Smart Cities

<html><body>
Darwin City Council installed a network of hundreds of new devices across the centre of the city last year. This web of “smart” lights, environmental sensors and video cameras is designed to give the council more power to monitor and manage urban places – and the people who occupy them.
The council says the A$10 million “<a href="https://www.darwin.nt.gov.au/council/transforming-darwin/key-projects/switchingondarwin" target="_blank">Switching on Darwin</a>” project is “delivering smart technology to encourage innovative solutions and enhance community life”. We argue it is better seen as a project of surveillance and control, which is embedded in a long history of settler-colonial urbanism.
Intensified surveillance
Journalists and <a href="https://www.facebook.com/events/505755470028036/permalink/515375359066047/" target="_blank">community members</a> alike worried about the project. The scale and rapid rollout of the project, some argued, meant it would erode Darwinians’ privacy through intensified surveillance.
The introduction of new digital surveillance measures in Darwin poses particular concerns for already marginalised groups, as ANU sociologists Gavin Smith and Pat O’Malley have pointed out. The most affected are likely to be Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, who are already disproportionately <a href="http://www.yjc.org.au/resources/YJC-STMP-Report.pdf" target="_blank">targeted</a>, <a href="https://www.griffithreview.com/articles/white-justice-black-suffering/" target="_blank">criminalised</a> and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/ng-interactive/2018/aug/28/deaths-inside-indigenous-australian-deaths-in-custody" target="_blank">incarcerated</a>.
The Darwin project also occurs in the context of the federal government’s plan to develop northern Australia. This development agenda has been criticised for, among other things, its <a href="https://newmatilda.com/2014/11/11/white-paper-black-australia-developing-whose-northern-australia-whom/" target="_blank">lack of interest</a> in the Indigenous people who are the traditional owners of much of the land.
Privacy concerns dismissed
Two of the chief concerns for Switching on Darwin critics were the possible use of facial recognition software and the potential involvement of Chinese tech company Huawei. Darwin’s lord mayor <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-13/darwin-smart-city-rollout-privacy-concerns-dismissed-lord-mayor/11203528" target="_blank">dismissed</a> criticisms as the baseless concerns of “conspiracy theorists”. He also gave advice to people worried about privacy: “don’t get a licence, give away your credit cards, and get out of Facebook”.
Compared with the <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0162243918806061" target="_blank">slick sales pitch</a> that usually accompanies smart city projects, the lord mayor’s blunt approach is more like the strident accusations of “fake news” that are now common in political discourse.
The logic of ‘smart cities’
But if we dig a little deeper, the lord mayor’s comments reveal a set of assumptions about “smart cities” that animate conversations about how cities should work in Australia.
First, that digital technologies – typically in the form of solutions and services bought from companies outside government – are a necessary part of <a href="https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/cities/city-deals/darwin/" target="_blank">“vibrant” and “liveable”</a> <a href="http://www.choosebrisbane.com.au/2022plan" target="_blank">“world cities”</a>.
Second, that privacy and surveillance issues are unfortunate byproducts of technological progress, but are outweighed by their benefits.
And finally, that technologies are straightforward non-political ways to change cities.
For governments and corporations, the vision of the smart city means a generic “public” enjoys more convenience, planners enjoys more information and efficiency, and politicians enjoy more growth and security. It’s an enticing vision, but it is built on faulty assumptions.
This vision assumes smart systems are simply a matter of technocratic management or corporate outsourcing and focuses on the supposedly unprecedented “disruption” of emerging technologies. In doing this, it overlooks important connections between the operations of smart urbanism and much older practices of colonial control.
Smart urban systems function in remarkably similar ways, for similar purposes and with similar outcomes. For example, the high-tech, data-driven systems that police now use to identify and assess people, like the New South Wales Police Force’s Suspect Targeting Management Plan, <a href="https://rlc.org.au/article/policing-young-people-nsw-study-suspect-targeting-management-plan" target="_blank">disproportionately target</a> the same exact marginalised groups who have always been subjected to over-policing – in this case young and/or Aboriginal people. But now these decisions can be hidden and justified by algorithmic analysis.
Existing power dynamics and structural inequalities cannot be erased by installing some new digital systems and declaring that the future city has arrived. Instead, the new systems can make these dynamics harder to see and at the same time entrench them more deeply.
Captured cities
In practice, the smart city is very different from the vision. It is better understood as the <a href="https://reallifemag.com/the-captured-city/" target="_blank">captured city</a>.
As a model for urban governance, the captured city takes the capabilities offered by smart systems and puts them to work in surveillance and control. Often this includes importing tools and ideas from military intelligence into police departments, and extending methods of colonial control – such as <a href="https://www.themonthly.com.au/today/amy-mcquire/2017/21/2017/1487653645/please-hold" target="_blank">welfare restrictions in Aboriginal communities</a> – to the population at large.
The city and its inhabitants are thus “captured”, both by surveillance that collects data and by authorities who control territory.
What happens to the captured city then will be shaped by the context in which the smart urban systems are deployed.
There is no reason to believe things will be different now because the boosters of smart urbanism drop a few buzzwords and make some lofty promises. Indeed, these technologies equip the state with even better tools to monitor and control its population – often by design. We’ve heard it all before, every time a tech executive or venture capitalist makes promises to fulfil the techno-utopian dream of disruption.
Darwin is not alone
Darwin is well on its way to becoming a captured city, but it is not alone. As all levels of government across Australia seek smarter ways of governing, examples of similar urban technologies being used in policing and control are springing up around the country.
These projects include a police scheme to target people who they believe may commit crimes in future in Sydney (which <a href="https://rlc.org.au/article/policing-young-people-nsw-study-suspect-targeting-management-plan" target="_blank">disproportionately affects Aboriginal people</a>), “<a href="https://westender.com.au/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/WETA-CPTED-Study.pdf" target="_blank">Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design</a>” guidelines in Brisbane and <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-08/city-of-perth-rolls-out-new-facial-recognition-cctv-cameras/11147780" target="_blank">facial recognition systems</a> in Perth.
These examples demonstrate how the perceived neutrality of smart city technology uses stories about progress, modernity and innovation to entrench and disguise existing urban injustices.
Ultimately, the “smart city” in Australia is best understood not as a break with older, analogue modes of governing urban space, but as a continuation of the settler-colonial project of <a href="http://radioskidrow.org/projects/survival-guide" target="_blank">displacement, enclosure and control</a>.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/127118/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jathan-sadowski-887412" target="_blank">Jathan Sadowski</a>, Research Fellow in the Emerging Technologies Research Lab, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/monash-university-1065" target="_blank">Monash University</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/anna-carlson-911286" target="_blank">Anna Carlson</a>, Researcher, School of Political Science &amp; International Studies, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/the-university-of-queensland-805" target="_blank">The University of Queensland</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/natalie-osborne-282804" target="_blank">Natalie Osborne</a>, Lecturer, School of Environment and Science, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/griffith-university-828" target="_blank">Griffith University</a>
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the original<a href="https://theconversation.com/darwins-smart-city-project-is-about-surveillance-and-control-127118" target="_blank"> article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Darwin's smart city project is about surveillance and control

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
The highest-ranked areas in an Australia-wide assessment of smart city performance are all in metropolitan regions with higher population densities. “Australia’s 60 top-performing local government areas house more than quarter of the nation’s population,” we note in the newly released Smart Cities Down Under report.
As well as highlighting major regional disparities, our analysis reveals the local government areas we assessed against four smart city indicator areas generally perform strongly in one of these, “Liveability and Well-being”. Performances are weaker in “Sustainability and Accessibility” and “Governance and Planning”. High performance in “Productivity and Innovation” existed only in the top-performing areas.
We assessed 180 local government areas (out of 563 in Australia), representing more than 85% of the nation’s population, against <a href="https://eprints.qut.edu.au/123317/" target="_blank">smart city criteria</a>. We included all local government areas in metropolitan Australia (<a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/1270.0.55.001%7EJuly%202016%7EMain%20Features%7EGreater%20Capital%20City%20Statistical%20Areas%20(GCCSA)%7E10003" target="_blank">Greater Capital City Statistical Areas</a>) and regional local government areas with populations of more than 50,000.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/313419/original/file-20200203-41532-pt7dd4.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/313419/original/file-20200203-41532-pt7dd4.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
Locations of investigated local government areas. Author provided
This study is an expanded version of the <a href="https://eprints.qut.edu.au/118349/" target="_blank">Smart Cities of the Sunshine State 2018</a> report.
It’s not all about technology
Cities are complex systems and should be evaluated in a holistic way. This means not placing excessive weight on technological achievements – such as <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49674533" target="_blank">tech for tech’s sake</a> – in lieu of economic, social, environmental and governance outcomes.
Our <a href="https://eprints.qut.edu.au/132495/" target="_blank">conceptual framework</a> to evaluate <a href="https://eprints.qut.edu.au/118033/" target="_blank">smartness levels</a> was built on the four pillars of economy, society, environment and governance. The evaluation criteria are shown below.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/313427/original/file-20200203-41532-1gtwmto.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/313427/original/file-20200203-41532-1gtwmto.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a> Author provided
We categorised the 180 local government areas we assessed into three performance categories:
<ul>
<li>
Leading, the best-performing cities
</li>
<li>
Following, the cities with achievements and potential, but not at the level of the best performers
</li>
<li>
Developing, the cities with some progress and potential, but not as substantial as the other two categories.
</li>
</ul>
Who's leading the way?
All areas in the leading category were completely contained within capital city metropolitan areas.
New South Wales ranked first with 20 local government areas. Then came Western Australia (14), Victoria (12), South Australia (9), Northern Territory (2) and Queensland, Australian Capital Territory and Tasmania (1 each). In terms of population in leading areas, the ranking changed to: NSW (2,348,388 people), Victoria (1,477,964), Queensland (1,131,155), WA (557,163), ACT (397,397), SA (370,719), NT (112,590) and Tasmania (50,439).
You can see below how the combined results for each of leading, following and developing performers compare against the four smart city indicator areas.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/313429/original/file-20200203-41503-l2qcgs.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/313429/original/file-20200203-41503-l2qcgs.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
Comparison of leading, following and developing cluster performances. Author provided
You can see the smart city performance matrix of your local government area <a href="https://eprints.qut.edu.au/136873/" target="_blank">here</a>.
Key steps towards smarter cities
Metropolitan local government areas dominate the leading performance category. Mechanisms such as the Australian government’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/city-deals-26196" target="_blank">City and Regional Deals</a> and funding through the <a href="https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/cities/smart-cities/" target="_blank">Smart Cities and Suburbs Program</a> have delivered some tangible impacts.
The performance is less strong in regional Australia. A national smart city strategy and guidelines are needed to help make these localities and communities smarter.
This policy should take on the following findings of our <a href="https://eprints.qut.edu.au/135135/" target="_blank">international study of smart cities</a>:
<ol>
<li>
smart cities that focus only on technology seldom work
</li>
<li>
local governments should adopt the role of facilitator
</li>
<li>
risks need to be shared with the private sector
</li>
<li>
local governments should be open to innovations and learn from mistakes
</li>
<li>
smart cities should focus on being inclusive
</li>
<li>
resource consumption must be considered, particularly in relation to the longevity of technological infrastructure
</li>
<li>
long-term sustainability depends on renewable resources
</li>
<li>
smart cities require a smart community that is knowledgeable, conscious, forward-thinking, engaged, united and active.
</li>
</ol>
The <a href="https://research.qut.edu.au/smartcity/home/people/urban-studies-lab/" target="_blank">Urban Studies Lab</a> at Queensland University of Technology prepared the report in partnership with the Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communication. Our <a href="https://research.qut.edu.au/smartcity/" target="_blank">Smart City Research Team</a> has had conversations with city managers, mayors, local government professionals and key community stakeholders (e.g., businesses, not-for-profits, NGOs and academic institutions, among others). These conversations confirm local governments have a critical role to play if Australia is to manage vexing societal challenges from climate change to accessing economic opportunities, and even dealing with transformations driven by information technologies such as <a href="https://theconversation.com/driverless-vehicles-could-bring-out-the-best-or-worst-in-our-cities-by-transforming-land-use-84127" target="_blank">automation</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/valleys-alleys-and-roundabouts-innovating-beyond-a-precinct-24290" target="_blank">innovation</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/artificial-intelligence-should-benefit-society-not-create-threats-36240" target="_blank">artificial intelligence</a>).
Local governments do not function well in isolation. Any local government is only as strong as the other local governments within its vicinity. They must interact to share and access public resources.
Leading cities can learn from the <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.planetizen.com/node/67338" target="_blank">frugal innovations</a> of their less fortunate peers. Our best-performing cities are similar to incumbents in the industry sector in that they face their own challenges to modernise.
Too often these cities seek solutions that are not frugal and cannot leverage indigenous knowledge. Less well-resourced communities must engage in different modes of innovation. We believe better networks need to be set up to foster dialogue and exchange practices across communities.
The good news in our report is that our leading cities fare well. The not-so-good news is that the other local governments need to be brought along on a transformation journey. No city is an island, and no country can treat cities as independent elements.
Australia, we believe, should consolidate its <a href="https://eprints.qut.edu.au/103038/" target="_blank">local governance and planning</a> culture to lead the change.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/130881/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/tan-yigitcanlar-119434" target="_blank">Tan Yigitcanlar</a>, Associate Professor of Urban Studies and Planning, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/queensland-university-of-technology-847" target="_blank">Queensland University of Technology</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/karen-vella-124890" target="_blank">Karen Vella</a>, Associate Professor and Head, School, Built Environment, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/queensland-university-of-technology-847" target="_blank">Queensland University of Technology</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/kevin-clyde-desouza-535757" target="_blank">Kevin Clyde Desouza</a>, Professor of Business, Technology and Strategy, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/queensland-university-of-technology-847" target="_blank">Queensland University of Technology</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/luke-butler-953109" target="_blank">Luke Butler</a>, Research Assistant, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/queensland-university-of-technology-847" target="_blank">Queensland University of Technology</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/nayomi-kankanamge-953583" target="_blank">Nayomi Kankanamge</a>, PhD Candidate, School of Built Environment, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/queensland-university-of-technology-847" target="_blank">Queensland University of Technology</a>
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/smart-city-or-not-now-you-can-see-how-yours-compares-130881" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Smart city or not? Check and see how yours compares

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION 
It was no April fool’s joke when the <a href="https://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/" target="_blank">Rockefeller Foundation</a> announced it will phase out funding for the <a href="https://www.100resilientcities.org/" target="_blank">100 Resilient Cities</a> network. The foundation’s <a href="https://www.100resilientcities.org/update-from-100rc/" target="_blank">message</a> was a <a href="https://www.citylab.com/environment/2019/04/rockefeller-100-resilient-cities-climate-philanthropy-end/586522/" target="_blank">surprise for many participating cities</a>, including Melbourne and Sydney, and for its partnering non-governmental organisations, businesses and academics.
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fk6B8PJAB4M" target="_blank">100 Resilient Cities</a> is a global network designed to increase urban resilience, <a href="http://www.100resilientcities.org/resources/" target="_blank">defined</a> as: "the capacity of individuals, communities, institutions, businesses, and systems within a city to survive, adapt, and grow no matter what kinds of chronic stresses and acute shocks they experience."
</body></html>

What next after 100 Resilient Cities funding ends?

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Many places around the world claim to be a “smart city”, but what that means is often unclear. A smart city is widely seen as an urban area that uses technology to enhance performance and the quality of its services. In other words, it’s a happy marriage of technology and the city.
Before we look at what is being planned in Australia and what is being done overseas, an important question is: How smart are our cities now? The answer enables our cities to benchmark where we are now and then track progress over time. We recently conducted a study to evaluate the smartness of all local government areas in Queensland.
Queensland and Australian cities are responding to a global trend, with the Australian government releasing a Smart Cities Plan in 2016.
A snapshot of Australian initiatives in 2017 revealed over a dozen local governments had strongly embraced the smart city agenda. A couple of dozen are finalising strategies. More than 100 are considering undertaking a smart city journey.
Smart city has become a global city planning movement and received enormous policy and media attention. Well over 250 smart city projects are under way in 178 cities around the world.
India alone hosts 100 of those initiatives. Songdo in South Korea is recognised as the most advanced smart city in the making.
The focus of smart city projects is to increase their city’s “smartness” through advanced technologies such as sensors, internet of things, data analytics, and networks. However, technology adoption alone does not make an urban area smart. A city needs a healthy mix of human, social, infrastructural, cultural, environmental, financial, knowledge, symbolic and relational assets or capital to be smart.
Taking a holistic view of smart cities helps us understand what is sustainable over time and what is not. An example of a holistic smart city framework is shown below.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/245263/original/file-20181113-194488-6oujqm.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Sustainable smart city conceptual framework. Authors' own work
Measuring urban smartness performance
Local governments across the country have started to develop, or search for ways to develop, smart city strategies and solutions. Our research in Queensland based its analysis on four smart city indicator categories and 16 smartness indicators. The table below shows these.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/244943/original/file-20181111-38373-ino8d9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Indicators of the assessment framework. Authors' own work
We then categorised the smartness levels of the 78 local government areas in the three performance clusters: leading, following, and developing.
The study results revealed a mixed performance across Queensland. The figure below shows this, with higher smart city performance in metropolitan Southeast Queensland and some major regional urban centres.
Of 78 local government areas, only ten stood out as high performing. These are: Brisbane, Sunshine Coast, Cairns, Logan, Ipswich, Townsville, Moreton Bay, Gold Coast, Noosa and Scenic Rim.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/245264/original/file-20181113-194488-3ujpq0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Performance of local government areas, with the ten leading areas shown in green. Authors' own work
The performances of these cities differ significantly in the four dimensional measures considered. These are:
<ul>
<li>productivity and innovation</li>
<li>liveability and well-being</li>
<li>sustainability and accessibility</li>
<li>governance and planning.</li>
</ul>
In general, Queensland local government areas perform more strongly in liveability and well-being, and governance and planning. Performance is rather weak across the state in productivity and innovation, and sustainability and accessibility.
Where is Queensland doing well, and why?
We can draw some insights from the findings. For example, good performances on liveability and well-being might be a result of relatively positive health, safety, housing and social conditions. A cost-of-living study found that Queensland is the most affordable Australian state when it comes to everyday expenses including rent, fuel, groceries, transport, utilities and education.
Similarly, the performance on governance and planning is relatively high across the state. This is most likely due to effective strategic development planning practice.
In some local governments, the policy focus includes smart city strategies. For example, about 15 cities in Queensland have recently developed their smart city strategies. Some have already incorporated these in their planning and development mechanisms. Brisbane, Ipswich, Sunshine Coast and Townsville are among those.
And why the struggle on other measures?
The study identified barriers to achieving urban smartness in Queensland.
The poor performance on productivity and innovation indicators may be a result of the state not being a notable contributor to the global knowledge and innovation economy. Fostering, attracting and retaining innovation industries and talented knowledge workers has been a major challenge for all urban localities in Queensland. State government efforts to advance Queensland in the global knowledge and innovation economy need sustained reinforcement to achieve this goal.
The weaker performance on sustainability and accessibility indicators relates to the lower level of adoption of sustainable solutions in energy, buildings, commuting and vehicles. While investing in technology is one approach to these challenges, societal behavioural change is also required.
Recent studies of Australian and UK cities revealed that technology uptake by citizens and cities does not necessarily lead to sustainable commuting patterns and urban outcomes. Hence, searching for solutions beyond technology adoption is critical for cities — particularly when the evident risks of climate change in Queensland are considered.
Ways to improve urban smartness
We found major regional disparities in Queensland. Along with much-needed state government investment and support, perhaps an expansion of Commonwealth funding and programs, particularly to regional cities, could help narrow the gap. The diagram below illustrates the current gap in the four performance categories.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/244945/original/file-20181111-116820-1mm5ckz.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Comparison of performance categories. Authors' own work
The Commonwealth City Deals and Smart Cities and Suburbs programs might be an opportunity to consolidate existing smart city efforts in Queensland’s top-performing cities.
We argue that a smart city should be seen as more than a marriage of technology and the city. Firstly, the technocentric approach takes its toll on the environment.
Secondly, it prioritises technology-based quick fixes, while neglecting deeper solutions that have nothing to do with the technology.
We advocate a smart city to be seen as
"an urban locality functioning as a healthy system of systems with sustainable and balanced practices of economic, societal, environmental and governance activities generating desired outcomes and futures for all humans and non-humans."
There is a demonstrated need for smart city projects to generate a range of desired outcomes – economic, societal, environmental and governance – in a sustainable, balanced and inclusive manner. An integrated, holistic approach is the way forward in Queensland and across Australia.
Tan Yigitcanlar, Associate Professor of Urban Planning and Development, Queensland University of Technology
Laurie Buys, Professor, Creative Industries Faculty, Queensland University of Technology
Md. (Liton) Kamruzzaman, Associate professor of Urban Planning, Monash University
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/just-how-city-smart-are-local-governments-in-queensland-106601" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Just how ‘city smart’ are local governments in Queensland?

<html><body>
The Australian government’s new <a href="https://cities.dpmc.gov.au/performance-framework" target="_blank">Smart Cities Plan: National Cities Performance Framework</a> identified “professional networks” as one indicator for measuring the progress of Australia’s largest cities.
It has based the indicator on social media data gathered from LinkedIn. This is the first case of government really using social media data to gauge the impact of urban policy on traditionally hard-to-measure issues.
<h2>What is the data?</h2>
The framework defines professional networks as:
<blockquote>
… the average ratio of workers’ LinkedIn connections in: the same city; other parts of Australia; and overseas.
</blockquote>
It is based on the premise that knowing a city’s professional network ratio helps to understand how connected its inhabitants are to other markets, customers and ideas – all of which support innovation, adaptation and city growth.
LinkedIn is the world’s largest professional online network; it has <a href="https://www.smartcompany.com.au/people-human-resources/leadership/powerful-australian-chief-executives-founders-linkedin-revealed/" target="_blank">more than 500 million members</a> in more than 200 countries. In Australia alone, more than 9 million people have a LinkedIn profile: this is almost 75% of the working-age population.
The Regional Australia Institute and LinkedIn since 2016 <a href="https://www.regionalaustralia.org.au/home/2016/12/connecting-great-small-cities/" target="_blank">have mapped data</a> on local skills and job mobility of workers in eight regional Australian cities: Townsville, Sunshine Coast-Noosa, Greater Newcastle, Wollongong, Launceston, Darwin, Geelong and Hobart.
This work has been providing local leaders with critical near-time data on the skills, connections and mobility of their workers.
<h2>What do the data tell us?</h2>
Network data tell us how one node or person is connected to another. There are many different types of links, such as personal, professional, business, financial, or friends.
Your professional network is the people you do business with, learn from, get inspired by, or who may have snuck in under false pretences.
Depending on who you are, your professional network may or may not include family and friends. It may or may not be up to date, and it certainly is not the same for everyone.
We are looking at a city’s professional network, not individuals. So, it is an amalgamation of people who together form a city’s professional network.
For the eight cities in these reports, a general trend is that the average number of connections per member increases with city size.
But every city has a mix of local connections, national connections and international connections. The government is particularly interested in this breakdown of data when measuring city performance.
For the first time we can see what these data look like for eight regional cities. The data show that Newcastle and Hobart are very inwardly connected (31% and 32% local connections), while Darwin and Sunshine Coast (27% and 25%) are very internationally connected for Australian regional cities.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/184085/original/file-20170831-24230-1rt06xl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/184085/original/file-20170831-24230-1rt06xl.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a> Regional Australia Institute, Author provided
A challenge for any city’s performance framework is that once indicators are identified, how are the data generated?
Importantly for professional networks, what are the targets? What types of networks are measured? What identifies better city performance? Is it more connections? Or more local connections? Or more overseas connections? Is it a general rule, or is it city-specific?
In addition to what the National Cities Performance Framework is proposing, LinkedIn data can add a unique dataset not of qualifications (which is what most data measure), but of actual skills in demand for on-the-job performance.
For the eight cities, healthcare management was a top-five skill, as were IT infrastructure and system management, and education and teaching.
The data also show the skills with the highest mobility are a mix of hard skills (like software engineering and social media marketing) and soft skills (such as business development and relationship management, and management and leadership).
<h2>How data could be used to measure city performance</h2>
Data from LinkedIn provide a collective picture of skills and connections. The insights this provides rely on the sheer scale of membership, as the nature of membership and the level of activity of members are highly variable and depend on the line of work they do, or would like to get into.
These data tell us about each city as an island of people. It explores which places have more or less links.
This is a great step for understanding, in context, how outward-looking a city might be. It is therefore a reasonable proxy for what the Smart Cities Plan is trying to achieve when looking at city context. But we have to acknowledge that LinkedIn data are a sample of any location’s population, and the connections do not tell us anything about the type or quality of links.
This work has the potential to build on several strands of topical <a href="https://www.urbannetworks.org/" target="_blank">core research</a> into urban networks.
But, to do this, we would need to use LinkedIn data for what they are: network data. They have much greater depth and capacity than just as a measure of a city’s “professional connections”.
These data could test the current rhetoric on the benefits of mobile working arrangements, digital connectivity, or understand how the whole network of Australian city hubs and spokes functions.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/83297/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">Measuring city performance through LinkedIn data uses only a very small part of the analytical capacity these data offer. However, it is an important step in getting our national policy discussions to use big social media data as a tool to inform decision-making.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/leonie-pearson-151626" target="_blank">Leonie Pearson</a>, Adjunct Associate, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-canberra-865" target="_blank">University of Canberra</a>
This article was originally published on <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/heres-what-social-media-data-can-tell-us-about-the-performance-of-australian-cities-83297" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

lp-iKNoMXR5mn

Here's what social media data can tell us about the performance of Australian cities

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/78258/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-advanced" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
In 2007 US creative cities “guru” Richard Florida was flown up to Noosa to tell the local city council how they, too, could become a creative city.
Noosa was one of a long line of cities across the globe queuing up to pay big bucks to the US-based academic-entrepreneur. “Being creative” had become an almost universal aspiration. Who would not want to be a creative city?
And so Creative [insert name of city here] signs sprang up in the most unlikely places, along with stock shots of creative young things hunched over laptops in cafes.
Ten years later, different gurus are being flown around and the signs have been replaced by Smart [insert name of city here]. The stock shots are much the same, but now the young things are being innovative, disruptive and above all “smart”. That’s the trouble with fast policy: here today, gone tomorrow.
Below the surface more tectonic shifts can be felt. In its first outing in the mid-1990s the “creative city”, associated with thinkers such as Charles Landry, was an energising vision of a new role for cultural creativity in our cities.
Now expanded in democratic fashion beyond the world of “high art” to embrace popular, everyday creativity, culture would be a key resource for the 21st-century city.
Culture could re-activate the decayed industrial zones of the inner city, breathing new life into the dead infrastructures of factories and power stations, dockyards and tram depots, schools, barracks and banks. Culture could renew stale urban identities, catalyse new aspirations and stamp a different global brand on long-dormant cities.
And with the creative industries – culture plus all things design and digital – all that was needed were some creative people and a bit of entrepreneurial flair. Then we would have one of the industries of the future.
Creativity broke cities away from the old bureaucratic top-down planning silos of the industrial city and let them approach the future holistically. Culture would be what cities do best, earning a living and enjoying it at the same time.
By the time Florida had left Noosa the discontent was growing. Big investments in photogenic CBD developments seemed more intended for the creative class than local citizens, generating massive real estate profits while the suburbs languished unloved.
Creative industries turned out not to be so inclusive after all. They failed to soak up all those unemployed dirty industry workers and were reliant on educated workers willing to work their way up on low pay and high debt.
The turn of the smart city
Since the global financial crisis the energising vision has been around social justice, citizenship and the right to the city, with a return of community and activist-focused arts activities. Creatives are now less Californian start-ups and more counter-cultural “post-capitalists”.
Enter the Smart City, creativity without all those messy cultural bits. The tech start-ups were just as cool, the fab labs and hacker spaces just as disruptive, but now slotted onto a very different agenda.
This too promised a re-invention of the city, not now a cultural re-imagining but a complete re-tooling of the social and governmental infrastructure of the city. Courtesy of some very big global tech companies, a new digital infrastructure could be rolled out, applying sensors, data-capture devices and large-scale computing power to urban life.
Smart cities are data cities, promising efficient management of transport and utilities, security, and customised commerce. If the early Creative City embraced the messiness of city life, viewing it not as chaos but creative fecundity, the Smart City give us a clean utopian picture of the perfectly transparent city.
It’s messy on the surface, but with a big data back-room providing bespoke information for almost any aspect of urban living your care to ask for. What’s not to like?
A corporate taming of creativity
That the brains of the Smart City – as envisioned by its corporate promoters – are increasingly embedded in its walls rather than its inhabitants reveals much about the trajectory of the digital economy so closely tied to Florida’s conception of the Creative City and its industries.
Internet scholar Jonathan Zittrain has described the rise of “app” culture as a betrayal of the creative potential unleashed by the mainstreaming of the internet. If the open internet was messy and chaotic, Zittrain argues that it was correspondingly “generative”, promoting experimentation and creativity.
 
The app increasingly represents the corporate-driven pacification of the internet. AAP
By contrast, the “app” represents the pacification and domestication of the internet: its transformation from a productive medium to an infrastructure for consumption and marketing. Apps sort our music and photos for us, tell us where to eat, how to get there, and what to watch afterwards. The price of the newfound convenience that renders smart phones so addictive is a shift in the balance of control away from the end user.
For Zittrain, the “applified” world is, “one of sterile appliances tethered to a network of control” – which is not a bad description of the corporate blueprint for the Smart City.
As urbanist Adam Greenfield has observed, the corporate world has taken the lead in both envisioning and promoting its version of the “informated” city. It looks suspiciously like the commercial internet projected out into physical space.
The promise is one of efficiency, convenience and security: smart streets that adjust traffic flow in real time, walls that change images to suit our tastes (which have become indistinguishable from market preferences), even floors that cushion us when we fall.
For all the talk of disruption, the paradoxical promise of the smart city is one of data-driven efficiency and predictability. The promotional materials feature the same smart young things, freed up from the impositions of daily life (traffic, shopping, routine decision-making, even driving), to do … what?
Whose city is it?
There are surely possibilities here, but the version of smart city as automated city looks inhuman. It promises to serve people by rendering them increasingly efficient, perhaps to the point of their own redundancy.
To subject the future of the city to the corporate imaginary is to concede too much to the galloping privatisation of our cultural and informational infrastructure.
What if the right to the city were also a right to participate in shaping its information infrastructures and their implementation? Can we envision an alternative to centralised corporate control of the city’s data? And how might public priorities be redefined in ways that distinguish them from the private imperatives of the ruling tech giants?
These are the guiding questions for our June 15 symposium in Melbourne, which explores the possibility of another kind of urban culture beyond the tightly controlled formats of the Smart City/Creative City.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/justin-oconnor-11847" target="_blank"></a>
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/justin-oconnor-11847" target="_blank">Justin O'Connor </a>is professor of Communications and Cultural Economy, Monash University.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/justin-oconnor-11847" target="_blank"></a>
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/mark-andrejevic-21617" target="_blank">Mark Andrejevic </a>Guest Lecturer, Monash University; Professor and Chair, Department of Media Studies, Pomona College.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/justin-oconnor-11847" target="_blank"></a>
Both are authors for The Conversation.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/justin-oconnor-11847" target="_blank"> </a>
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Creative city, smart city... whose city is it?

<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>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/65563/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
We shape the city and it shapes us. 
The recent ABC series City in the Sky focuses our attention on the sheer number of people who travel in the air at any one time and the extent of the infrastructure built up to support them. This aerial citizenry is due to double in the next 20 years and with it the global networks, smart technology and urban infrastructure that make it all possible. 
The real provocation of the city in the sky, however, is not just rendering visible the urban worlds that exist on land and sea, above the earth and below. Rather it prompts us to re-imagine both the complex nature and make-up of our habitats, and the role of infrastructure and planning within it. 
This raises new questions about what we imagine to be “the city” – and how we can shape it. 
<h2>The urban shapeshifters</h2>
In the urban age, important international conferences such as Habitat III are seeking to generate:
"… a new urban agenda for the 21st century that recognises the ever-changing dynamics of human civilisation."
The idea of “the city” looms large. There are, it seems, no limits to the prospects and possibilities of technology and human entrepreneurship. These concentrate within the contemporary city: the super structures of the super species in the age of the Anthropocene. 
For Harvard university professor Ed Glaeser, author of the book Triumph of the City, human ingenuity can conquer urban challenges and enable social and economic mobility. 
Others point to the lifeboat qualities and capacities of cities, which will help us navigate the urban challenges related to climate change, population growth and displacement, and resource depletion. 
But has the hubris of economists, urban academics, city planners, engineers and our elected leaders over-emphasised the moment of the city as concentrated urbanisation and big infrastructure projects? Should we instead be seeking to better recognise and understand the “extended” urbanisation processes that are reorganising and transforming the broader urban fabric (that is, worldwide shipping lanes and flight paths, broadband, sea level rise, peak oil, smart technologies)? 
To put it simply, are we thinking too narrowly when we talk about cities? 
The city as shapeshifter poses a genuine conundrum for those who seek to shape urban change. Like a 5D movie on speed, the contemporary city defies conventional boundaries.
<h2>The Australian city unbound</h2>
Australia’s cities are described in national policy as “some of the best in the world”. According to the Smart Cities Plan, Australia’s cities are: productive and accessible; full of talent and investment; agile and flexible; and encouraging of the innovation, jobs and growth on which our national prosperity depends. 
Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull stressed earlier this year that, in shaping our cities:
"Planning is absolutely critical. The ad hocery [non-planning] has got to stop."
All Australians are encouraged as part of the Smart City Plan to share their ideas to help determine the new cities agenda. But what does this mean for urban planners, developers, state and local governments, as well as for Australian city residents when so much of what shapes the urban comes from outside the traditional boundaries of “the city”? 
Far from being self-explanatory and straightforward, the contemporary Australian city is changing, yet the processes that shape change in cities are not well understood. This is not a closed policy and planning cycle. And it’s further complicated if notions of what constitutes “the city” are constrained and outdated. 
<h2>Lines of flight</h2>
Urban planners adapt to change in cities and regions, which are in turn transformed by changes in environment, planning and party politics. Change is often imposed on cities (in response to an environmental crisis, for example). 
Sometimes, though, this change is the result of complex politics and negotiations between local, state and Commonwealth governments, or in response to investment interests borne elsewhere. 
For example, the Commonwealth government, in support of an interest in making Australian cities the site for innovation, has signalled the role that urban infrastructure will play in creating jobs and spurring growth.
Urban change, Turnbull tells us, will only be delivered:
"… by addressing the policy and regulatory settings through which cities and infrastructure are governed, planned, funded, constructed and operated."
But this safe policy and regulatory landing requires first the imagination and capacity to shape and plan for the “cities in the sky”. As American academic Joe Feagin noted in The Urban Scene: Myths and Realities:
"Basic conceptions and images of urban life and urban structure are extraordinarily important, since they often shape the ends envisioned, and the means by which those ends are implemented, by those intent on reinforcing or remaking the existing urban scene."
To this end, imagination and planning are central to the critical urban governance of cities. As planning academic Patsy Healey highlights, this entails the three-fold task of: 
1) expanding the collective knowledge base about the changing shape and nature of cities available to our communities, political and otherwise; 
2) enhancing democratic debate; and 
3) developing the skills for conveying to the different members of our communities.
Wendy Steele is associate professor of Urban Policy and Planning, RMIT University and author for The Conversation. She can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/wendy-steele-4698" target="_blank">here</a>.
Crystal Legacy is Australian Research Council (DECRA) Fellow and Vice Chancellor's Research Fellow, Centre for Urban Research, School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT University and author for The Conversation. She can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/crystal-legacy-18412" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

Cities in the sky: how do we decide where this urban journey is taking us?

<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

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