from friends and families much more than branded content and ads.

Clearly, we Millennials don’t want to hear brand promises; we want to see how others have—or haven’t—benefited from a product, and then make their purchase decision accordingly.

Businesses need to pay careful attention to such sites in order to address customer concerns and deal with inefficiencies in their products or services. Initiatives should also be implemented to help the brand spread via word-of-mouth, both online on social media and blogs, and offline in conversations.

Companies can also directly ask for feedback from buyers, as Millennials like to see that a business is listening to their concerns. The ecommerce giant Amazon does a great job of this with its comments, feedback, and ratings system.

3. Millennials Are More Likely To Use A Sharing Economy Service

Compared to other generations, Millennials have a greater tendency to use the sharing economy. For instance, Millennials are 12% more likely than Generation X to use the sharing economy for accommodations. That’s precisely why hotels are having to change their business strategy; they have to find ways to compete with Airbnb. In real estate, this is something we take into account everyday.

When creating a product or service, businesses have to be thinking about access as well as ownership. Millennial are willing to share if it means saving money or less hassle. This shift is occurring for a variety of reasons, including changing opinions on ownership and the trillion dollars of student debt they carry (an amount that is still rising).

4. Millennials value professional growth and career development above all else in the workplace

Millennials have been given an unfair reputation by some in older generations as being lazy and entitled. Research and reality states otherwise. A survey by Quantum Workplace found that professional growth and career development are the most important drivers in retaining and engaging Millennial employees.

Millennials aspire to be better employees, with 72% saying the chance to learn new skills is important in choosing and staying with an employer; only 48% of Baby Boomers prioritize learning new skills.

With two-thirds of Millennials planning to leave their current jobs by 2020, clearly employers aren’t doing enough. If businesses hope to future-proof their organization, they must meet the needs and goals of Millennial employees. They must create a Millennial-driven culture, one where employees are encouraged to learn, collaborate and innovate.

Leaders should provide direction on how to improve. Perks, like with other generations, remain important, but should be more customized in order to satisfy the unique needs of this generation. Freedom to work anytime and anywhere is paramount as well, and businesses should encourage networking and socializing with clients and coworkers.

Overall, the Millennial employee wants professional improvement and flexibility. That desire should be satisfied not only in the work duties and expectations, but also in the company culture.  

5. Millennials Are More Diverse Than Any Generation That Preceded Them

44.2% of Millennials are part of a minority race or ethnic group, which makes the generation far more diverse than previous ones. The Pew Research Center notes that this trend is being driven in large part by the large wave of Asian and Hispanic immigrants over the last half century. This change in demographics offers much opportunity for businesses to be even more successful. The key is in embracing diversity in hiring practices, company culture and networking strategies.

In addition to a more diverse workplace at home, businesses are rapidly becoming more globalized. Operating within such a diverse marketplace necessitates businesses actively recruit and retain a diverse Millennial staff—one that reflects the generation’s diversity. It’s crucial to accessing the insights and experiences of the entire market, not just a portion of it.

By bringing a diverse and talented set of Millennial employees together, teams can benefit from the wide range of perspectives and experiences being brought to the table. Creative ideas can arise, innovation can occur, and new relationships can be made. And a sustainable business can be built.   

6. 84% of Millennials Want To Make A Positive Difference

Millennials want to see that their work has a larger benefit to society. 84% of Millennials believe making a positive difference in the world is more important than getting recognized for professional endeavors, and an amazing 92% of them believe business success should be measured by more than just profit.

All of this places more pressure on businesses to be more socially responsible. If a company gets a bad reputation, my generation won’t work for that company or buy its products.

In addition to providing Millennials with a diverse workplace where opportunities for professional growth are widely available, businesses need to focus on more than just the bottom line if they want to keep top talent.

Companies should promote philanthropic activities, as Millennials want to know their employer is doing its part for society. The products and services developed by businesses must first serve the purpose of helping improve the world. The response from Millennials to the arrival of the Tesla 3, the company’s first mass-produced affordable electric car, is evidence enough that this generation values brands that aim to move humanity forward.

Millennials And The Future of Business

The Millennials are certainly coming; in most ways, we’re already here. Soon, my generation will have the highest income and spending power, meaning our professional dreams and buying behavior are going to carry immense weight.

The good news is statistics like these display the potential for businesses to benefit greatly from the rise of the Millennial worker and consumer. Don’t infantilize us or bemoan our newfangled tech: we aren’t going to ruin the world, as some pessimists may state. For the most part, my experience and research suggests Millennials are intent on improving it.  

By |2020-05-07T19:23:01+00:00February 24th, 2017|Culture, Technology|

Will Augmented Reality Take Real Estate By Storm?

Without a doubt, Pokemon Go was the surprise smash hit of summer 2016.

Not only did it earn millions of dollars in revenue in a matter of weeks, it also had 45 million users at its peak, approximately 50 times the amount anticipated by developer Niantic.

But beyond revenue for developers and advertisers, Pokemon Go also helped a host of local businesses, such as restaurants, bars, or bakeries, many of whom listed themselves as PokeStops, catering to hungry, thirsty, or tired gamers, and cashing in on this fad.

How augmented reality works

Pokemon Go is simple: the game uses GPS to juxtapose a lush, digital world of fantastic creatures and epic battles onto real-life streets and roads, blurring the fantastical and the physical. This is called augmented reality, which builds a digital world on top of the physical one–as opposed to virtual reality, which immerses users in a purely constructed, electronic world.  

But there are plenty of revenue-generating uses for AR beyond PokeStops or even gaming. Let’s take a look at the Pokemon Go’s model and how it can be applied to real estate, traditionally seen by people as hidebound and resistant to change.

Real Estate and Augmented Reality

Augmented reality is actually a logical, natural fit for real estate, and has seen a variety of apps and startups in its field. After all, who hasn’t driven or walked through a neighborhood and stopped to stare at beautiful, unique houses or apartments? Who hasn’t walked down the street, seen a lovely residence, and wondered if they would be able to afford to rent or buy it?

Well wonder no longer, because AR real estate apps are here to answer that exact question.  From an app that allows users to hunt for ghostly apartments to an app that can pull up real estate listings from geotagged pictures, AR is here to stay.

Homesnap: a modern answer to an old question

The best answer to the age-old question of “Can I afford that house?” comes from startup Homesnap, which may feature the simplest, most intuitive use of augmented reality since Pokemon Go. With this app, users simply take a picture of each property and access its details, such as price, amenities, and other features.

Recently, Homesnap also opened their app to real estate agents as well as buyers, allowing the two to communicate directly. In a classic example of disruption, Homesnap’s superior user interface and host of features have proven far more popular than more traditional multiple listing services (MLS) sites, which were long the mainstay of real estate agents and brokers.

But that’s not all: in a masterpiece of user experience and branding, Homesnap rolled out its Apple TV app, from which allows users to sync data from their phones to their televisions. More importantly, users can actually search other listings on Apple TV, share data with family and friends, and even browse contract and listing details, all in one click.

Spacious: Ghost stories and apartment discounts in Hong Kong

Founded in Hong Kong, a city with a rich tradition of ghosts and the supernatural, Spacious (not to be confused with the American startup of the same name) tracks residences with mystical, otherworldly pasts.

Using Spacious is simple and fun: players walk around with the app activated, and as they encounter haunted apartments, ghost icons will pop up on their screen.

Beyond simply appealing to seekers of the paranormal and occult, Spacious has a more practical use: helping users find cheap, if haunted, apartments. Given that Hong Kong is the most expensive city in the world, with the price of a luxury apartment equivalent to the cost of an Italian castle, affordable living is impossible unless users are willing to make some compromises.

Chief among these compromises are discounts for hauntings, murders, hangings, and many more. In one famous example, a luxury tower in the centrally-located Wan Chai district offered a 30% discount for an apartment that was the site of a notorious double-murder, whose perpetrator is on trial today.

Augmented reality and life-like modeling

But AR can go well beyond finding discount haunted apartments or geotagging properties. They can also spur new breakthroughs in design and planning, or even help would-be buyers and renters see their new property not as an empty shell, but as a fully-finished room.

Take the example of Augment, an AR software platform which can model anything from espresso machines to furnished rooms. With Augment, prospective clients can view a 2D floor plan or a bare, unfinished room through a tablet or smartphone–and envision the room in a final, decorated state. They can insert couches, tables, televisions, and many more into the physical space to allow for a full, vivid picture of their dream home.

Similar tools exist for modeling commercial properties. In much the same way, empty warehouses are transformed into bustling workspaces with AR, overlaying machinery, assembly lines, and packing containers on top of cavernous rooms, and enticing business owners and factory bosses with visions of a prosperous, vibrant future.

If it’s true that a picture is worth a thousand, then AR software like Augment may well be worth a thousand sales.

It’s easy to imagine that, in a few decades’ time, people will look back on our AR in 2016 and see it in much the same way as we remember Apple in the 1980s: as a time of great innovation and change, and a period when technology was just about to hit its stride. Clearly, Pokemon Go was a sign of times to come, an indication of a future where physical and digital blur together, seamlessly.

By |2022-04-12T19:26:04+00:00November 29th, 2016|Technology|

What New York City Could Learn from Toronto About Sustainability

When it comes to cities, the word sustainable comprises much more than the environmental connotation acquired in recent decades. As any cement-pounding city dweller can attest, sustainable applies to basic living conditions, as well as environmentally-friendly practices. So it makes sense to assess cities’ sustainability in terms of residents. After all, what qualifies a city as a city, if not for the people?

Cities must not only retain but attract people: to persist and grow, to pay for services provided, and even to turn a profit. So it also makes sense to score cities on financial stability.

And beyond its residents and economic standing, cities have to adapt. In the current climate, that urban adaptation often takes the form of environmental policy.

So while cities have been coined green and smart, what really makes a city sustainable?

Recent surveys generally give scores in three categories: people, planet, and profit, according to Arcadis’s Sustainable Cities Index, assembled by the London-based Center for Economics and Business Research. No city has managed to perfectly balance these three tentpoles yet. As more and more people gravitate toward urban centers, that sweet spot remains a moving target. Factors like population growth and climate change affect a city’s sustainability score from year-to-year, and though circumstances seem to primarily impact one target, the three are closely intertwined. Hence, the Sustainable Cities Index, intended to reflect a city’s overall health: “not to create a hierarchy of elite cities,” emphasizes John Batten, Arcadis’s Global Director of Water and Cities, “but to indicate areas of opportunity.”

The necessity of comparison brings us back to examination of the term city. Although you can compose a checklist of characteristics that constitute a city, no entity of that name will reflect those characteristics in quite the same way. In a column tracking minimum population, for example, you may see similar numbers, but not the wildly varying demographics they represent.

Again, John Batten puts these statistics in perspective: “‘Cities have unique identities that are heavily influenced by their cityscape, economy and culture. Some cities, particularly established European cities such as Zurich which tops our index, are positioned within a moderate climate and have an economically balanced population which gives them a clear advantage when it comes to their sustainability. Others have to deal with issues including extreme climates, rapid urbanization and lack of financial resources which can hold them back.’”

So, with all these disclaimers about awarding cities of all shapes and sizes with number scores that constitute a somewhat arbitrary measure of sustainability, how can these cities take cues from each other? Specifically, what can the relatively high-scoring New York City learn from the similarly successful Toronto?

The Sustainable Cities Index operates on a scale from 100, and Zurich tops the charts with a score near 75. New York is ranked overall 26th out of 100 cities surveyed, and Toronto comes in at 33rd. However, the cities’ scores are not far off from each other: New York scored 62.9% overall, and Toronto 61.7%. And while New York earned the title of most sustainable North American city for 2016, Toronto held that title in 2015, for the first Sustainable Cities Index report.

The cities’ sub-scores reveal a more detailed makeup: in the people category, Toronto actually beat New York, with a sub-score of 62.3% compared to New York’s 53.4%, placing them 40th and 77th out of 100 cities. They scored similarly in the planet section: Toronto at 68.1% and New York at 66.1%, ranking 28th and 33rd in this category. The profit category explains why New York outranks Toronto on the Index: New York scored 69.3% in this category and Toronto scored 54.8%, leaving them at 8th and 38th in this section.

So if New York is to look to Toronto for ways to improve its sustainability score, the planet and particularly the people sub-scores give some indication. Each city’s rating in the people sub-section is comprised of scores in several sub-categories: education, health, demographics, income inequality, affordability, work-life balance, and crime. The biggest discrepancies between Toronto and New York can be found in income inequality (10.7% > 6.5%); crime (13.2 % > 10.1%); and affordability (7.1% > 0.2%).

The planet sub-score is based on environmental risks, green spaces, energy, air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, waste management, drinking water and sanitation. The most significant differences between Toronto and New York here are environmental risks (9.9% > 7.6%); energy (8.6% > 6.5%); and air pollution (13.4% > 12.1%).

Toronto has been especially successful in energy efficiency, waste management, and water. Toronto is one of the top three cities for ensuring a robust, effective, and healthy water supply, while New York’s resources are considered more vulnerable. Indeed, the report highlights some of New York’s perceived weaknesses, including poverty, an overburdened transportation infrastructure, and rising sea levels forecasting more storms, flooding, and other natural disasters.

Toronto, on the other hand, will have to deal with a 25% population increase expected in the next 15 years. “According to a report presented by the city, Toronto has reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 25% since 1990 and expects to improve that number to 30% by 2030 even amid the city`s population growth, which has seen the metropolitan area swell to six million as of February 2015.”

Hopefully these sustainability assessments and metrics encourage cities around the globe to learn from each other and the myriad issues faced by such complex cosmopolitan organisms in the coming century.

By |2020-11-05T19:51:51+00:00November 17th, 2016|Technology, Urban Planning|

The Momentous Rise of Coworking Spaces in NYC

Coworking is widely considered to be the face of the changing workplace. As The Atlantic reports: “By 2020, the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimates that 40 percent of the U.S. workforce will be freelancers, temps, independent contractors and entrepreneurs who single-handedly run their own businesses.” With an increasing emphasis on the “‘workplace of choice,’” the young workforce will inevitably transform what is now considered a trend into the new norm.

An entire industry has sprung up in the past decade to cater to the needs of this young entrepreneurial and independent-minded set. According to The Atlantic, “Shared workspaces first started as informal arrangements: Freelancers with extra space in their garage invited friends to work with them and groups of freelancers leased office space together to make it more affordable.” But new coworking spaces can offer much more than just physical accommodations: services, amenities, digital platforms, flexibility, networking opportunities, and–most importantly–a sense of community. As Tom Lloyd observes in Forbes, “‘Office work is transforming from one dominated by clerical processing to one where making the most of human capital is the ultimate goal. The knowledge economy is fueled by ideas, and ideas are fueled by collaboration.’”

In accordance with this idea, Inc.com notes that “the number of coworking spaces in America has gone from one to 781 since 2005.” The article references a report by the Commercial Real Estate Development Association, which also distinguishes coworking spaces from other startup organizations like incubators and accelerators. There is every reason to believe this growth will continue. Hiring in the tech, advertising, media, and internet industries is increasing one-tenth annually, and these sectors most often make use of coworking space, according to Jason Bram, economist for the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

New York by itself has seen the emergence of more than 50 new coworking spaces to support its entrepreneurial citizens. This is partly thanks to an injection of venture capital–49% from 2014 to 2015, exceeding $7 billion–as well as a population of 4.7 million freelancers and the city’s signature “creative abilities to make the most out of tight spaces.” The explosive growth of New York-based WeWork provides an illustrative example: since it was founded in 2010, WeWork has “leased 3 million square feet in New York City alone, […] enough to fill the Empire State Building, with 200,000 square feet left over.” The number of New York WeWork locations is already in the double digits, not to mention its U.S. urban expansion and international outreach, and it has signed “20,000 tenants in less than five years.”

With widely-available communications technology, the burgeoning freelance economy (driven in part by the fallout of the 2009 recession), and a renewed focus on work-life balance, coworking spaces can offer benefits that traditional companies and office buildings cannot. Shlomo Silber, the founder of New York-based coworking chain Coworkrs, tells Crain that coworking ”’is about hospitality, in terms of focusing and taking care of the needs of our members.’” In fact, even big companies have recognized the perks of coworking spaces: benefits for employees such as networking and innovation as well as cost-savings on property rentals. According to Colliers International, “Fortune 100 companies are increasingly taking desks in temporary facilities, both as a cost cutting measure and as a bridge to attracting and retaining talent by providing environments that cultivate a mix of networking, training, team events, and ideation. WeWork is accommodating tenants with large numbers of employees by offering full floors and modifying space for security, reception, IT, etc.“

This kind of accommodation–as well as the meteoric rise of coworking companies such as WeWork–has led some freelancers and entrepreneurs to ironically label these chain coworking companies as ‘corporate.’ Indeed, several founders of successful coworking spaces have discussed the difficulty of manufacturing community. As Kevin Smith, founder of the Vault–a San Francisco-based co-working space–reflects, “‘Collaboration’ is a word you hear a lot, and it’s this almost-mythic concept. […] You’re supposed to put people in a building, and the collaboration will just happen; but it doesn’t unless someone is there directing the show.’” Adam Neumann, founder of WeWork, also comments in The Atlantic: “‘It’s a science. […] We cannot force community, but we can create an environment that encourages it. We’ve gathered massive amounts of data about how to design a space to foster collaboration.’ WeWork has done research into design questions as specific as the optimal number of couches and the ideal location of coffee machines to foster conversation.”

In the spirit of this collaboration, and as an additional service to members, coworking spaces–particularly chains and franchises such as Grind and WeWork–have developed exclusive digital platforms to connect their members. One user called the WeWork app “‘a real life LinkedIn.’” While the app enables these professional connections to happen in person, they are still digitally arranged, which raises the question of how well a digital overlay enhances community. Physical coworking spaces seem to have sprung up in part to circumvent virtual networks, so a digital platform can almost be seen as the antithesis of the community-centric mode of coworking.

In a period of such rapid growth and expansion, many have begun to try to regulate what constitutes a coworking space. “People like Tony Bacigalupo, the founder of New Work City, are working to codify the principles of coworking so that they are easier to incorporate into new coworking communities. ‘There is a sense in the Zeitgeist that coworking is more of a real estate opportunity.’” Another attempt has been documented by The Huffington Post: “LExC is a network of passionate, like minded coworking space owners with aligned business approaches. Led by Jamie Russo, founder of Enerspace Coworking in Chicago, the organization was formed to define acceptable standards for coworking spaces and elevate the industry as a whole. LEXC gives members the ability to work from any member spaces if they are traveling, and defines appropriate operating levels so visitors can expect similar experiences no matter where they need to work.”

One thing that most of these coworking spaces already have in common, though, is their urban roots. According to CityLab, “Downtown San Francisco now has more high tech startups that suburban Silicon Valley,” the birthplace of the tech start-up. Silicon Valley could not possibly hold all the startups that have arisen in its trailblazing wake, but the migration of start-ups to cities raises some issues. Cities and start-ups have a symbiotic relationship: entrepreneurs tap into urban networks and take advantage of the culture and amenities. Coworking spaces fit right into the sharing economy, a predominantly urban trend.

But startup culture and the coworking spaces that support it do not necessarily serve cities well, at least in terms of real estate. The acquisition of urban real estate in order to essentially rent to businesses that would otherwise find office space could lead to inflation. 

San Francisco has famously seen inflation in its rental market and a high cost of living increase due to its proximity to Silicon Valley and its own startup scene. New York is currently evaluating the effect of Airbnb–a startup itself–on its unique real estate market.

For all the growth that coworking spaces can bring to New York City, it might be worth evaluating the impact of this new model and design regulations not only to preserve the sense of community intrinsic to coworking spaces, but also to monitor the scaling of such businesses.

By |2018-10-31T17:55:17+00:00November 14th, 2016|Culture, Technology, Urban Planning|
Go to Top