Construction is one of the oldest and most essential industries in the world, yet it has remained stubbornly resistant to the kind of transformation that has reshaped nearly every other sector of the economy. Decades of entrenched relationships, opaque pricing, and accepted inefficiency have made cost overruns and delays feel almost inevitable. But the pressures bearing down on the industry today—rising labor costs, material inflation, and new tariff regimes—are making the status quo increasingly untenable for developers, contractors, and architects alike.

Artificial intelligence is emerging as the most promising lever for change, not as a replacement for human expertise but as a force multiplier for it. From procurement and supplier vetting to cost estimation and project management, AI is giving construction professionals tools to make better decisions earlier, with far greater transparency than legacy systems ever allowed. The opportunity is particularly acute in materials sourcing, where decades of middlemen and markup have quietly inflated project costs in ways that went largely unchallenged simply because no alternative existed.

The deeper story, though, is about what happens when genuine industry knowledge meets modern technology. The most meaningful progress won't come from technology imposed on construction from the outside, but from people who understand the realities of the job site and are using new tools to fix problems they've seen up close for years. That combination—craft experience and computational power—points toward a version of the construction industry that is not just cheaper and faster, but fundamentally more honest about what things cost and why.

California’s insurance crisis has been playing out like a slow retreat. Carriers pull back from fire-prone ZIP codes. Homeowners scramble to the state’s backstop. Regulators promise reforms. Now lawmakers are trying something more direct: forcing insurers to stay at the table — at least for homes that do their part.

A new proposal in California would require insurers to offer and renew coverage for homeowners who meet state-defined wildfire mitigation standards. The measure, Senate Bill 1076, would take effect in 2028 and apply to properties that have been hardened against wildfire and maintain defensible space. Insurers that refuse could face significant penalties, including being barred from selling home and auto policies in the state for up to five years.

This bill represents a sharp turn from where the market has been heading. In recent years, major carriers have limited new business or declined renewals across wide swaths of the state, citing rising catastrophe losses, reinsurance costs, and regulatory constraints. Many homeowners have ended up on the California FAIR Plan, a high-cost, bare-bones option originally designed as a safety net, not a primary market.

Supporters argue that without some guarantee of coverage, the incentive to harden homes weakens. Why spend tens of thousands on mitigation if insurance remains out of reach? Critics counter that mandating underwriting without parallel reforms to pricing rules could push insurers further out of the state or discourage new entrants altogether. In a market already strained by climate volatility, compulsion can look like risk concentration.

The stakes go beyond premiums. Insurance availability is increasingly a gating factor for transactions, financing, and development in fire-exposed regions. Lenders require coverage. Buyers price uncertainty. If this bill works as intended, it could create a more predictable link between property improvements and insurability. If it backfires, it could accelerate the bifurcation between regulated coastal markets and capital that simply chooses to deploy elsewhere. California has often served as a policy test bed. With wildfire risk spreading across the West and into other regions, the question is whether a mitigation-for-mandate tradeoff becomes a new model — or a cautionary tale.

Calls are growing for a federal investigation into JRK Property Holdings, the national apartment owner behind the troubled Concierge Apartments complex in Rocky Hill, Connecticut. What began as a local emergency after burst pipes and widespread water damage has escalated into a broader political issue, with members of Congress urging federal agencies to examine whether systemic neglect and corporate practices contributed to the crisis. The incident forced the evacuation of hundreds of residents and exposed deeper concerns about maintenance, safety systems, and tenant protections.

The problems surfaced after an extreme cold snap caused pipes to rupture, disabling plumbing and fire suppression systems and rendering parts of the building uninhabitable. As remediation began, officials identified additional hazards, including asbestos exposure risks, complicating repairs and prolonging displacement for many tenants. Connecticut’s attorney general and other state officials have launched inquiries into whether property management failures played a role in the scale of the damage and whether residents were adequately protected or informed.

JRK is one of the larger multifamily owners in the country, with tens of thousands of units across more than 20 states. That scale is part of what has pushed the issue beyond a local housing dispute. Lawmakers argue that when a nationally active landlord faces repeated allegations related to maintenance, tenant treatment or safety, oversight should not stop at city or state lines. A federal probe would mark a notable shift. Large apartment owners are typically regulated through state housing codes, local inspections, and civil litigation. Federal involvement could introduce scrutiny around fair housing compliance, disaster response standards or even financing structures tied to federally backed loans.

The situation highlights growing political risk for large multifamily landlords. As housing affordability remains a national issue, tenant displacement events can quickly become flashpoints. If federal agencies respond, it may encourage closer monitoring of large operators and raise the compliance bar for maintenance, disclosure, and emergency planning. Even without formal charges, the episode signals that reputational risk for national apartment owners is increasingly tied to how they manage individual properties on the ground.

Propmodo Daily is written and edited by Franco Faraudo with contributions from readers like you and the Propmodo team.

📧 Forward it to a friend and suggest they check it out.

🔗 Share a link to this post on social media.

🗣 Have ideas for future topics (or just want to say hello)? Share your feedback and tips at [email protected] or connect with us on X through @propmodo.

✅ Not subscribed yet? Sign up for this newsletter here.

📫 Please add our newsletter email, [email protected], to your contacts to make sure you don’t miss any updates.

Enjoy reading about trends and innovation in commercial real estate? Subscribe to Propmodo.com for unrestricted access to reliable, data-driven journalism and exclusive insights available only to subscribers.