I think the author is setting up a false dichotomy, and also not giving full credit to “smart city” ideas and concepts. “Smart city” is admittedly poorly defined and maybe over-hyped, but there...
I think the author is setting up a false dichotomy, and also not giving full credit to “smart city” ideas and concepts.
“Smart city” is admittedly poorly defined and maybe over-hyped, but there are some genuine opportunities in there to make cities more environmentally friendly, safe, and efficient. Some ideas I saw flying around when I worked at a local council was “smart lighting” in parks that only lit up when people went by (reducing light pollution, increasing safety and walkability), smart watering systems to make parks more water efficient, and data sharing amongst utility providers and government departments so that they weren’t laying brand new concrete/asphalt only for someone to tear it up a week later for subterranean works.
Also, using technology to create digital models of proposed buildings empowers locals by giving them a visual of new buildings before they are approved, and it can help identify problems before construction begins which decreases waste.
3D digital city models can even be used to model the ways climate change will impact communities and identify vulnerable groups. It’s also being used to inform urban forestry plans and find opportunities for revegetation. Ironically, I’ve seen data driven analytics being used to locate buildings that could be suitable for the exact “dumb solution” (green roofs) that the author is spruking.
“Smart cities” also do not stand in opposition to flood management via renaturalising waterways (something I also saw being pursued by council at the same time as “smart” solutions for other problems).
The author’s suggestion that driving cars is associated with “smart cities” (as opposed to ‘dumb’ solutions like walking) makes me think that they don’t actually know anything about the smart city concept at all. As far as I’m aware, all local councils around here are trying to increase the walkability of neighbourhoods. The only smart city concept associated with cars I can think of is parking sensors which is arguably more about punishing car-use than encouraging it.
This idea that technology is automatically in opposition to natural solutions and/or the natural environment is out of date, and I don’t think anyone is doing nature any favours by rejecting data-driven solutions.
Thanks for the in-depth response. I can see how the premise of the article, as suggested by the title (to build "dumb" cities instead of "smart" ones), lacks a nuanced appreciation for the...
Thanks for the in-depth response. I can see how the premise of the article, as suggested by the title (to build "dumb" cities instead of "smart" ones), lacks a nuanced appreciation for the numerous techniques employed by the designers of smart cities and lumps them all together into an over-reliance on technology. However, I think the author still puts forth a legitimate claim--that rather than only trying to become more granular with existing methods of urban development, which rely on the industrial-age paradigm of trying to work around nature rather than work with it, we should reevaluate the techniques we use for that development in the first place.
The common thread of what I've read about smart cities seems to be a devotion to the concept that everything needs to be connected and analyzed in every way possible, and while, as you said, there are several positive applications for that type of advanced data collection, there are also cases where doing so is unnecessary, since it can be replaced by the type of indigenous methods the author highlighted. The Eastgate building in Harare particularly stood out to me as an example of this. Smart thermostats like the Nest are becoming ubiquitous now, so one might think that in order to make a major urban building "smart," it would require advanced climate control technology based on that type of digital analysis. However, the architects were able to achieve an equally desirable result simply by using "low-tech" solutions found in Zimbabwean masonry and termite mounds. Thus, I think the overarching question the author is trying to get us to address isn't, "Do we need to stop considering the entire idea of data-driven smart cities altogether?" but rather "What are additional ways to achieve the same result which have been overlooked in the past?"
I think the author is setting up a false dichotomy, and also not giving full credit to “smart city” ideas and concepts.
“Smart city” is admittedly poorly defined and maybe over-hyped, but there are some genuine opportunities in there to make cities more environmentally friendly, safe, and efficient. Some ideas I saw flying around when I worked at a local council was “smart lighting” in parks that only lit up when people went by (reducing light pollution, increasing safety and walkability), smart watering systems to make parks more water efficient, and data sharing amongst utility providers and government departments so that they weren’t laying brand new concrete/asphalt only for someone to tear it up a week later for subterranean works.
Also, using technology to create digital models of proposed buildings empowers locals by giving them a visual of new buildings before they are approved, and it can help identify problems before construction begins which decreases waste.
3D digital city models can even be used to model the ways climate change will impact communities and identify vulnerable groups. It’s also being used to inform urban forestry plans and find opportunities for revegetation. Ironically, I’ve seen data driven analytics being used to locate buildings that could be suitable for the exact “dumb solution” (green roofs) that the author is spruking.
“Smart cities” also do not stand in opposition to flood management via renaturalising waterways (something I also saw being pursued by council at the same time as “smart” solutions for other problems).
The author’s suggestion that driving cars is associated with “smart cities” (as opposed to ‘dumb’ solutions like walking) makes me think that they don’t actually know anything about the smart city concept at all. As far as I’m aware, all local councils around here are trying to increase the walkability of neighbourhoods. The only smart city concept associated with cars I can think of is parking sensors which is arguably more about punishing car-use than encouraging it.
This idea that technology is automatically in opposition to natural solutions and/or the natural environment is out of date, and I don’t think anyone is doing nature any favours by rejecting data-driven solutions.
Thanks for the in-depth response. I can see how the premise of the article, as suggested by the title (to build "dumb" cities instead of "smart" ones), lacks a nuanced appreciation for the numerous techniques employed by the designers of smart cities and lumps them all together into an over-reliance on technology. However, I think the author still puts forth a legitimate claim--that rather than only trying to become more granular with existing methods of urban development, which rely on the industrial-age paradigm of trying to work around nature rather than work with it, we should reevaluate the techniques we use for that development in the first place.
The common thread of what I've read about smart cities seems to be a devotion to the concept that everything needs to be connected and analyzed in every way possible, and while, as you said, there are several positive applications for that type of advanced data collection, there are also cases where doing so is unnecessary, since it can be replaced by the type of indigenous methods the author highlighted. The Eastgate building in Harare particularly stood out to me as an example of this. Smart thermostats like the Nest are becoming ubiquitous now, so one might think that in order to make a major urban building "smart," it would require advanced climate control technology based on that type of digital analysis. However, the architects were able to achieve an equally desirable result simply by using "low-tech" solutions found in Zimbabwean masonry and termite mounds. Thus, I think the overarching question the author is trying to get us to address isn't, "Do we need to stop considering the entire idea of data-driven smart cities altogether?" but rather "What are additional ways to achieve the same result which have been overlooked in the past?"