You’re Looking At Smart Cities Wrong

Richard Bradbury: It’s hot in the city. And if Matt Armitage thinks I’m going to read out the lyrics to a Billy Idol song on air, he’s sadly mistaken. We’re talking about smart cities today. Let’s leave it at that.

Richard Bradbury: Billy Idol?

Matt Armitage:

• My way of saying welcome back, we missed you.

• And it has been really hot here while you’ve been away. So this is a good time to talk about smart cities.

• A couple of years ago I did some work with Think City, a Malaysian NGO that specialises in urban policy.

• I did a lot of research at the time around smart cities, walkable cities, liveable cities etc.

• We also covered Quayside, a far-reaching urban development project that was being planned by Sidewalk Labs, an urban innovation division of Alphabet.

• Which aimed to transform part of a moribund 2,000-acre site in Toronto’s waterfront into one of the world’s smartest developments.

• The 12-acre development, with sensors on and in everything – providing real-time feedback about traffic flows, resident needs.

• All kinds of variables that could be used to constantly tweak and upgrade the neighbourhood, so that it remained permanently and optimally usable.

• That’s the utopian pitch. Toronto residents were worried about handing all of that data over to a commercial company.

• Fearing that it would have amounted to a pervasive and all-encompassing surveillance system that would have stripped them of their right to privacy.

• And lots of automated innovation: autonomous taxis and rubbish collection, heated sidewalks and all those data layers.

• It was a $900m project.

Richard Bradbury: Wasn’t the project cancelled because of the pandemic?

Matt Armitage:

• I think that was the official reason.

• But – it wasn’t even so much behind the scenes – there was a lot of brinksmanship going on.

• Toronto residents rebelling against the data harvesting.

• Sidewalk Labs apparently adopting a take it or leave it approach to the project.

• Either we keep the data or the deal’s off.

• So it didn’t look like there was much middle ground as neither side seemed to be able to budge.

• I’m kind of torn – it would have been an interesting project but the data should

o A – be created with the consent of the residents, with the right to opt-out or at least view what information was captured about them and choose to purge it.

o B – any data captured should be classed as a public good, not belong to a private entity.

• We’ve talked about the benefits of an open data approach in urban planning before.

• The various agencies, departments and municipalities that operate in cities generate troves of data that have typically been siloed.

• Open urban data policies allow that information to be linked and mined for all kinds of creative uses to improve the lives of residents.

Richard Bradbury: But this kind of approach - the Sidewalk Labs approach – isn’t unique. There are plenty of smart city developments across the world that operate on a similar model.

Matt Armitage:

• Yeah, so one of those projects.

• Is the Line at NEOM in Saudi Arabia which takes a radically different approach to urban planning, in that the cityscape is envisaged to be 100km long but only about 400m wide.

• So the whole city is basically one long street. Check out the launch videos.

• I’m not sure it’s even physically possible to realise that vision.

• To answer your question: yes, There are plenty of smart city projects that take are highly data-centric.

• NEOM seems to be one of them.

• And most of them are in countries where there is less openness and transparency, and less of an expectation of individual privacy rights.

• So this was a kind of test case – would the public be willing to trade their privacy rights for utility – for better living and working conditions.

• And the answer, in the case of Toronto at least, seems to be no.

• So that leaves us with a question.

Richard Bradbury: You leave us with so many questions. Most of which we don’t want answers to.

Matt Armitage:

• And as Richard knows, facetiousness makes me more truculent.

• In this instance, the question is what happened to the development.

• Sidewalk Labs may have walked away. But Toronto still had this 12 acre plot of land to develop.

• For most people the story started and ended with Sidewalks Lab.

• But there’s a fascinating report on MIT Tech Review about the site’s new plans.

• Which is what we’re using as jump-off point today.

• One of the things we often overlook in these explorations of technology and innovation.

• Is human technology and innovation. We head straight for sensors and data harvesting and AI and automation.

• But those aren’t the only ways to employ technology in the places we live.

Richard Bradbury: What do the new plans for the site look like?

Matt Armitage:

• Very different. A two-acre forest is part of the plan. As well as an urban farm.

• The whole development is very green. Not just in the carbon neutral sense, which it is.

• But in the sense of greenery.

• There are five towers and there are trees and climbing plants everywhere in the renderings.

• So, it’s very walkable.

• Importantly for Toronto which has an affordable housing problem.

• There will be 800 affordable apartments in the development.

Richard Bradbury: Do you think this marks the end – in the West at least – of these very tech-centric smart cities?

Matt Armitage:

• Well, as the MIT piece points out, Toronto sees a kind of revival of the 19th century garden city idea.

popular in Europe in the late: 1900

• With the idea that public access to green spaces, and bringing elements of the countryside into urban environments.

• Was not only aesthetically pleasing, it’s also great for the health and wellbeing of urban dwellers as well.

• One of the things we saw during the early part of the lockdowns here in Malaysia, was how little access many people have to green spaces.

• Even when people were allowed to exercise in their apartment compounds or tamans.

• There would often be very little greenery for them to interact with.

• We’ve seen that in the explosion of interest in outdoor activities like hiking in Malaysia since the pandemic restrictions were eased.

• With people heading to forest reserves and into the jungle on their weekends and off-days.

• Our appreciation for green spaces has increased exponentially.

• Can I go off on a tangent – as this is loosely a weird science episodes, even if there is a smart city flavour.

Richard Bradbury: I’ll allow it.

Matt Armitage:

• Good to have you back. Far less sarcasm with Freda.

• This is a story from NS.

• We’re talking about the benefits of greenery in urban spaces.

• And how it’s good for mental health.

• Researchers have been interested in quantifying those effects for the past couple of decades.

• And interest has only intensified since the pandemic. It’s not just those rather nebulous ideas of happiness and well being.

• We’re increasingly finding empirical proof that green spaces boost memory and creativity.

• They can help to reduce the effects of depression, anxiety and even conditions like ADHD.

• And this is something that’s being reflected in urban planning.

• There’s mounting evidence that blue spaces – areas where green spaces meet water – could bring us even greater positive health effects.

• A recent study in the UK – a collaboration between the LSE and University of Sussex – recruited 20,000 people across the UK.

• They used a smartphone app to send questionnaires out to participants at random times, asking them how they were feeling.

• The key being that they had to respond to the survey instantly rather than leaving it until later, or until they felt less anxious or in a better mood.

• Don’t forget, this is a survey of British people.

• We always say we’re fine. Fallen off a ladder, yeah, I’m fine.

• My leg’s broken in 3 places but it could be worse. Hospital?

• No need. I’ll go see the doctor next week if it hasn’t mended itself by then.

Richard Bradbury: I’m guessing that the survey revealed that people were happier when they were around nature?

Matt Armitage:

• Thank you for bringing me back there.

• Otherwise, it was going to be my experimental one-man show for the next 20 minutes.

• Which would be really hard going. Especially as there’s a seven-minute puppetry component that may not come across well on radio.

• Yes, so the researchers collated more than a million responses. And because it’s a smartphone app they had –

• Sorry I was waiting for my puppet drum roll and realised we’re not doing that.

• As it’s an app they had location data. So yes, they were happier in nature.

• But they were most happy near water – at lakes, the coast, rivers.

• And there is a growing body of evidence supporting the benefits of blue spaces.

• The BlueHealth project is a consortium of researchers looking at the ways that water improves our wellbeing.

• And the results broadly show that we get the most benefit where green spaces and blue spaces meet.

• So, it’s not an either or thing. You’ll be much better off watching the birds at sunset at a lake, for example.

• Rather than just sitting on a lounger by your condo pool. But if that lounger by the pool is what you have access to, it still provides a boost.

Richard Bradbury: Do we know why we feel these connections to nature and water?

Matt Armitage:

• It’s something that has long fascinated behaviourists, philosophers, anthropologists and evolutionary scientists.

• One argument is that because we evolved in these natural settings, our brain seeks them out.

• There’s even an evolutionary theory – which is considered quite contentious by the way.

• That suggests that water played a role in our development as an upright, bipedal species.

• That our early ape ancestors as they moved out of forests and into aquatic environments.

• Would have been increasingly forced into that upright stance – to keep your head above water – as we negotiated those environments.

• But the one that intrigues me most is behavioural. The attention restoration theory.

• It dovetails with the digital amnesia show I did with Freda last week.

• Where we talked about the argument that digital devices are a constant distraction.

• Which disrupts our ability to experience events in the world around us and, consequently, to write down accurate memories of these events based on a partial and distracted experience of them.

Richard Bradbury: So this is an attention restoration theory?

Matt Armitage:

• Exactly that. It’s the idea that there are two types of attention.

• Involuntary, or voluntary, which is also known as directed attention.

• It’s top down versus bottom up.

• In involuntary thinking or attention, it’s bottom up: we’re being guided by sensory information and it controls our thoughts.

• In directed thinking, it’s top-down.

• We need to narrow our attention to concentrate on a single action or task.

• So the brain is working to exclude all that sensory input and additional stimuli.

• The idea is that directed thinking is much more process heavy. It’s mentally exhausting.

• Green and blue spaces trigger involuntary attention. Your eye is taken to trees and flowers.

• You’re smelling the air or feeling the breeze. And this actually gives your mind some pause, time to relax.

• You’re giving yourself over to the sensations. And it’s thought that because of the constantly evolving nature of blue spaces.

• The way patterns form on the water, its movement, the waves. That it’s providing additional stimuli to allow you to drift off within that involuntary space.

Richard Bradbury: I think we’ve just experienced hippy Matt for the very first time. Let’s see if he’s back to his usual self-destructive state after the break.

BREAK

Richard Bradbury: We’re looking at smart cities on Mattsplained today. Are we continuing with your water theory diversion?

Matt Armitage:

• Before the break you accused me of being self-destructive.

• Totally untrue. It’s everyone else that will be destroyed. I’ve got my bunker.

• And I’ve been training myself to crawl around in the dark for years.

• But yes, we’re heading back to smart cities after that diversion.

• We were talking about Quayside Toronto. And we touched on the topic of garden cities.

• Which was what prompted my sojourn into the blue.

• I think we have a perception issue when it comes to smart cities.

Richard Bradbury: In that they have to be tech-centric?

Matt Armitage:

• Yes. So one of the things about the Sidewalk Labs development was its Internet upwards approach.

• Yes, the building themselves were timber framed, environmentally conscious.

• But it was an Internet zero type approach. How do we connect everything?

• And the MIT piece points out that there are big differences between Canadians and Americans in the way private companies are viewed.

• In the US, as we see every day, there is huge public mistrust in the government.

• And in fact, private companies are likely to be more trusted to deliver public services than municipal or governmental bodies.

• In Canada it’s the opposite. The government and municipal authorities enjoy a good deal of public trust.

• Not so much for private companies. Hence the pushback from Toronto residents against the idea that all their publicly generated data would be owned by a private company.

• So there was a mismatch in perceptions and expectations between Sidewalk Labs and the residents of Toronto.

• A company that didn’t foresee the difference in public opinion on the Canadian side of the border.

• And a municipal body in Canada that didn’t seem to fully comprehend what the the privacy concerns or implications would be when they awarded the project to SL.

• But what we’re seeing in coverage of this story is that it’s the end of the smart city.

• And that’s a very binary, black and white approach.

Richard Bradbury: So, once again you’re arguing for the machines?

Matt Armitage:

• No. I mentioned human technology.

• We have this idea that smart has to mean digital.

• Building a two acre forest in the city is smart. It cleans and purifies the air.

• Having a green canopy throughout the city, provides shade and shelter.

• Not only that, it cools the surrounding area and reduces what are known as heat island effects.

• So the net result of that is not only a more liveable neighbourhood. It also reduces energy consumption.

• As the temperatures in those heat islands increase, you use more and more energy to cool the offices and shops and homes in that neighbourhood.

• Depending on how those green spaces are designed, they also provide water catchment and retention.

• We’re seeing some of the urban planning in China look back to traditional stepped terraces with rice paddies for inspiration.

• These are simple efforts that build resilience and allow towns and cities to adapt to changing climates and external shocks.

Richard Bradbury: So we’re using smart in the sense of clever?

Matt Armitage:

• In a way. But it’s more than that. These are still smart solutions in a technological sense.

• We know that if we put solar panels on the roofs of buildings, we can make communities more energy independent and less reliant on national grids.

• That in turn helps to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.

• Planting trees has a similar net effect. Especially when coupled with initiatives like expanding the use of solar panels.

• The tree is a technology to reduce energy use.

• But we don’t view it as a piece of technology. We view it as a tree.

• So, when people say that the idea of the smart city is dead. It isn’t.

• It’s evolving. Like the idea of the walkable neighbourhood or 15 minute cities.

• Those are highly smart.

• The idea that you have everything you need – from green spaces to retail to health services etc etc – within a 15 minute walk of your home.

• Is a very smart solution. And also one that is very complex to engineer.

Richard Bradbury: What types of benefits are we likely to see from these 15-minute city approaches?

Matt Armitage:

• This is a very basic response, given the time we have: you’re reducing the dependence of residents on cars and buses.

• Look at the commute times for people in the Klang Valley.

• If more of us were able to work close to where we live – which is a huge ask, those are difficult problems to solve.

• We need to travel less far, so there are fewer cars on the roads. We have more time to spend with family and on leisure activities.

• The same for meeting our daily needs. The less distance we travel, the better for those around us.

• Then you look at improving public transport links to connect those communities.

• And those last mile solutions: things like bicycle schemes and electric scooters, if managed well, can have a massive impact there, too.

• If I say to someone: here’s a by-the-hour hire bicycle to take you from the train station to your house.

• They don’t think of that as being a technology solution. Bikes aren’t technology.

• They look at the payment or hire app and see that as the technology.

• Out of the two, which is the more useful technology? Which one actually gets you home: the app or the bike?

Richard Bradbury: So it really is about switching our mindset and getting rid of preconceptions about what makes a city smart?

Matt Armitage:

• Considering the smart city concept is relatively new, it sounds out to say we have to throw away preconceptions.

• But that is the truth of it. Smart can be as straightforward as an economic diversification of the neighbourhood’s population.

• Look at the Toronto project: those 800 affordable apartments mean that people who work in the stores and offices in the district can actually afford to live there.

• That brings not only environmental benefits – because the lower paid workers don’t have to travel huge distances to work in the district –

• But economic benefits too. The income earned in the district is spent in the district.

• So you start to create these circular economies as well.

Richard Bradbury: Where does digital technology fit into these more analogue smart city approaches?

Matt Armitage:

• In most of the places it did before.

• In the sensors linked to the solar cells that tell you when to send energy into the national grid and when you need to import energy from the grid.

• The sensors measuring traffic flow and density. Are there areas in the neighbourhood where there are bottlenecks of cars, or bikes or pedestrians?

• And if so, how can you adapt the existing infrastructure to ease those bottlenecks?

• I think it was last year we talked about the 3D printed bridge that was installed over a canal in Amsterdam.

• Packed with sensors that provide feedback about the use of the bridge, how it reacts to temperature and weather conditions.

• Again, it’s this black and white approach. Data equals surveillance capitalism.

• But it doesn’t have to.

Richard Bradbury: Data that provides feedback rather than identifies individuals?

Matt Armitage:

• I know that’s a tall order in this world of masked identifiers.

• Ideally, the data should simply be providing feedback.

• The same with buildings. Sensors that switch lights off in offices when no one is using that part.

• Temperature and air quality monitors that allow a building to be managed more energy efficiently.

• External monitors that can tell you how well that tree canopy is functioning.

• Take the example of the urban farm that Think City built in Penang.

• Sensors help to adjust the nutrient and water mix that the vegetables receive.

• They can tell you when individual rows require more attention. Are they getting enough light or too many.

• Urban farms are typically small and intensive. So any breakdowns in the system can jeorpadise everything you’re growing.

• At the same time, the plants and fruits and vegetable crops attract insects and birds.

• They increase biodiversity. The insects can pollinate other plants across the district or beyond.

• So you start to see how the digital and analogue are not replacements for one another.

• They’re complementary. So when people say – this is the end of the smart city – what I think they really mean is that this is the end of the surveillance city.

• We have to make that tweak in our thinking: smart cities are not digital cities.

• They are liveable environments that blend the best components of all the technology we possess, whether it’s old like you or new like me.