several links from urbanomnibus.net

I love urbanomnibus.net, it is a virtual smorgasbord of fascinating things to read. Here are three (fairly) recent posts that I think are particularly interesting.

The first relates to the National Building Museums “Intelligent Cities Initiative” which “is an effort to investigate the intersection of information technology and urban life and design.”  What caught my eye was the statement that “We all need to start making better decisions — and that starts with clear, actionable information that more people can understand.” 

The second “The Real Social Life of Wireless Public Spaces”, written in response to an paper published elsewhere, provides the most realistic critique of how the provision of public wifi can help to shape the use of our urban realm I have read in a long time. To add to the authors comments – there is a clear link between the number of people using a public space (footfall/dwell times) and the vitality of that place (both economic and social), and the spaces adjacent. Anything that encourages/facilitates our making “better” use of our public spaces (not for nefarious purposes obviously) is a good thing, and if that means that our public spaces have to evolve to meet modern demands – so what – they are PUBLIC spaces!

The last, “50 Ideas for the New City” is pretty self-explanatory, and though it is (obviously) written about New York – the ideas have relevance pretty much everywhere.

if you don’t read anything else this week…

Link: if you don’t read anything else this week…

I have linked to the Architectural Leagues “Situational Technologies” series of pamphlets before, but a reminder is warranted – their most recent publication is one of the most thought-provoking things I have read in a long time.

To quote from the the pamphlets introduction; “The authors suggest an IoT as a non-commercial refuge, as an umbrella of emerging technologies that do not only serve capital but also facilitate grassroots survival networks in a world faced with ecological and social devastation. “

Echoing my feelings in “how to eat an elephant”, the authors state; “Instead of the hubris of trying to build a Sensing Planet, let’s do something as basic and useful for people as creating functioning systems that sense the location of buses to help them run on time.”

Wether you agree with the authors position or not, the pamphlet should succeed in its aim to initiate “a public debate about an Internet of Things (IoT) in the public interest”.

yet more on "Social Networking" from Pew Research

Link: yet more on “Social Networking” from Pew Research

Further evidence that rather than being used as a substitute for more “conventional relationships”, social media is being used to enhance them. 

more on tags

Interesting to see that Microsoft are looking for comments on the potential for tags to improve the provision of public transport information. Assuming that the RTPI data exists, there is effectively no cost associated with adding a tag to a timetable or route map, and little cost (relatively speaking) associated with producing the supporting back-end applications – this seems like something of a “no brainer”.  Whilst it probably should be seen as an enhancement to and not an immediate replacement for more conventional urban RTPI solutions; there is without doubt a trend towards information becoming more “useful” as it becomes more personalised and/or personal.

This is not a particularly new idea – the team behind “Tales of Things” have done similar in Norway, and similar solutions were also being piloted in Washington DC and in Florida.

more on the internet as a human right

Link: more on the internet as a human right

I am a big fan of the BBC Word Service programme “Click” – coverage is always topical and detailed, unlike many so called “technology” shows.  

Arup report "Climate Action in Megacities" – worth reading

Link: Arup report “Climate Action in Megacities” – worth reading

access to the internet is a "Human Right"

The United Nations “Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression” makes fascinating reading.

The following statements, drawn from the reports Conclusions and Recommendations are (I believe) particularly noteworthy: 

“…by vastly expanding the capacity of individuals to enjoy their right to freedom of opinion and expression, which is an “enabler” of other human rights, the Internet boosts economic, social and political development, and contributes to the progress of humankind as a whole”

“…there should be as little restriction as possible to the flow of information via the Internet, except in few, exceptional, and limited circumstances prescribed by international human rights law”

“…intermediaries should not be held liable for refusing to take action that infringes individuals’ human rights. Any requests submitted to intermediaries to prevent access to certain content, or to disclose private information for strictly limited purposes such as administration of criminal justice, should be done through an order issued by a court or a competent body which is independent of any political, commercial or other unwarranted influences”

”..cutting off users from Internet access, regardless of the justification provided, including on the grounds of violating intellectual property rights law, to be disproportionate and thus a violation of article 19, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”

“The Special Rapporteur underscores the obligation of States to adopt effective privacy and data protection laws in accordance with article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Human Rights Committee’s general comment No. 16. This includes laws that clearly guarantee the right of all individuals to ascertain in an intelligible form whether, and if so what, personal data is stored in automatic data files, and for what purposes, and which public authorities or private individuals or bodies control or may control their files.”

Being parochial, It will be interesting to see the impact that this report has on current (and proposed) legislation, particularly the UK’s Digital Economy Act 2010.

the death of the basement-dwelling, antisocial nerd

Despite a growing body of evidence that should debunk the myth that the “typical internet user is a basement-dwelling, antisocial nerd”, it is annoyingly persistent. The following Pew study – “The Social Side of the Internet” – demonstrates that internet users are in fact “more likely” to be active in voluntary groups or organisations than their non-internet using counterparts. The report goes further, demonstrating that social media users are “even more likely to be active”. Clearly, rather than being used as a substitute for more “conventional relationships” (either person-to-person or with the wider community), social media is being used to enhance them. 

interesting infographic

This infographic from the Microsoft Tag blog makes interesting reading. What amazed me (though I suppose it shouldn’t have) is the massive growth in micropayments – from $1m in 2008 to $24.8m in 2009.

how do you eat an elephant?

I think of the “Smart Environment” as being a mechanism (or organism) for collecting, processing and and then disseminating information in a form whereby it is useful. In this context, useful information is information that enables me to make an informed (good) decision; something hopefully my first post on engagement, participation & experience explained.

The concept works at either the macro or micro level, which is why I like it. I don’t care much whether the Smart Environment is a city, a public square, a transport network, or an individual building – the principle remains the same.  

The Smart City is simply a large (and admittedly, complex) Smart Environment. It is still a mechanism for providing information that enables people to make informed (good) decisions. At the city scale these informed decisions lead to more sustainable, more accessible, richer, more engaging and enjoyable places to live and work. Either take my word for it, or buy one of several books written explaining why this is the case.

The barriers to delivery are largely not technological. It’s not that we lack the vision or the capability. There are 100’s of “seed” projects and “proof of concept” demonstrations around; we have proved beyond any reasonable doubt that we could deliver the Smart City, we just have to want to badly enough.

I am not saying that realising our aspirations will be easy, in fact I think it will be incredibly difficult. Not least, it will require a major shift in attitude within national and local government, in businesses and in communities. Matters will be further complicated when every discussion takes place against a background of “economic austerity measures”. Sadly, I do not believe will be able to describe most cities as being genuinely Smart for a very long time.  

So, if we a accept that the utopian Smart City lays some time in the future, what can or should we do today? When we face such immediate and pressing challenges, should we be bothering with small-scale interventions? Should we be putting our time, energy and efforts into developing strategies and lobbying for the political and social changes necessary for us to achieve the long-term goal? 

There is a saying I like; “How do you eat an elephant?” The answer is (of course) “One bite at a time”. I maintain that if we are to deliver a city that, if not Smart, is at least “smart-ish” the only practical approach is one that is iterative and incremental – we realise our goal through a series of small-scale, manageable, deliverable and (most importantly) demonstrably beneficial interventions.