I got offered a job in New Songdo a smart city built from scratch on 600 ha of reclaimed land, 30 km southwest of Seoul. The city's infrastructure contains sensors that monitor and regulate everything from temperature to energy consumption and traffic. It was planned to be a “connected city” and “future proofed” I tried to incorporate this thinking when I designed my off-grid home. We know technology is going to constantly be changing, we just want to make that upgrade path as seamless as possible. I networked every room including outside the house for cameras. I have a central server rack with Ubiquiti UniFi.
I like what she is bringing up. I especially like how she went out of her way to explain that "smart" doesnt necessarily mean high tech. Many cities that made streets pedestrian only during covid are keeping parts if not most of those streets pedestrian only because of the vast improvements. Simply prioritizing good quality, high frequency, public transportation can be extremely benificial. Politicians need to realize a drop in GDP can be good. Especially if it is a mass decrease on the cost to live and exist in your society. Sustainable thinking isnt just for the enviroment, its also for Stability for those that live there: financially, socially, physically, even mentally. Yeah it may not look good on spreadsheets when you expect infinite growth in a finite world, but looking at making reality better instead of forcing a fantasy to work for a small select few, is a far far better world to live in.
The concepts of "Smart Cities" and "Smart Buildings" is and always has been marketing terminology. It is about the technology used less than the results. Using "Smart Technology" doesn't alway guarantee better results, increased energy efficiency and/or better user interface. "Net Zero Buildings" is also marketing terminology but that name has the result as part of the name. It means a net grid energy usage of zero. Of course "off grid building" (or house) basically means the same thing. A big part of the difference is marketing. There are also other differences.
To me, the 'smart' in smart cities should be strategic, not necessarily tactical. 'Smart' can be the definition of common goals, addressing common issues that most cities will encounter. I usually see individualism as a conformity cop-out but tactically, each journey to address the shortfalls and achieve those goals will need to be unique. Public consultation/community engagement is often used/abused as an acceptance tool but in this case thousands of eyes on the problem (if reigned in correctly) are the way to go. With regards to Chch, Cantabs are a hardy bunch and don't like being dealt to, so consultation was not only useful but pretty much essential. A good mayor helps, something we could do with (lamenting Wellingtonian). Did we arrive at the conclusion that 'smart city' is still a dictionary placeholder?
A smart city should be categorized in the same way "Passivhaus" homes are classified. It isn't the insulation type that is important, it is the overall r-value. For cities for example, seattle could use more tidal power than spokane. If spokane uses solar (or Ideally nuclear) but they both produce enough "clean energy" for their citizens then they get one part of the certification. Does a city reuse it's garbage? Are central locations walkable? Are cities designed for both the pedestrian and drivers? etc...
On my understanding, after this beautiful interview, a city can only be as smart as the citizens are willing to be. With that in mind, the most primary step to building a smart city should be investing in the citizens' diversity education and alluding them to participate in the city's project since a very young age.
It sounds good in theory but citizens make bad or ill-informed decisions all the time. She mentions ensuring the stakeholders "understand" and that's the hurdle. We're in the generation of short attention spans. I think back to Brexit and ppl not fully understanding what they are agreeing to until after the fact. I think for this to be a reality we would need a "mostly" educated populace and ppl who are engaged in their community, not just the parts that affect them directly. Currently we tribalism in the US, a lot of individualism...no one really things about their neighboring community or state. They treat them like an other, because of politics.
Amsterdam is not cool to go anymore: 30km/h, 8 euro per hour parking fees. To many fat bikes. Electricity network doesn’t have enough power… happy to live at the beach 🏖️ with normal solar powered home 🏠
I theorize that the only way to have a truly smart city, we would have to start from scratch such as "The Line", or extensive expensive demolition to slowly convert an existing city where it would be far more difficult. I would take the Elon approach to creating a smart city. Less parts is better focusing on efficiency, expense, and convenience.
Your theory suggests that we are currently at the pinnacle of technology. The reality is that technology is always moving forward. By the time we would complete building an all new advanced technology city it will be outdated. Yes your statement/theory has truth to it. That is why a large part of the technology challenges is making it fit the current buildings, roads, and other infrastructure. We also like to maintain similar user interfaces. [User interface is a major consideration by end user. Consider the manual transmission camp of the manual vs automatic vehicle transmission debate. A large part of that is about user interface not real performance.]
@@erniecolussy1705 I wasn't referring too technology per se. It would be easier to apply newer technologies if the layout of the "Smart City" was lain out in a smart way in the first place.
