Fractional ownership works for Banksy paintings—not cities

n 2025, I purchased 25 shares in a Banksy painting that the art investment platform Masterworks purchased for $8.7 million. Very few could afford the full sticker price, but by opening ownership of the painting to hundreds of investors rather than just one, Masterworks makes it accessible to everyone.

My shares cost just $500—others paid millions—but when the painting sells in 9 years, all of our investments stand to increase in value as the painting does. Even museums who can earn a stake from the paintings on their walls.

It’s not just luxury goods. WeFunder has made it similarly possible to invest in and fractionally own businesses. I contributed to Substack that way, investing $3,000 alongside investors who put in millions. The platform is also how I financed my next book—I raised more than $100,000 from some 200 people, rather than one large publishing house owning it all.

Platforms like these allow anyone to fractionally own assets that go up in value. Why shouldn’t cities be owned the same way? By the people and businesses who live and work there? That’s a hypothesis I initially pursued while writing Let Cities Build Utopia. But while fractional investment works great as an investment in assets or businesses, I don’t think it works great for cities for one reason: Fractional investment is uneven ownership. Those with more equity benefit more than those with less equity. Does that really make sense for a city where everyone lives together?

Should a city benefit those who own lots of land more than those who rent an apartment? Should it benefit someone who lived in the city for 50 years more than it benefits the person who just moved there? Should we onboard and offboard people who move around, with cities benefiting transient populations least of all? And are dividends the best way to reward residents of a neighborhood? Because if your neighborhood is rich, you get cash?