Fifty years of change in infrastructure real estate: what we’ve learned and what still matters
Canadian Property Valuation Magazine
Search the Library Online
Next year, I will mark 50 years as a Member of the Appraisal Institute of Canada (AIC) working in infrastructure real estate, primarily acquiring the property needed for roads, sewer and water systems, transit projects, and other public works. When I look back over those five decades, I am amazed by how much our profession has changed, but in some important ways, how much it has not.
In the early years, decisions were made based on a paper-based society with limited data, limited transparency, and a strong reliance on experience and local knowledge. Today, infrastructure real estate is highly technical, far more transparent, and more people-focused.
I see a lot of change when I look back over those 50 years, but at its core, our job has always remained the same; help make public infrastructure happen and do it fairly, respectfully, and responsibly.
Technology changed the tools and the expectations
The way we work has been transformed by technology and includes tools such as GIS mapping, drones, LiDAR, and mobile data collection, which now enable us to see entire infrastructure corridors as integrated, up-to-date models showing property interests, environmental constraints, utilities, and risks almost in real time. That was not always the case.
Early in my career, our tools were simple: paper plans, calculators, aerial photographs pinned to walls, and filing cabinets stuffed with records. Information moved slowly, and so did decisions.
I can still picture myself early in my career in my manager’s office in Kamloops, working for the provincial government. We were going over one of my files when he suddenly picked up the phone and called our director at head office in Victoria. He stepped out for a bit, then came back and dropped a signed agreement right in front of me. I just stared at it, stunned that he was able to get it signed so quickly. It honestly felt like a magic trick. That is how I was first introduced to the fax machine.
Now, technology has changed everything. Things move so much faster, with much fewer mistakes. But this whole shift did not happen overnight. It crept in slowly, bit by bit, as new tools changed the way we gathered information. In the end, that changed what decision-makers and everyone expects from us.
From authority to engagement: a fundamental shift in mindset
Fifty years ago, infrastructure projects were often announced, not discussed. Public consultation was limited, and negotiation was frequently positional.
In the 1980s, I worked on road-building projects where affected property owners first learned about a project when we knocked on their door to explain what land would be required. At the time, that was considered normal practice. Can you imagine? Today, it would be unthinkable.
Engagement now starts much earlier. Indigenous consultation, stakeholder outreach, community meetings, and visual simulations are standard practice. Negotiation has shifted from persuasion to collaboration, with a growing recognition that listening matters just as much as explaining.
The format of public consultation meetings illustrates this shift clearly. I remember how things used to be – everyone packed into a school gym or a community hall. Agency staff would set up on a stage, looking down at everyone, and present the decisions as they were already set in stone. The public just sat there on simple folding chairs, listening to information about the project with no opportunity to participate in decisions about it, as they had already been made.
Now, everything feels different. We still meet in public spaces, but agency staff walk around the floor and mingle with the public to answer any questions they may have. There are no more stages or barriers. People talk to each other, gathered around tables. Questions fly back and forth, and local stories and concerns come out in real time. It is not about just pushing out information anymore. It is about real conversations, listening, and figuring things out together.
This isn’t just a new way to run a meeting; it is a whole new mindset. Getting infrastructure projects done right means working with people, not just talking at them.
A much higher ethical bar
Years ago, many business practices were informal and documentation was simpler. Conflicts were often managed quietly and professional judgement carried wide discretion.
Today, ethics and transparency are front and centre. Codes of conduct, conflict-of-interest disclosure, audit-ready files, and defensible decision-making are expected, not optional.
Years ago, if you had a consultant you trusted, you just picked up the phone and hired them. You knew their experience and their work. In many cases, you had worked together for years. Sometimes the assignment was discussed over lunch and moved ahead based on that relationship. At the time, that was considered perfectly normal and efficient.
Today, it doesn’t work that way. The same decision now requires documentation, disclosure, and a clear explanation of why that consultant was selected. You assume the file could be reviewed by auditors, a tribunal, or even a court. In many public agencies, you cannot even hire someone unless they have first gone through a formal procurement or standing-offer process.
This isn’t about doubting anyone’s integrity. It is about being able to show it. What used to rely on professional judgement and trust now stand up to public scrutiny.
Nowhere has this higher ethical bar been more evident than in how environmental risk is identified and managed.
Environmental risk moves to the front end
Environmental considerations were once addressed after a property had been acquired. Today, they are recognized as front-end risks that can shape or even stop a project before it begins.
Early in my career, I recall agencies acquiring former gas station properties only to discover after closing that underground storage tanks were leaking. What was once viewed as an unfortunate surprise is now recognized as a largely preventable risk.
Many municipal agencies are still wrestling with the fallout from old contamination, especially when it comes from off-site sources. Take one example: a government agency bought an old gas station, thinking the hard part was over. Years later, they had to settle with a neighbor when it was determined that a contamination plume had migrated underground through groundwater and caused vapors to seep into the house next door. In the end, the Agency had to buy the whole property. That is an example of what can happen when you leave environmental risks unchecked.
Now, things like Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs), concerns about PFAS (those stubborn synthetic chemicals), climate resilience, and bigger ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) issues all shape how cities make decisions. These factors influence when and if they buy properties, and sometimes they stop projects before they even get started.
With some agencies, for example, a Phase I ESA became mandatory for any property acquisition, acknowledging that environmental risk is inseparable from financial, legal, and reputational risk.
Environmental risk no longer surprises us after closing. It is expected, investigated, and managed before a project begins.
Experience still matters, but now we prove it
Experience has always mattered in infrastructure real estate, and it still does. The difference today is that experience alone isn’t enough. It’s not just about what you know anymore; you must back it up, explain it, and document it. Your judgement still counts, but now you need to show your work.
As an example, in the past, when an agency was leasing space from a private landlord, it was not uncommon to proceed with a lease renewal without formally assessing whether purchasing the property might be a better option. The focus was often on short-term continuity rather than a broader lease-versus-purchase analysis.
Today, those considerations are quite different. I recall a situation about 17 years ago where we faced exactly this decision. Rather than automatically renewing the lease, my team suggested stepping back and evaluating whether acquiring the industrial building made sense. We prepared a net present value (NPV) analysis and were able to demonstrate to our client that, if the agency intended to remain in the space for another seven years, purchasing the asset was the more prudent option. As a result of this analysis, we purchased the industrial property.
These days, everyone expects this level of analysis, but it wasn’t always like that. Back then, people made decisions mostly out of habit or because it felt right in the moment. Now, you need to show the numbers, think further ahead, and have a plan for the asset. We investigate market data, run financial models, look at cost-to-cure options, and try out different scenarios just to make sure they support our assumptions.
Damages must be measurable. Cost-to-cure mitigation options need to be compared to real design options and construction costs. The ‘what if’ questions aren’t guesses anymore – we run the numbers.
Simply put, experience still tells us what’s important and the data now helps us prove it.
Infrastructure is about people
Perhaps the most important change is that the human impact of infrastructure projects is no longer minimized. Years ago, displacement was often handled as a transaction where we acquired the property, paid compensation, and closed the file. People now realize that moving isn’t just about packing up and leaving. It’s stressful. There’s grief, uncertainty, and sometimes you have to say goodbye to homes or businesses your family has owned for generations.
These days, the whole process looks different. There’s a bigger focus on helping people adjust and offering relocation support, housing advice, and making sure businesses can keep running. People also pay more attention to culture and the emotional side of things. When folks push back against big projects, it’s not just about saying “no” to new roads or buildings. In many instances, it’s about being afraid of losing what matters most to them. This goes back to Maslow’s hierarchy of needs at the basic level with safety.
This shift has not weakened the profession, but strengthened it. Projects that acknowledge human impact tend to face fewer conflicts, achieve more durable agreements, and build trust that extends beyond a single transaction.
Today, treating people with dignity, empathy, and respect is no longer considered a ‘soft skill.’ It is recognized as a core professional responsibility and an essential ingredient in successful infrastructure delivery.
Nowhere is this human impact more apparent than when people are required to relocate. For example, under the Uniform Relocation Act (URA) in the United States, where an infrastructure real estate project requires the acquisition of residential homes for federally funded projects, the agency typically assigns relocation specialists early and engages homeowners well before negotiations begin. To reduce stress, residents receive clear explanations of the project and timelines, along with housing counselling that helps identify suitable replacement homes. Even when displacement is unavoidable, this approach reduces conflict, supports smoother relocations, and preserves trust. Other countries, such as Canada, could learn from this, especially as it applies to Advisory Services for residential property displaced owners and tenants.
Infrastructure at a different scale
Infrastructure projects have changed a lot over the past 50 years. What used to be straightforward projects have turned into huge, years-long undertakings with all sorts of players at the table including government agencies, utility companies, environmental groups, Indigenous communities, private companies, regulators, and just about anyone else you can think of, and yes everyone wants a say.
Take a single corridor project. Suddenly you are juggling transportation officials, city governments, utility providers, environmental watchdogs, Indigenous rights holders, private developers, and the folks who write the checks. Each group comes with its own rules, deadlines, and ways of doing things. Sometimes, just getting everyone on the same page can be harder than the actual construction.
And the irony is that everything moves faster now. Political pressure, tight funding windows, public attention, and rising costs mean decisions need to come quickly, often before all the facts are in. There is almost no room for mistakes. So, infrastructure real estate pros must spot problems before they happen, handle risk head-on, and keep the conversation flowing across all these different groups.
Add in public-private partnerships and new delivery models, and things get even trickier. Now, you need to balance confidentiality and complicated financing with the need for transparency, fairness, and accountability to the public. It’s a lot to manage, and it’s not getting any simpler.
We encountered these challenges firsthand during the development and implementation of multibillion-dollar light rail (LRT) projects in the Nation’s Capital.
Within this framework, the LRT program also created opportunities for innovation in land acquisition. Council granted staff broad delegated authority to acquire all property rights required for both projects, provided acquisitions complied with the City’s acquisition policy and the provincial expropriation legislation. This approach enabled our team to significantly expedite the land acquisition program while maintaining accountability and policy compliance. As well, a formal audit was carried out after all the property acquisitions in the first stage to ensure that we adhered to city approved policies and procedures.
What hasn’t changed
Trust still matters. You can have all the data and airtight contracts in the world, but nothing beats the trust you earn by being honest, reliable, and sticking to your word. The people such as affected property owners, stakeholders, partners might not agree with every decision, but they don’t forget if you treated them fairly and with respect.
However, you cannot just wing it. Showing up to a property or a negotiation without knowing the facts, the backstory, or the people involved just destroys your credibility. When you are prepared, people notice. It shows you care enough to do the work and opens the door to real conversations, not just defensive arguments.
Listening still matters. Infrastructure projects don’t just hinge on clear communication; they rely on active listening. When people listen, they catch worries you’ll never see on a blueprint or in a spreadsheet. That is how you spot risks early and build trust. And frankly, that is when the smartest solutions may show up; ideas no one saw coming at the start.
These basics aren’t old news. If anything, they are more crucial now. Projects keep getting bigger, moving faster, and growing more complicated. So, when teams skip the groundwork or stop listening, the fallout only gets worse.
Sure, technology keeps changing the way we work. But trust, preparation, and listening are still the core of every successful project. They haven’t faded; they matter more than ever.
Looking ahead: artificial intelligence (AI)
As we look ahead, artificial intelligence is beginning to shape the next chapter of infrastructure real estate. Much like GIS, digital mapping, and data analytics did in earlier decades, AI has the potential to change how information is gathered, analyzed, and applied particularly, on large, complex infrastructure projects.
AI tools are already being used to support corridor planning, analyze large volumes of property and market data, identify risk patterns, and test project scenarios more quickly than traditional methods allow. In valuation and asset management, AI may assist with trend analysis, option testing, and consistency checks across large portfolios. In project delivery, it may help to flag issues earlier, improve scheduling, and support more informed decision-making.
What AI will not replace is professional judgement, ethics, or human connection. Infrastructure real estate remains fundamentally about people; their homes, businesses, communities, and trust. As with every technological shift before it, the real value of AI will depend on how thoughtfully it is used.
The challenge and the opportunity will be to use AI to enhance transparency, reduce risk, and support better outcomes, while ensuring that accountability, empathy, and professional responsibility remain firmly in human hands.
As with every technological shift before it, the challenge will not be whether we can use these tools but whether we use them wisely.
Closing thought
Infrastructure real estate hasn’t just become more technical over the past 50 years; it has become more human, more transparent, and far less forgiving. Decisions are scrutinized more closely, processes are expected to be fair and defensible, and the impacts on people and communities are no longer secondary considerations. And that is its strength.
A profession that acknowledges complexity, demands accountability, and insists on empathy is better equipped to deliver infrastructure that endures. When we combine technical competence with integrity, preparation, and genuine respect for those affected by our work, we don’t just build projects, we build trust. That trust, more than any tool or technology, is what allows infrastructure to serve the public good for generations.