Smart Cities

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/63097/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
There is a strong geographic element to the transitions in the Australian economy that our prime minister so frequently refers to.
Generally, the old economy, based on manufacturing, mining and agriculture, provided employment and opportunity in regional Australia, whereas the new jobs in knowledge-intensive industries are predominantly created in the centre of our largest cities.
The federal government’s recent Smart Cities Plan states: Australia’s growth as a knowledge-based economy, and the prosperity this offers, goes hand in hand with the growth of our cities and the regions surrounding them.
But how does this growth in city-centric industries translate to regional growth? Commuting may provide the answer.
That people travelling from regional areas to work in cities may distribute both financial and population growth was first proposed by Gunnar Myrdal in 1963. This applies particularly when this commuting is associated with the relocation of households from the cities.
More recently, the CLARA proposal bases regional development on high-speed city rail access and attracting commuters to new cities between Sydney and Melbourne.
In Victoria, the flight of city dwellers to picturesque regional cities and towns has received regular media coverage over the past decade. An example is the Northcote North phenomenon: 2006 Census data indicated most of the new residents of Castlemaine had relocated from Melbourne’s inner north.
Rise of the long-distance commuter
Census data also indicate that a significant number of these metropolitan escapees work in Melbourne. In Geelong, 2011 Census data show that more than 11,000 residents of the regional city travelled to work in Melbourne. That was nearly 13 percent of the city’s resident workforce.
This growth in commuting has occurred across Australia. Wollongong Lord Mayor Gordon Bradbery said it’s no longer a steel city but “a lifestyle city” when proposing that Sydney commuters may help offset continued job losses at the local steel plant. He said more than 20,000 of the city’s residents commute to the New South Wales capital each day.
For cities like Wollongong and Geelong, commuting may provide important economic benefits as their traditional industrial strengths decline and even close.
The increase in regional-urban commuting can be seen as not just the result of the increase in well-paid employment towards the centre of our larger cities. Rising housing costs have also played a part.
In a recent interview, a new resident of Torquay said that, for similar prices, it was a choice between the beachside town and a new housing development on the outskirts of Melbourne. Other reasons for regional relocation include friends and family, rural amenity and work arrangements for other household members, but metropolitan housing costs appear to be a significant factor.
What do regions get out of this?
Regional-urban commuters’ access to well-paid employment is an important factor in spreading economic benefits. For example, about 30% of Geelong residents who earned more than $2,000 per week in 2011 worked in Melbourne.
It is also important to note that, in 2011, more than 50 percent of the Victorian regional-urban commuters had changed their place of residence in the preceding five years: people are moving to commute and bringing higher incomes and families with them. There is evidence to suggest that this additional income may lead to higher regional employment in retail and service industries.
However, research indicates that many people do not continue long-distance commuting for more than a few years. This can be attributed to the links between long-distance commuting and poor physical and mental health, family problems and reduced community engagement.
Economists suggest that when deciding to commute long distances, people are not good at evaluating the non-pecuniary costs of commuting and the higher wages associated with commuting do not fully compensate for these costs.
Regional-urban commuters are more likely to work in the growing knowledge-based industries than their regional counterparts, in the census categories information, media and telecommunications; financial and insurance services; and professional, scientific and technical services.
When commuters tire of the travel, should they continue to live regionally and seek local work, this may be more significant for regional growth than the impact of the additional income. Some of these people may start new businesses closer to home, or provide a labour pool for other businesses in the area.
A survey is under way asking regional-urban commuters about their work and considerations of change. Preliminary results indicate that the main reason people start regional-urban commuting is that their work is not available where they live. Many would work locally if they could.
The tendency for commuters to find or create local employment as they tire of the time spent in transit is central to understanding how regions can grow through interactions with larger cities.
Todd Denham is PhD candidate, School of Global, Urban &amp; Social Studies, RMIT University and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/todd-denham-282116" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Commuters help regions tap into city-driven growth

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/57114/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
In his 1972 election campaign, Gough Whitlam loudly proclaimed that in modern Australia an individual’s health, wellbeing and life chances were shaped more by where they lived than by the job they held, their religion, race or ethnicity.
It was a powerful statement that spoke to an Australian population scarred by decades of urban growth unsupported by the infrastructure needed to make places decent, worthwhile environments to raise children, live a productive life and contribute to society.
Fast-forward almost 50 years and urban issues are once again on the agenda. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s Smart Cities Plan would deliver new transport infrastructure, better urban planning, and the sort of “urban visioning” that earned Whitlam praise and damnation in equal measure.
But there is a big difference this time around. The Whitlam agenda was informed by a fundamental concern with social justice, a desire to improve the lot in life of the most deprived, and a belief in a fairer Australia.
The 2016 articulation of an urban agenda has no such commitment to social ideals. Instead, it assumes building more highways, railways and trams will produce better, more productive cities that somehow give everyone a job.
We know it doesn’t work that way. Our recent research has highlighted both the unequal nature of Australia’s cities and the processes that keep poor places poor.
<h2>Upwardly and downwardly mobile</h2>
On average, about 15 percent of Australians move house each year. Generally, when they move they shift to places that are a bit better than the places they left – that is, places with good access to employment, quality environments, and social settings.
Our research suggests, however, that this statistical average hides a very interesting two-speed process that is neglected by the Smart Cities Plan. The relatively well-off and the upwardly mobile improve the areas in which they live over an extended period. The more economically vulnerable tend to make more frequent, multiple moves – living in slightly less advantaged areas each time.
To put it in plain terms, the poor move to poor areas where they may become even more disadvantaged. Meanwhile, the middle classes move through our cities gradually climbing the housing ladder.
This process has immediate as well as intergenerational implications, gradually filtering some families into areas with fewer and fewer opportunities, poorer educational outcomes, higher transport costs and few resources to deal effectively with health conditions. In some cases, jobs can’t be found, or are simply too far away to be practical.
<h2>Housing affordability widens the gap</h2>
In the current climate of ongoing housing affordability “crisis<a href="https://theconversation.com/our-cities-will-stop-working-without-a-decent-national-housing-policy-60537">”</a> and highly localised house price differentiation, more and more Australians are forced to move through the market because of the (un)-affordability of their housing. Housing affordability should be a key question when we think about our cities.
In our new paper, we examine if housing affordability problems are concentrating some people into less advantaged areas. When we track the residential mobility of Australians, we find that housing affordability is “sorting” some people into more and less advantaged places.
Australia’s housing affordability problems are much more complex than simple supply problems. Cities are shaped by the people who live within them. Some people need affordable housing responses that are smarter than the market alone can supply.
Our work indicates that some people’s access to the good things smart cities have to offer is limited by the location of housing they can afford – be it ownership or rental.
Smart cities of the future will need to address the consequences of housing-generated social and economic inequalities in Australia.
 
Andrew Beer is dean, Research and Innovation, University of South Australia and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/andrew-beer-111469" target="_blank">here</a>.
Emma Baker is reader in Housing, University of Adelaide and author for The Conversation. She can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/emma-baker-172081" target="_blank">here</a>.
Rebecca Bentley is associate professor, Centre for Health Equity, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne and author for The Conversation. She can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/rebecca-bentley-173502" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Smart cities wouldn’t let housing costs drive the worse-off into deeper disadvantage

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/57114/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
The Property Council heralded the federal government’s proposal to introduce UK-style City Deals as part of a new Smart Cities Plan as:
"a real innovation in policy [that will] break down the barriers between federal, state and local government – and make all of them partners in economic growth."
Our evidence from the UK experience suggests there are pros and cons in both City Deals and Devolution Deals.
<h2>The pros and cons</h2>
These deals have emerged as the preferred methods of formulating public policy and resource allocation in UK decentralisation. This kind of explicitly “informal governance” is novel and innovative.
“Deal-making” is good at providing a channel for local authorities to talk to central government. It empowers local actors, encourages strategic thinking, promotes innovation and stimulates governance reform.
But the process is marked by problems. These include:
<ul>
<li>
uneven information and power between central and local actors;
</li>
<li>
the ambiguous role of the centre as supporter and appraiser of the plans of local actors;
</li>
<li>
capacity nationally and centrally limited by budget austerity;
</li>
<li>
lack of transparency;
</li>
<li>
highly uneven resource allocation;
</li>
<li>
slippage from announcement to implementation; and
</li>
<li>
limited evaluation of progress to date.
</li>
</ul>
As the process has matured with each new round of deal-making, common elements have emerged alongside more bespoke and particular dimensions. But participants are fatigued by the centrally orchestrated deal-making process and episodic timetable, are unclear about the criteria for assessing proposals and uncertain about where it is heading next – and to what ends.
Those negotiating the deals have experienced the paradox that central government is dominating this chapter of decentralisation.
<h2>What Australia might expect</h2>
Unpacking some of these issues may help us understand the rationale behind Australia’s interest in City Deals.
First, against a background of rising public debt, City Deals are said to represent an attempt by the federal government to introduce a new approach to investing in urban infrastructure. However, Australia’s net debt-to-GDP ratio (19 percent) remains a fraction of the UK’s, which is nearly 83 percent.
Clues as to what is expected of City Deals were evident in the press release launching the Smart Cities Plan. The government said the plan will:
"draw on the Commonwealth’s co-ordination capacity and the strength of its balance sheet at a time of historically low interest rates, to get the best infrastructure projects off the ground."
The government’s fiscal position can be used in various ways – either through direct borrowing or de-risking private investment. The City Deal approach’s logic suggests that, in return for “drawing upon” federal capacity, states and local government will be asked to agree mechanisms that ensure local areas prioritise infrastructure projects that deliver growth.
Despite the rhetoric surrounding innovative funding and financing, such concepts have proved difficult to implement in the UK. Instead, emasculated local authorities, facing continued budgetary pressures, have sought long-term (up to 30 years) grant funding from the national government.
For its part, the UK government has also found grants easier to manage than complex earn-back arrangements of the kind devised initially in the Greater Manchester City Deal.
Second, if City Deals are introduced in Australia, then individual agreements will be negotiated between three tiers of government. The experience of the newer City Deals in Scotland (Glasgow, Aberdeen and Inverness) and Wales (Cardiff) – involving UK government, devolved administrations and local authorities more akin to a federal-type situation – may be more instructive for Australian policymakers.
Like the UK, Australia’s national government is proposing to incentivise actions and accountabilities at the sub-national level.
The UK government has dangled the carrot of long-term grant funding to “encourage” local authorities to establish statutory governance partnerships across city regions.
City Deals in Australia may be part of a similar drive for local government reform. This reflects arguments that direct funding of local government by federal government creates efficiencies, and that new investment in local infrastructure requires effective cross-border local government collaboration.
Finally, statements that the City Deals have been instrumental in the “renaissance of Greater Manchester and Glasgow” should be treated with great caution. UK City Deals and Devolution Deals are still at an early stage. Monitoring and evaluation of their impact remains in its infancy.
Ultimately, City Deals may prove successful in Australia and the UK. But, at this initial stage, adopting the model without careful scrutiny and analysis feels more like taking a punt than backing a certainty.
Peter O'Brien is research associate, Centre for Urban and Regional Development Studies (CURDS), Newcastle University and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/peter-obrien-97345" target="_blank">here</a>.
Andy Pike is professor of Local and Regional Development, Newcastle University and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/andy-pike-130682" target="_blank">here</a>.
John Tomaney is professor of Urban and Regional Planning, UCL and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/john-tomaney-148821" target="_blank">here</a>.
All are authors for The Conversation.
</body></html>

Deal or no deal: are UK-style City Deals a good bet for Australia?

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/63638/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
A plethora of new and personalised ways of getting around cities are emerging – electric bikes, motorised scooters, electric vehicles, car sharing and re-interpretations of the taxi by Uber.
How might we realise the potential of these transport disruptions? How does the combination of culture, regulation and technology shape sustainable transport futures? The extent to which technologies align with social, political and policy norms is a critical factor in their uptake and success.
Technology is politically, socially and culturally mediated. Its success relies on how it relates to existing lifestyles and aspirations. Technologies need to be accommodated in the ways we want to move around cities. The most amazing technological intervention will quickly atrophy if it is disconnected from daily needs and desires.
Regulatory settings can impede or foster new technologies. We can make space for different ways of moving around – such as cycleways, footpaths and roads. We can prohibit or encourage disruptive forces, as so starkly evident with Uber. We can set tax and other pricing mechanisms, as incentives or disincentives for modes of transport.
Some argue that new technologies are so disruptive because they have no predecessor to show us the way. But examples are emerging that show us where society, regulation and technology have or have not aligned, underpinning their success or failure.
<h2>Car sharing – an obedient disruption</h2>
Car sharing in Australia’s inner cities has been phenomenally successful. There are an estimated 50,000 car sharers across the country.
The disruptions of car sharing are mild: it draws on technologies and skills shared with other aspects of social life. The concept of sharing is disruptive but easily accommodated; regulation adapted quickly to the subtle shifts required. It is an obedient disruption, and this obedience is one of the pillars of its success.
Car sharing is technologically disruptive as it relies on smart technologies to function. It is booked online, unlocked by a smart card, automatically paid by credit card and invisibly monitored via GPS.
It is socially disruptive. Car sharing relies on people deferring or giving up car ownership. Importantly, it asks us to give up the emotional and cultural attachments we have to cars. Evidence is mounting that millennials are swapping out the car for the phone as a status symbol.
Car sharing does not significantly challenge regulatory frameworks or political interests. It does rely on parking space, though, and local governments have quickly developed car-sharing policies to balance the needs of sustainable transport with access to on-street and off-street parking. While providing dedicated parking space to car-share organisations has been politically controversial, the regulatory supports were easily identified and mobilised.
Car sharing is a case where the lifestyles, values, technologies and regulation are aligned – a sustainability success story.
<h2>Personal mobility devices – a disruption in limbo</h2>
Personal mobility devices, known as PMDs, are more disruptive and a less successful sustainable transport option thus far in Australia. These are personal, battery-powered or motorised modes of transport designed for an individual to use on footpaths or shared paths. They include Segway, YikeBike or two-wheel motorised “Razor” scooters.
These devices allow the rider to travel short distances quickly without physical effort. Their small size makes them easily transferable between transport. This means they can bridge the “first and last mile” – between home and transit and work.
Despite their popularity, which is visible on city streets, PMDs are unable to be legally ridden on roads, footpaths, shared paths or cycleways in most Australian states. They do not meet vehicle standards and cannot be registered or legally used on roads.
Most of these devices are too dissimilar from bicycles, even electric bikes, to be classed as bicycles. Motorisation and wheels also rule out their classification as a pedestrian.
With the exception of some devices for tourism, PMDs remain in limbo in most Australian states. There was a move in Queensland in 2013 when a policy framework to regulate the use of PMDs was implemented. These regulations specified what a PMD is and how/where it can be used.
PMDs were defined as pedestrians to be used in pedestrian environments. Strict rules applied. Riders must:
<ul>
<li>
not exceed 12 kilometres per hour;
</li>
<li>
be 12 years or over; and
</li>
<li>
wear a helmet.
</li>
</ul>
In short, regulatory settings were modified to allow these new forms of technology, though not without debate.
How might these means of moving about the city be accommodated or become part of ordinary transport? For these devices to be used as transport, they need to get people travelling faster than walking without compromising safety.
<h2>Driverless cars – are we ready?</h2>
The stuff of science fiction 50 years ago, some technological optimists today predict driverless cars will be in our cities within five years. Indeed, autonomous cars are already here. New cars have adaptive cruise control, lane departure warnings, collision avoidance and parking assist.
Robotic vehicles are increasingly common in agriculture and mining. With researchers turning their attention to the realities of life with driverless cars, regulation and social impact are once again emerging as key issues.
A recent assessment by the National Transport Commission of Australia found that 716 provisions from two conventions, 32 acts and 21 regulations need to be addressed before autonomous vehicles become commonplace. Fundamentally, legal and insurance frameworks need to rethink a driver, and who is responsible when there is no driver.
There are also considerable privacy implications of tracking and the ubiquitous sensing and data collection that these vehicles require. While the technology is almost there, our policy frameworks are not quite there.
Research also shows that people are not quite ready for autonomous cars. Car makers are working in more sophisticated ways to ensure that autonomous cars talk to passengers, telling them when they are and are not in control and what is around them.
Businesses, on the other hand, are increasingly ready for autonomous cars, especially through shared transport. In the US, General Motors has invested significantly in ride-sharing business Lyft. General Motors expects autonomous cars to be operating within ten years.
Uber is conducting its own trials of autonomous vehicles. Increasingly, it appears that economic and social conditions are more likely to support driverless buses, at least short term.
Evidence is mounting that our cities, citizens, businesses and policymakers are getting ready for a future where transport technologies that are neither car nor public transport are commonplace. Mismatches remain between technology, social life and regulation, but their alignments, especially around shared transport, are proving successful.
Robyn Dowling is professor and associate dean Research, University of Sydney and author for The Conversation. She can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/robyn-dowling-90213" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Smart cities: does this mean more transport disruptions?

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/57114/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Value capture secures some of the benefits delivered by public investment to offset the costs of provision. The notion has been around in various forms for a while, but recently gained steam. Prime Minister’s Malcolm Turnbull’s Smart Cities Plan touts value capture as a way to better distribute “the costs and benefits in publicly funded infrastructure to facilitate a project that may not otherwise occur”.
But there’s a lot of confusion about what value capture actually means and how it might operate in Australia.
<h2>What is ‘value capture’?</h2>
Public investment in a new rail line or motorway can generate huge increases in surrounding land values. In part the increase derives from improved accessibility for existing residents and businesses. High windfalls also arise once land has been rezoned to capitalise on higher development opportunities generated by the new infrastructure.
Since public investments and decisions are intended to maximise community benefit, it seems unfair and inefficient that some private landowners profit immensely from the process while others gain little or may even be disadvantaged.
Value capture mechanisms seek to rectify this by clawing back at least some of the increased business revenue or land value. These funds are then allocated towards the initial costs of infrastructure provision. In the case of a planning change, land value uplift can also help ensure that affordable housing for low income groups is included in new development.
<h2>How does value capture work?</h2>
The PM’s Smart Cities Plan doesn’t offer much detail as to how a value capture model would operate in Australia. Several different approaches are used overseas, but their potential transferability is unclear.
Transit value capture is used in Hong Kong and Japan to fund railway lines and new town development. This is a project-based approach which packages investment in railway and housing development together. Commercial holdings along the railway line deliver an ongoing revenue stream as does long term investment in residential development. In Hong Kong, a significant program of public rental and subsidised home ownership has also been delivered as part of this model.
Project-based transit value depends on access to large swathes of low cost land (in Hong Kong the government retains land ownership, so the land component is essentially free). It also depends on ongoing residential and commercial investment along the new route over time, which in turn assumes buoyant economic growth. When the Japanese economy stagnated, the potential for railway operators to self-finance their projects did too.
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) is used widely in the US to finance new transit and urban renewal projects. The model draws on anticipated increases in business revenue or rents in areas where incremental value uplift will occur. A portion of the increase is captured via a special property tax which is then allocated to repay the debt.
Australian local governments can also introduce special purpose levies to fund specific items through property taxes or rates. The Gold Coast light rail project for instance, was partly financed via the council’s annual transport levy (now around $111). However, since the levy applies to all ratepayers, rather than confined to areas where direct value uplift occurred, this doesn’t represent value capture in the strict sense of the term.
Value capture through the planning process is another approach. Unlike development contributions, which in Australia are used to internalise the costs of servicing a particular project (like roads, carparks, or footpaths), so they aren’t borne by existing ratepayers, value capture focuses on the benefits (often called “betterment” or “planning gain”) accruing from public investment or planning decisions.
One way of capturing value created through public investment or planning is to levy the charge on the first property transaction (ie. land sale) following the change. Another is to add an additional levy to existing contributions paid by developers.
The NSW government’s foreshadowed “Special Infrastructure Contribution” for new residential development along the Parramatta Rd light rail corridor ($200 per metre of gross floor area) is a recent example.
While this amounts to around $20,000 an apartment (at most about 3% of current sales prices), industry lobby group the Urban Taskforce claim the levy will discourage development and hurt home buyers. That’s cheeky since house prices are set by the market – which in the case of a light rail corridor will rise by much more than 3%. Ultimately the Taskforce worries that value capture places “an unfair burden on particular sectors of society” by which they presumably mean landowners and developers.
<h2>What would need to happen to extend value capture models in Australia?</h2>
Besides the politics, a number of issues must be addressed if value capture is to be extended in Australia. First, calculating value uplift is complex. Often land prices rise well in anticipation of investment or a planning change, so robust framework for value capture should be in place well before such speculation might occur.
Second, value capture should not discourage development or make land acquisition more expensive. This means close attention to project viability when setting capture requirements. Third, robust mechanisms for collection through either the planning process, as an ongoing property tax, or when land is sold, are needed.
Finally, although the current conversation focuses on transport, over time there will be pressure to fund other socially beneficial infrastructure. Two obvious candidates are schools, which also improve land values, or affordable housing, which is often lost when land values rise.
However fuzzy current conversations about value capture may be, the Commonwealth’s new interest in cities and the need to support more affordable homes near public transport, is welcome. So too the recognition that public investment and policy changes in urban and regional areas generate enormous value, which can and should be shared more widely.
Nicole Gurran is professor - Urban and Regional Planning, University of Sydney and author for The Conversation. She can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/nicole-gurran-759" target="_blank">here</a>.
Stewart Lawler is lecturer in Property and Built Environment, University of Sydney and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/stewart-lawler-262628" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

What is ‘value capture’ and what does it mean for cities?

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/57114/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
The federal government’s recently released Smart Cities Plan is built on three pillars: smart investment, smart policy and smart technology. Yet, it also suggests that cities are first and foremost for people and if our cities are to continue to meet their residents’ needs, it is essential for people to engage and participate in planning and policy decisions that have an impact on their lives.
Despite this quintessential policymaking statement, the plan largely uses language that conveys a limited role for people in cities: they live, work and consume. The absence of a more thorough response is surprising considering the rich body of work calling for better human engagement in the smart city agenda.
South Korea’s early “U-city” (ubiquitous city) experiments, such as New Songdo, were engineered by the national chaebol such as Samsung and SK Telecom, and their deployment was assisted by top-down policy directives. Germaine Halegoua laments a missed opportunity to use the ubiquitous computing at the core of the U-city for community engagement and participation.
Eric Jaffe critiques Rio de Janeiro’s flawed smart city brain, the Integrated Centre of Command and Control, made by IBM. He <a href="">proposes four key lessons</a>, all of which point to the forgotten focus on people. In the same city, however, there is also hope.
<h2>People-first approach</h2>
Alessandra Orofino founded Meu Rio, Rio de Janeiro’s largest mobilisation network, which is now expanding to the rest of the world. In her TED talk, she suggests:
It’s our city. Let’s fix it.
What this simple statement entails is profound: the citizen’s right to the digital city. It is a cultural shift in thinking that people have to be at the core of any smart city agenda. And urban dwellers ought to be enabled not only to actively participate in city-making, but also to lead such initiatives.
There are more and more accounts reminding us that the city is more than just a space governed by investments, policies and technology. Martijn de Waal describes his notion of city as interface. Barbara Thornton considers the city as platform. And Ethan Zuckerman takes us back to when cities were appreciated for their function as serendipity engines that allow for the sagacious discovery of diversity.
<h2>Open and agile cities</h2>
What comes hand in hand with this renewed focus on people is a changing role of local governments away from roads, rates and rubbish, and towards enabler and facilitator, and towards cities being open and agile.
Open data is a pertinent example to illustrate this process. In the early days of Government 2.0, the focus was on identifying government-held datasets that could be made available in public repositories such as data.gov.au.
These days, the Open Data Institute Queensland, the Open &amp; Agile Smart Cities network and other entities are prompting governments to go further: to support new private-public partnerships that bridge the common triad of disconnect between technology and government, government and people, and people and technology. Nationally, a leader of such partnership models is Code for Australia.
Cat Matson is on a quest as the City of Brisbane’s chief digital officer to transform it into a truly smart, connected city. From her recent visit to Singapore, she brought back key lessons for Brisbane and other local governments:
<ul>
<li>Design a city (or a solution/system) that, when you’re no longer in government, you’ll be proud of.</li>
<li>Identify real problems, for industry, citizens or government, which could be solved with a digital solution.</li>
<li>Use design thinking to develop solutions to those problems.</li>
<li>Get as many stakeholders involved in that design-thinking process as possible.</li>
<li>Be smart about the role of government and industry in executing those solutions.</li>
</ul>
<h2>Spaces for urban and civic innovation</h2>
Cities have not only to focus on people first and be open and agile, they also have to provide space – digital and physical – for people to come together and collaborate on urban and civic innovations. The most successful examples demonstrate an appreciation for a diverse range of places that form a network or a local innovation ecosystem.
Such spaces are not limited to the typical business startup incubators. In fact, they are often skunkworks that are free, open and messy, because the process of creative imagination that leads to innovation is messy.
In London, the British government’s innovation program devoted to cities, the Future Cities Catapult, has paired up with 100 Resilient Citiesand Ordnance Survey’s Geovation Hub to create the Urban Innovation Centre.
In Vancouver, local universities and the City of Vancouver have partnered to create CityStudio Vancouver:
… an innovation hub inside City Hall where staff, university students and community members co-create, design and launch projects on the ground. The central mission of CityStudio is to innovate and experiment with the ways cities are co-created, while teaching students the skills needed to collaborate on real projects in Vancouver with City staff and community stakeholders. These projects improve our city and enrich our neighbourhoods, making the city more liveable, joyful and sustainable.
In Melbourne, Code for Australia has opened the first Civic Lab.
Considering Australia’s staggering level of urbanisation – close to 90 percent of the population – it will be paramount to think carefully about how best to invest in the future of our cities. Governments and policymakers have to recognise and enable people as active agents of change towards more habitable and sustainable cities.
Marcus Foth is professor, Urban Informatics, Queensland University of Technology and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/marcus-foth-199317" target="_blank">here</a>.
 
</body></html>

Early experiments show a smart city plan should start with people first

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/73851/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVERS
Australia, one of the world’s most urbanised nations, is looking to up its investment in digital technologies to make our cities work better.
In coming months, tech companies, local governments and other eligible organisations will be teaming up to apply for round one of the federal government’s A$50 million Smart Cities and Suburbs Program. The program is seeking ideas for prototypes and platforms that can help solve a local urban challenge of some kind.
As the draft guidelines suggest, project funding could be used for anything from managing waste better, making local precincts more liveable, or helping citizens become more engaged with their councils, to developing systems that help planners better predict local development impacts.
Compared to other areas of federal infrastructure spending – like roads – $50 million for smart city investments may not sound like much. But it’s a bit of a windfall for an area that has struggled to get off the ground in Australia for the past few years.
Australia has been in no hurry to become smart. Overseas, many cities have put significant effort into building their profile as smart cities. They have invested in technology acceleration, data analytics, visualisation and instrumentation programs, and so on.
Before launching the federal program, Australia had made relatively few investments in smart city programs. Those investments remained relatively modest.
The benefits of not rushing in
In retrospect, perhaps this wasn’t such a bad thing. It’s now widely recognised that, despite the rhetoric of technology vendors, much of the early investment in smart cities failed to demonstrate significant benefits to cities and their citizens.
This period of “Smart Cities 1.0” investment was dominated by relatively small or experimental prototypes involving separate systems and infrastructures. Think a Cisco smart light trial, combined with a smart parking app. These have been small, interesting prototypes, but not necessarily generating the efficiencies and value sometimes claimed for smart cities.
Adelaide and Cisco have run a smart street lighting trial in the CBD.
The embrace of relatively small or experimental prototypes in Smart Cities 1.0 created vertical “data silos” and failed to scale or demonstrate real benefits. The emerging logic of “Smart Cities 2.0” is quite different. Smart Cities 2.0 investments focus on creating platforms for data access, sharing, re-use and inter-operability.
Part of the reason for this shift lies in the changing nature of the technologies themselves. Our urban environments are turning into landscapes populated by more and more connected “Things” equipped with many different sensors for data capture and analytics. This is driving a growing need for inter-operable platforms and standards that give more players wider access to city data.
A city that invests in these platforms can kick-start a wider technology ecosystem, enabling innovation in city services to thrive.
The emerging critical infrastructures for Smart Cities 2.0 are turning out to be city data markets, data exchanges, and data protocols, standards and specifications. These have been developed by groups like the Hypercat and LORA alliances.
It is becoming more clear that these infrastructures will require more strategic collaborations between governments, industry, communities, citizens and researchers.
Reinventing government as ‘a platform’?
For those of us who are happy to hear tech vendors talk about data sharing and open innovation, this all sounds great. We do hope some of this thinking makes its way into the funding of pilots and prototypes under the Smart Cities and Suburbs Program.
But we should be mindful here that what is perhaps most radical about this new phase is not the technologies themselves, but the way they are repositioning the role of government.
Governments are increasingly positioning themselves as the “platform” for wider innovation in data services. Australia’s Digital Transformation Office has embraced this idea of services “built on a shared (data) core”. Many other agencies are following suit.
But if cities “run on information” are going to make a real difference, we need to think about how these new platforms can be used to overcome the endemic governance challenges our cities face.
Major Australian cities are made up of a patchwork of local government areas overlaid with state and federal jurisdictions responsible for transport, education, health and so on. No single agency “runs” the city. Many of them even work against each other.
The result is that instruments for strategic planning, like the metropolitan strategy, have tended to remain relatively weak. Modelled on the Greater London Authority, the Greater Sydney Commission represents a shift towards metropolitan-scale governance. This creates an opportunity to scale up investments in data infrastructures, building scalable city-wide data architecture like the London Data Store.
Though we might not be able to solve the endemic challenges of patchwork municipal governance, we can encourage our city governments to invest in data-rich platforms to help foster data-driven collaborations and services that benefit our cities.
Responsive governance the key
The ingredients of a smart city include a raft of technology innovations, as well as a willingness to experiment with new ways of doing things.
Today’s Internet of Things technologies, data analytics platforms and sensor-enabled services are sure to deliver new ways to understand, visualise and analyse the nature and scale of many of our most pressing urban challenges.
But solving challenges such as waste management, urban liveability and land-use planning will require more than technology investments, data-capture services or digital prototypes. Solutions will also depend on effective long-term partnerships within and beyond government.
While the digital infrastructure is no doubt important, it will be the city governments that invest in new ways to collaborate and co-innovate that will ultimately lead the way in delivering the smarter, more responsive services our cities so desperately need.
 
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/sarah-barns-110278" target="_blank">Sarah Barns </a>is Urban Studies Foundation Postdoctoral research fellow, Institute for Culture and Society, Western Sydney University. <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/donald-mcneill-98531" target="_blank">Donald McNeill </a>is professor of Urban and Cultural Geography, Western Sydney University. <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ellie-cosgrave-183099" target="_blank">Ellie Cosgrave </a>is research associate, UCL. <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/michele-acuto-103167" target="_blank">Michele Acuto </a>is professor of Diplomacy and Urban Theory, UCL.
All are authors for The Conversation.
 
</body></html>

From Smart Cities 1.0 to 2.0: it’s not (only) about the tech

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Smart cities create a symbiosis between information, the Internet of Things and technologies to make better decisions and provide desired services. 
These cities map community preferences to improve services and infrastructure including public transport, libraries and waste services. 
They use sensors, Bluetooth and iPhones to track conditions and activities and send awareness messages ahead of emerging problems and disasters.
Smart cities integrate businesses in an expanding global innovation network. They do much more than creating a single great product or industry to stay ahead of the innovation curve. They develop visioning initiatives to create their preferred futures.
But making products that “change the world” does help keep locations in the news. Hyperloop systems to increase the speed and lower the cost of travel are synonymous with Californian innovators. Augmented reality glasses that will remove the need to work at your PC put New York developers in the spotlight. Singapore is known for its digital economy and driverless taxis.
Smart cities cannot afford to be complacent about their achievements. If they stand still, they will soon be overtaken by further innovation.
Digital disrupter Uber plans to add driverless cars to its ride-sharing network. The next innovative mode of travel around smart cities will be autonomous aerial vehicles – drones and quadcopters. Dubai plans to have passenger drones up and running within months.
How can cities stay ahead of the curve?
For futurist Sohail Inayatullah, progressive innovation is empowering (increasing inclusion), nature-based (learning from, protecting and often enhancing through new technologies) and purposeful.
Mayors, CEOs and leaders create a progressive culture that attracts and retains talented staff. Smart organisations improve staff skills and design reflective spaces. They provide a healthy lifestyle culture supported by excellent pay and conditions.
They also encourage employees to participate in innovation hubs, city labs, maker spaces, universities and business start-ups, and via shared platforms with Creative Commons licences.
California’s high-tech companies – Apple, Facebook, Yahoo, Netflix, eBay, Tesla and the like – gain product feedback from customers and New York financiers every year at CES in Las Vegas. CES 2017 displayed TVs with 2.5mm screens that vibrate to make sound, holographic displays, eye-tracking phones and an electric car that accelerates from 0-59km per hour in 2.39 seconds. While products on display were designed in US cities, global suppliers made many of them.
Cities also stay ahead of the innovation curve through the actions of industry leaders who promote the diversity and stability of local workforces. In 2008, US smart cities benefited from the support of Microsoft founder Bill Gates, who testified to the importance of hiring foreigners.
Microsoft, along with Amazon and Expedia, again supported Washington State in 2017 by testifying against US President Donald Trump’s immigration ban. In a joint message of co-operative governance to protect global relationships, 16 US attorneys-general rallied against the presidential executive order denying entry to citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries. They rejected the immigration ban for undermining national security and America’s core values as a “nation of immigrants”.
Separating reality from hype
Smart city “reality” is about co-creation at the fastest rate in history. This relies on physical and digital connectivity, openness to global markets and high-speed internet. By 2020, Australians will enjoy a 5G wireless internet service with speeds 100 times fast than the current NBN.
High-speed connectivity is needed to support virtual reality and rich entertainment experiences. SpaceX wants to launch 4,425 satellites, rebuilding the internet in space to create a “full and continuous global coverage”.
For leaders, smart city “reality” also means promoting their city’s unique benefits. Socially inclusive, affordable cities with liveable climates attract talented staff.
Australia’s largest city, Sydney, offers those conditions. It is a global leader in bio-tech, high-tech manufacturing. It also has some of the highest levels of sustainability and natural environmental open space in the world.
Compared to London, Sydney rates better for political stability, crime rate, cost of living and cost of rent. Sydney is similar to London in productivity, world university rankings, and health system performance.
Cities with the most advanced technology and liveability include Sydney, London, Stockholm, Seoul and Toronto.
Aligning innovation to emerging futures
Smart cities reduce hype by creating visions. Visioning imagines socially inclusive, sustainable and transformational futures and consequences before enacting them.
When delivering foresight workshops, I use the acronym SELECTFTGP – for “select futures that grow possibilities”. This seeks to encompass all systems: social, environmental, legislative, economic, cultural, technological, futures, transport, governance and political. Considering all social possibilities and impacts, before narrowing to preferred futures, helps to avoid “hype”.
The Australian government has a national Smart Cities Plan. The plan emphasises attraction of talent, accessibility, connecting high-density housing and job centres and high-quality urban design. It recommends a smart city reference group to improve stakeholder engagement, a national cities performance framework, and City Deals.
Queensland is including a Townsville City Deal in its draft regional planning framework, ShapingSEQ. The City Deal will “hard wire” ShapingSEQ through an agreed delivery mechanism for project prioritisation, funding and governance. Submissions on the draft document close March 3, 2017.
Brisbane, Gold Coast, Logan, Sunshine Coast and Geelong have applied futures studies methods to their city visioning.
Smart cities will advance across the Australian landscape when state governments legislate for cities to create and align 20-to-30-year visions to their emerging futures.
Colin Russo is futurist, University of the Sunshine Coast and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/colin-russo-267108" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Here’s what smart cities do to stay ahead

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Significant urban policy and planning efforts have been directed at the problem of rising heat in cities.
“Smart” cities create new relationships and interdependencies between people, technology and urban environments. The concept rests on the efficient, responsive and adaptive capacities of urban infrastructure. But how well does the smart city respond to the devastating scale and impact of urban heat threats such as bushfires and heatwaves?
The Australian Medical Association has warned heat is a “silent killer”. It notes that more Australians die each year due to heat than on the roads. Heatwaves have contributed to more deaths in Australia than any other natural disaster.
Bushfires are also expected to increase, with significant impacts on Australian cities and urban communities such as the greater Melbourne region.
This is a pressing issue for Australian cities and urban regions, at a time when Australian climatologists are warning of the increasing frequency, severity and duration of heatwaves and bushfires.
Smart urban infrastructure
New digital technology is entering cities, homes and workplaces. These are performing complex tasks. Self-driving cars and cashless payment systems are examples of significant change. But they also increase a city’s vulnerability in the event of a system breakdown or failure.
The ways that these dependencies make cities highly vulnerable during a crisis are poorly understood. For example, smartphone-enabled bushfire and heatwave warning systems are one of the key policy responses proposed and trialled as part of the smart city. But, the benefits and challenges of such responses are still largely unknown.
While the invisibility of smart city technology and infrastructure may rise to the surface and become exposed in the face of urban heat-related threats and crises, an array of important considerations lurk in the shadows.
These include financial arrangements, decision-making processes and discussions about security that are often imbued with statutory power, force and intent that work to inform and structure the experience of everyday urban life.
System resilience or collapse?
Smart systems are far from resilient. Outside their design range they are prone to sudden collapse. Any failure in energy or IT systems can lead to cascading crisis in the capacity for smart city responses to heat threats and disasters.
In a heatwave, as demand increases for cooling mechanisms such as air conditioning and refrigeration, an overloaded system may break down.
The rapid expansion of mobile and computer warning and alert systems could keep people more aware of risks. But, it also creates dependencies and a reliance on external agents for tasks we currently manage. The relationship between emergency communication processes and protocols is a key area whereby vertical, authorised and often-slow communications must interact with horizontal, real-time, networked and participatory processes.
The royal commission into Victoria’s Black Saturday bushfires recommended that more efficient and effective use of technology was needed in key areas such as fire risk assessment, tracking and monitoring – particularly when different, incompatible systems were in use.
The commission highlighted widespread problems with communication technology, use and access due to system incompatibility, poor coverage, radio black spots and channel congestion. Under-investment in new technology was exacerbated when fire damaged or destroyed critical radio and telecommunications infrastructure.
An urgent cities agenda
Urban heat threats and disasters have an impact on the critical infrastructure that undergird the smart city response to such disasters and their associated technology, infrastructures and networked systems – namely in the areas of energy, water, ICT and transport.
The impacts are felt predominantly by those most vulnerable in the community: children, the elderly, the poor and people with existing health conditions.
Understanding the dynamism and tension of new technologies, networks and infrastructure is critical, particularly when urban systems are threatened or break down. Despite recognition of the complexity in smart city debates, policy and industry commentary places clear demarcations between the social and the technical.
There is an urgent need to develop new understandings and ways of implementing the potentials and possibilities the smart city presents in order to better tackle urban heat threats and disasters in Australia.
 
Wendy Steele is associate professor (urban policy and planning), RMIT University and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/wendy-steele-4698" target="_blank">here</a>.
Ian McShane, senior research fellow, Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ian-mcshane-101456" target="_blank">here</a>.
John Handmer is leader, Centre for Risk and Community Safety, RMIT University and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/john-handmer-116367" target="_blank">here</a>.
Sarah Pink is professor of Social Sciences, RMIT University and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/sarah-pink-109198" target="_blank">here</a>.
Yolande Strengers is senior research fellow, Centre for Urban Research, RMIT University and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/yolande-strengers-15350" target="_blank">here</a>.
All are authors for The Conversation.
</body></html>

Hot cities: the ‘smart’ response to urban heat threats

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/57114/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
The Australian government recently released an ambitious Smart Cities Plan, which suggests that cities should be first and foremost for people:
If our cities are to continue to meet their residents’ needs, it is essential for people to engage and participate in planning and policy decisions that have an impact on their lives.
Such statements are a good starting point – and should probably become central to Australia’s implementation efforts. A lot of knowledge has been collected over the past decade from successful and failed smart cities experiments all over the world; reflecting on them could provide useful information for the Australian government as it launches its national plan.
<h2>What is a smart city?</h2>
But, before embarking on such review, it would help to start from a definition of “smart city”.
The term has been used and abused in recent years, so much so that today it has lost meaning. It is often used to encompass disparate applications: we hear people talk and write about “smart city” when they refer to anything from citizen engagement to Zipcar, from open data to Airbnb, from smart biking to broadband.
Where to start with a definition? It is a truism to say the internet has transformed our lives over the past 20 years. Everything in the way we work, meet, mate and so on is very different today than it was just a few decades ago, thanks to a network of connectivity that now encompasses most people on the planet.
In a similar way, we are today at the beginning of a new technological revolution: the internet is entering physical space – the very space of our cities – and is becoming the Internet of Things; it is opening the door to a new world of applications that, as with the first wave of the internet, can incorporate many domains.
From a more philosophical point of view, one could refer to the great Xerox-Park computer scientist Mark Weiser, and his idea of non-intrusive – or “calm” – technology. Weiser wrote:
Ubiquitous computing names the third wave in computing, just now beginning. First were mainframes, each shared by lots of people. Now we are in the personal computing era, person and machine staring uneasily at each other across the desktop. Next comes ubiquitous computing, or the age of calm technology, when technology recedes into the background of our lives.
<h2>What should governments do?</h2>
In the above technological context, what should governments do? Over the past few years, the first wave of smart city applications followed technological excitement.
For instance, some of Korea’s early experiments such as Songdo City were engineered by the likes of Cisco, with technology deployment assisted by top-down policy directives.
In a similar way, in 2010, Rio de Janeiro launched the Integrated Centre of Command and Control, engineered by IBM. It’s a large control room for the city, which collects real-time information from cameras and myriad sensors suffused in the urban fabric.
Such approaches revealed many shortcomings, most notably the lack of civic engagement. It is as if they thought of the city simply as a “computer in open air”. These approaches led to several backlashes in the research and academic community.
A more interesting lesson can come from the US, where the focus is more on developing a rich Internet of Things innovation ecosystem. There are many initiatives fostering spaces – digital and physical – for people to come together and collaborate on urban and civic innovations.
In the US, the general idea of smart urban space has been central to the current generation of successful start-ups. One of the latest examples is Uber: a smartphone app that lets anyone call a cab or be a driver. The company’s operations are polarising – Uber has been the subject of protests and strikes around the world (mainly in Europe) – yet it was recently valued at a stratospheric US$50 billion.
Beyond Uber, the Nest learning thermostat, the apartment-sharing website Airbnb and the recently announced “home operating system” by Apple, to name a few, attest to the new frontiers of digital information when it inhabits physical space.
Similar approaches now promise to revolutionise most aspects of urban life – from commuting to energy consumption to personal health. As such, they are receiving eager support from venture capital funds.
In such a context, governments could use their funds to develop an organic innovation ecosystem geared toward smart cities, similar to the one that is growing in the US. It is more about bottom-up innovation than top-down schemas.
This must go beyond supporting traditional incubators and aim to produce and nurture the regulatory frameworks that allow innovations to thrive. Considering the legal hurdles that continuously plague applications like Uber or Airbnb, this level of support is sorely needed.
<h2>So, any active smart city role for Canberra?</h2>
That isn’t to say that governments should take a completely hands-off approach to urban development. Governments certainly have an important role to play. This includes supporting academic research and promoting applications in fields that might be less appealing to venture capital – unglamorous but nonetheless crucial domains such as municipal waste or water services.
The public sector can also promote the use of open platforms and standards in such projects, which would speed up adoption in cities worldwide.
Still, the overarching goal should always be to focus on citizens. They are in the best position to determine how to transform their cities and to make decisions that will have – as the Australian Smart Cities Plan puts it – “an impact on their lives”.
Carlo Ratti is director of MIT Senseable City Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/carlo-ratti-260160" target="_blank">here</a>.
 
</body></html>

Smart Cities

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Smart Cities

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News