Technolgoy

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Smartphones and the internet have revolutionised society, commerce, and politics, reshaping how we work and play, and how our brains are wired. They have even revolutionised how revolutions are made.
For enthusiasts, these technologies enhance freedom and democratise the flow of information, putting more power in the hands of people to generate political change. In the aftermath of the Parkland shooting, high school students have used social media to provoke a public debate about guns in the United States. However, detractors counter that social media and the internet foster “slactivism”: weak, low-effort commitments that do little more than make users feel better.
It’s difficult to evaluate today’s communication technologies unless we understand how people communicated in the past. My own research looks back at how political activists used the phone in the years before the mobile phone revolution, using the records of activist groups and interviews to find out how phone talk shaped what they did and how well they did it.
The results higlight how important phone calls were in fostering a sense of community, intimacy and connection. This suggests that we have lost as much as we have gained with our high-tech gizmos.
The landline’s role in political protest
Before Facebook, the internet and mobile phones, political movements used traditional technologies to recruit like-minded people, raise money, organise events and advocate for change.
Activist groups called people on the phone, as well as printing, mailing and – by the late 1980s – faxing information. In the second half of the 20th century, the phone was essential to political activism, and it helped to create lasting movements in which people felt emotionally bonded.
The phone was crucial for sharing information quickly. In the US in the 1950s and 1960s, when most Americans had telephones, the civil rights movement relied heavily on the telephone. Thousands of participants in the Montgomery bus boycott of the mid-1950s, for example, found ride shares by using phone trees.
Phone trees, still in use today, are based on lists of people who call other people: ten people each call ten people, who then each call ten people. Before email, the phone tree was one of the quickest and most efficient ways to disseminate information. A well-organised tree could quickly trigger thousands of phone calls to elected officials or turn thousands of people out for demonstrations.
In 1961, Wide Area Telephone Service (WATS) lines were introduced, allowing unlimited long-distance calls for a fixed fee. They saved the lives of some activists by giving grassroots workers who could not afford expensive long-distance calls a way to call headquarters to report dangerous situations.
By the 1980s, 1-800 calling cards had become common. Activists could call anyone from any phone while leaving the charges to be paid by headquarters. The number of calls made by activist groups exploded.
As new movements for environmental protection, nuclear disarmament, feminism, Chicano rights, Native American rights, gay rights, and conservative causes such as school prayer gathered steam in the 1970s and 1980s, the landline phone remained central.
The power of the human voice
In 1986 Americans placed 1.97 billion calls a day – eight calls for every woman, man and child. They were having about seven times as many telephone conversations as they had had in 1950, and the number was still rising. One human rights staffer told me of his work in the mid-1980s: "All the work was done by phone. If I wasn’t in a meeting, I was on the phone."
Those calls were about much more than sharing information. Calling on a landline phone was a labour-intensive form of communication, but it provided immediate personal contact, an opportunity for genuine exchange, and an emotional depth that written communication lacked.
Calls were able to knit far-flung people into deeply felt communities because the phone transmits the capacities of the human voice.
The voice is one of our most powerful instruments, designed not only to communicate but also to build intimacy. Our voices convey emotion so effectively that we can identify emotions in speech even when the words themselves are muffled by walls. The voice indicates whether you are sincere – or whether you are drunk.
The powers of the human voice help to explain why talking on the phone can foster feelings of connection. Research on the telephone in the 1980s showed that a call made people feel wanted, needed, included, and involved.
This is why a recent Harvard Business Review study found that face-to-face requests were 34 times more successful than emails.
Better technology doesn’t equal better communication
Critics of digital media say that it corrodes human relationships. The generation that has grown up on smart phones, which have become devices for avoiding talk, lack empathy and struggle to form friendships based on trust, according to one study.
In online communities, people tend toward narcissism and often dramatically fail to care about the feelings of others. Wael Ghonim, an Egyptian whose anonymous Facebook page in 2011 helped topple a dictatorship, concluded that social media facilitated “the spread of misinformation, rumours, echo chambers, and hate speech. The environment was purely toxic.” Empathy vanished, he says.
Landline calls helped to instil positive emotions: feelings of connection, pride, gratitude, a sense of elevation and happiness.
Psychologists tell us that whether we are extroverts or introverts, we need human contact and feel more alive after connecting with other people. Phone calls created those connections. They made people more optimistic and resilient and broadened their mindsets. For activists, talking revealed connections they would otherwise have missed, and deepened their personal commitment to the cause and to one another.
The landline phone, of course, was not a flawless medium – static, missed calls, busy signals, dropped connections, prank calls and phone threats guaranteed frustration. You can bond over the phone, but you can also argue.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/92662/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">But the rise of smart phones – which Americans check 8 billion times a day – has not meant that we communicate better. More communication can mean that we hear each other less. Among American millennials, the number of voice calls they make is falling as texting soars. And that means we may be losing a powerful part of what connects us to each other.
Barbara Keys, Associate Professor of US and International History, University of Melbourne
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-landline-phones-made-us-happy-and-connected-92662" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

How landline phones made us happy and connected: Barbara Keys

<html><body>
Cities will be driving globalisation and innovation in the emerging world order.
France recently appointed a tech ambassador to the Silicon Valley. French President Emmanuel Macron named David Martinon as “<a href="https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/french-foreign-policy/digital-diplomacy/events/article/digital-affairs-appointment-of-an-ambassador-22-11-17" target="_blank">ambassador for digital affairs</a>”, with jurisdiction over the digital issues that the foreign affairs ministry deals with. This includes digital governance, international negotiations and support for digital companies’ export operations.
The appointment is part of France’s <a href="https://au.ambafrance.org/France-s-international-digital-strategy" target="_blank">international digital strategy</a>, which is becoming a focus of its foreign policy. And France isn’t alone in doing this.
In early 2017, Denmark <a href="http://www.wired.co.uk/article/casper-klynge-first-ever-silicon-valley-tech-ambassador" target="_blank">appointed</a> a <a href="http://techamb.um.dk/en/" target="_blank">“TechPlomacy” ambassador</a> to the tech industry. <a href="https://twitter.com/DKTechAmb" target="_blank">Casper Klynge</a> is possibly the first-ever envoy to be dispatched to Silicon Valley with a clear mandate to build better relationships with major technology firms.
In an <a href="http://politiken.dk/udland/art5806849/Danmark-f%C3%A5r-som-det-f%C3%B8rste-land-i-verden-en-digital-ambassad%C3%B8r" target="_blank">interview</a> with Danish newspaper Politiken, Foreign Minister Anders Samuelsen said: Big companies affect Denmark just as much as entire countries.
He isn’t wrong. According to geopolitical strategist <a href="https://www.paragkhanna.com/" target="_blank">Parag Khanna</a>, the world’s top tech companies are <a href="http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/03/15/these-25-companies-are-more-powerful-than-many-countries-multinational-corporate-wealth-power/" target="_blank">achieving more international influence</a> and economic power than dozens of nations put together. In 2016, the <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com.au/chart-us-companies-with-largest-cash-reserves-2017-8?r=US&amp;IR=T" target="_blank">cash that Apple had on hand</a> exceeded the gross domestic product (GDP) of <a href="http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/03/15/these-25-companies-are-more-powerful-than-many-countries-multinational-corporate-wealth-power/" target="_blank">two-thirds of the world’s countries</a>.
Some of these global players are also influential policy actors in their own right. In 2016, <a href="http://foreignpolicy.com/" target="_blank">Foreign Policy</a> presented its <a href="http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/17/watch-fps-diplomat-of-the-year-awards/" target="_blank">Diplomat of the Year Award</a> to Eric Schmidt, executive chairman of Google parent company Alphabet Inc. The award was in recognition of Google’s contributions to international relations through empowering citizens globally.
<h2>What’s different about TechPlomacy?</h2>
The recent ambassadorial appointments signify not only the important socio-economic and political roles of technology, but also how diplomacy is evolving and adapting to the disruptive changes in our societies.
These developments mark the prominence of tech-cities on the global scene. Nation states are no longer the only players in international affairs; cities are also taking centre stage.
As opposed to lobbying governments in the world’s capitals, the new breed of diplomats will target tech-cities with multi-trillion-dollar technology sectors. They will also rub shoulders and nurture a direct dialogue with organisations that have gigantic economic impacts. In 2016, for example, Google helped to <a href="https://economicimpact.google.com/reports/2016/ei-report-2016-ca.pdf" target="_blank">inject US$222 billion in economic activity</a> in the US alone.
The so-called “Google ambassadors” won’t be targeting Silicon Valley only. The <a href="http://techamb.um.dk/" target="_blank">Office of Denmark’s Tech Ambassador</a> has a team with physical presence across three time zones in North America, Europe and Asia. It will also connect with tech hubs around the world.
As part of an interconnected planet, these tech hubs will increasingly play a more active role in the global economy. Decision-makers are starting to recognise the imperative to establish good relationships and understand the tech giants’ policies and agendas.
<h2>Cities as autonomous diplomatic units</h2>
The rise of cities as “<a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/04/around-the-world-mayors-take-charge/275335/" target="_blank">autonomous diplomatic units</a>” may be a defining feature of the 21st century.
Already, just <a href="http://foreignpolicy.com/2010/08/06/beyond-city-limits/" target="_blank">100 cities account for 30% of the world’s economy</a> and almost all its innovation. New York and London, together, represent <a href="http://foreignpolicy.com/2010/08/06/beyond-city-limits/" target="_blank">40% of global market capitalisation</a>. According to the <a href="https://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/overview" target="_blank">McKinsey Global Institute</a>, the <a href="https://www.mckinsey.com/global-themes/urbanization/urban-world-mapping-the-economic-power-of-cities" target="_blank">top 600 cities generate 60% of global GDP</a> and are projected to be home to 25% of the world’s population by 2025.
McKinsey expects that 136 new cities will make it into the top 600 by 2025. All these new cities are from the developing world – 100 of them from China alone.
These <a href="https://www.mckinsey.com/global-themes/urbanization/when-cities-rule-the-world" target="_blank">global cities appear likely to dominate</a> the 21st century. They will become magnets for economic activity and engines of globalisation. <a href="http://foreignpolicy.com/2010/08/06/beyond-city-limits/">Khanna</a> argues:
<blockquote>
… [C]ities rather than states or nations are becoming the islands of governance on which the future world order will be built.
</blockquote>
He also suggests that <a href="https://www.ted.com/talks/parag_khanna_how_megacities_are_changing_the_map_of_the_world/transcript">connectivity</a> through an expanding matrix of infrastructure (64 million kilometres of roads, 4 million kilometres of railways and 1 million kilometres of internet cables) will far outweigh the importance of 500,000 kilometres of international borders.
<h2>Still more questions than answers</h2>
As more cities assert their leadership on the world stage, new mechanisms and networks (e.g. <a href="http://www.c40.org/" target="_blank">C40 Cities)</a> could emerge. That could signal a new generation of diplomacy that relates and engages with cities rather than bilateral collaboration between nations.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/201833/original/file-20180114-101498-4zjkdk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
The C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group connects more than 90 of the world’s major cities. The Independent UK
Although these new diplomatic outposts have generated some <a href="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/national-security/article159128749" target="_blank">profound interest</a>, questions remain.
Will this era of tech diplomacy create collaborative ways to develop and achieve foreign policy priorities? Will it increasingly become a unifying global priority?
Do these appointments signify a transformation in international relationships? Will big tech companies also develop diplomatic capacities?
And will we witness the emergence of a post-national ideology of <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://press.princeton.edu/titles/9544" target="_blank">civic-ism</a>, whereby people’s <a href="https://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-a-bell/civicism-cities-nationalism_b_1138929" target="_blank">loyalty to the city</a> surpasses that to a nation?
<h2>What comes next?</h2>
Not everyone will be excited by these appointments. Many would downplay their significance. Others would argue that tech companies have been engaged globally for years, and that they do this anyway as part of their “business as usual” activities.
Whether you embrace or object to it, a new world order is emerging around cities and their economies, rather than nations and their borders. These cities may ultimately chart pathways to their own sovereign diplomacy and formulate their own codes of conduct.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/89959/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">It is anyone’s guess whether the future will bear any resemblance to TechPlomacy or something else we haven’t yet imagined. The significance of these appointments will become clearer as the envoys go to work and we begin to understand the possibilities.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/hussein-dia-110689" target="_blank">Hussein Dia</a>, Associate Professor, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/swinburne-university-of-technology-767" target="_blank">Swinburne University of Technology</a>
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/tech-diplomacy-cities-drive-a-new-era-of-digital-policy-and-innovation-89959" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Cities drive a new era of digital policy and innovation

<html><body>
Financial Review Rich List member Geoff Harris has invested a further $1.8 million in online live auction app Gavl, which is developing technology it believes will lead to real-time bidding at auctions.
Australian-owned, Gavl has the fastest live streaming technology in the world.
Harris first invested in Gavl late last year, run by former Hawthorn AFL footballer Joel Smith. The pair met when Harris was a Hawthorn director between 2004 and 2013.
Gavl secured a $2.5 million investment in June 2016 from Harris Capital, which enabled Gavl to live stream its first auction and release its Apple iOS and Android apps.
The current Gavl app allows property buyers and browsers to search a map, select a property that is using the technology and then view its auction either live or later. 
At the auction itself, a tripod is set up with a smartphone to relay the proceedings via the app online.
Gavl is now developing technology that it claims will eventually add digital contract signing, deposit transfer facilitation between buyer and seller via the agent and 360-degree camera and Artificial Intelligence integration.
"We are currently piloting technology that allows a consumer to not only watch, but bid and ultimately buy at auction, and complete the transaction without having to be physically on site," Mr Smith told The Australian Financial Review.
He hopes to have the technology ready next year.
It has the only app dedicated to the real estate industry with a patent-pending technology that can broadcast live events with a one-second latency – this includes Facebook Live, which is commonly used by the industry. 
Joel says when they first tested Facebook Live for auction live streaming, "we were measuring a 5-20 second latency."
"In an auction environment, this delay could be the difference between a property selling for $950,000 and $1.1 million.
"We spent 15 months developing the technology to live stream with a one-second latency as well as address another challenge for agents: network reliability with live streaming, and this technology is key for us in launching live auction bidding.” 
Gavl claims that its technology has now been used by 200 Australian real estate agencies to broadcast 3500 auctions.
The $1.8 million is being invested via the Harris Capital investment office, managed by Mr Harris's son, entrepreneur and philanthropist Brad Harris. 
Mr Harris is still a major shareholder in Flight Centre.
Joel Smith founded Gavl with Leith Donaldson and Michael Artup, launched with a $300,000 bootstrap from Joel and his father-in-law.
 
</body></html>

Geoff Harris has invested a further $1.8 million in online live auction app Gavl

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
It’s highly likely that all Australians buying or selling property or subdividing land will soon be dealing with privately operated land title registries. Both sides of politics in Australia appear supportive of privatising these registries and it is happening fast.
The New South Wales Liberal government <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-are-the-implications-of-privatising-land-title-offices-60099" target="_blank">privatised the operation</a> of its land registry in 2016. The South Australian Labor government <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-10/sa-government-sells-lands-titles-office-data-for-1.6-billion/8794468" target="_blank">did so earlier this year</a>. Now, Victorians await Treasurer Tim Pallas’ <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/victoria/plans-to-sell-land-titles-registry-sparks-privacy-concerns-20170713-gxawq3" target="_blank">decision</a> on whether that state’s Labor government will follow suit.
The robust titling systems in Australia’s states and territories are key contributors to the country’s economy. Secure registries provide the foundation on which the enormous wealth in real estate rests. Mortgage lenders rely on the low risk resulting from a state guarantee of title in securing real estate loans.
Privatisation processes need to protect the integrity of Australia’s titling systems. However, with the rise of relevant technology, privatisation presents an opportunity to transform titling systems to operate even better in the public interest.
<hr>
Further reading: <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-are-the-implications-of-privatising-land-title-offices-60099" target="_blank">What are the implications of privatising land title offices?</a>
<hr>
<h2>A history of mixed success</h2>
While rare, privately operated land title offices do exist elsewhere.
A private operator, <a href="https://www.teranet.ca" target="_blank">Teranet</a>, administers the buying, selling and subdivision of properties in the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Manitoba.
In 1991, Teranet engaged in a public-private partnership to modernise the titling system in Ontario. In 2003, the Ontario government sold half its shares in Teranet to a private consortium.
In 2010, Ontario extended Teranet’s operating licences <a href="https://news.ontario.ca/mof/en/2010/11/modernizing-ontarios-electronic-land-registration-system" target="_blank">for 50 years</a>. Manitoba has licensed Teranet to run its land registry <a href="https://www.gov.mb.ca/finance/pubs/teranet.pdf" target="_blank">for 30 years</a>.
In other jurisdictions, there have been unsuccessful privatisation attempts. In 2013, the Canadian province of Alberta’s <a href="https://www.reca.ca/consumers/standards/PDF/Privatization-of-Land-Titles.pdf" target="_blank">Real Estate Council</a> concluded that a proposal to privatise the title office was not in the public interest. And last year, the province of Nova Scotia <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/registries-privatize-government-private-sector-service-nova-scotia-1.3540782" target="_blank">assessed</a> the prospect of a privatised titling office and concluded there would be no considerable gain from it.
The UK Conservative government in 2016 also examined this idea but <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/sep/07/land-registery-sell-off-plan-put-on-hold" target="_blank">did not go ahead</a> with privatisation. This was primarily due to a lack of support from the property industry and a fear of public backlash.
<hr>
Further reading: <a href="https://theconversation.com/torrens-our-land-title-pioneer-might-have-approved-of-privatised-registries-78327" target="_blank">Torrens, our land-title pioneer, might have approved of privatised registries</a>
<hr>
<h2>What are the risks of privatisation?</h2>
There are many arguments against privatising title offices. These include:
<ul>
<li>
increased fees
</li>
<li>
a natural monopoly
</li>
<li>
banks requiring title insurance for purchasing properties
</li>
<li>
risks to the integrity of land registration processes and property information
</li>
<li>
depreciating existing skillsets in the title offices that are hard to source
</li>
<li>
the prospect of jobs moving elsewhere and even overseas.
</li>
</ul>
Fees in Ontario’s privatised title office are, on average, higher than in Alberta’s public title office. For example, a title search in <a href="https://www.ontario.ca/land-registration/2015-03-fee-harmonization" target="_blank">Ontario</a> costs three times more than in <a href="https://www.servicealberta.ca/pdf/ltmanual/APPENDIXI.pdf" target="_blank">Alberta</a>. To gain access to property information in Ontario, users are required to buy specific software.
The NSW government also increased fees just before engaging its private operator.
<h2>What will land titling look like in future?</h2>
The way land titles are issued, bought and sold in future will be different. Who would once have thought that we, through smartphones, could carry the map of the entire world and a positioning system in our pockets?
While current land titling systems are efficient, privatisation provides an opportunity to harness technologies that transforms these for faster and more automated processes, while removing intermediary fees and reducing red tape.
Technologies such as <a href="https://bravenewcoin.com/assets/Reference-Papers/A-Gentle-Introduction/A-Gentle-Introduction-To-Blockchain-Technology-WEB.pdf" target="_blank">blockchain</a> allow instant exchanges of assets online, including land and property, and transparent verification.
Using these techniques, titles and other documents can be encrypted and protected in digital transactions. This challenges the need for lawyers to check documents, financial institutions to prove money exchange, insurance companies to back your title, and title offices to register the transactions.
Consumer-grade technologies such as drones, <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10095020.2016.1235817" target="_blank">3D scanners</a> and smartphones also make it easier for the public to <a href="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-14280-7_13" target="_blank">collect land information</a>. This will challenge regulated professions such as <a href="https://www.surveyorsboard.vic.gov.au" target="_blank">land surveying</a>. These professions need to be rethought in a technology-driven society where land data collection becomes <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837716303829" target="_blank">accessible to everyone</a>.
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/83352/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">Advances in technology will soon be challenging several facets of land-titling systems in Australia. Privatisation can be an opportunity to reform and update these systems, so that regulatory requirements are either reduced or automated. The next generation should be able to buy a property and pay less or no bank fees, title insurance and stamp duty.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/mohsen-kalantari-173337" target="_blank">Mohsen Kalantari</a>, Senior Lecturer in Geomatics, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-melbourne-722" target="_blank">University of Melbourne</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/gary-jeffress-276988" target="_blank">Gary Jeffress</a>, Professor of Geographic Information Science and Director of the Conrad Blucher Institute for Surveying Sciences, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/texas-aandm-university-1672" target="_blank">Texas A&amp;M University </a>
This article was originally published on <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/privatised-land-title-offices-can-harness-new-technologies-to-provide-a-better-service-83352" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

dummy-39jzRrQxJV

Privatised land title offices can harness new technologies to provide a better service

<html><body>
A millennial entrepreneur is trying to automate the Australian rental market with an online marketplace that connects property owners and renters directly.
The platform seeks to eliminate the middleman in the transaction — the real estate agent — from the $44 billion a year rental market.
The Rentwolf app, a brainchild of 30-year-old Chris Martino, is set for a July launches in Sydney.
It already has 3,400 registered users, including 330 property owners.
The app has been in development for five years.
Rentwolf connects savvy property owners and renters through application profiles and an automated lease, payment and property maintenance system. The platform automates and integrates the rental property market, and provides real time data.
Renters, who can avail the service for free, can upload their profile and once they zero in on a prospective property, can make an offer to prospective landlords, including proposed lease terms (length and move in date) and financial offer. 
They can also compare other offers made on the property besides looking at median rental prices for individual properties, streets and suburbs.
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2017/06/23/Chris_Rentwolf.jpg" alt=""> 
In addition, Rentwolf calculates an ‘offer over income ratio’ for renters, which determines the maximum amount they should be paying in rent in a certain area. This is communicated to both the renter and landlord, to prevent people from offering more they can afford.
Residential landlords pay $14 a month instead of a typical 8% monthly rental commission.  Commercial landlords pay $29 a month.
Addressing concerns that online platforms push up rentals, Chris Martino said the app is designed to increase transparency, not prices. 
“Rentwolf encourages renters and owners to focus on a broader value proposition, which includes individual’s profiles, proposed leased terms (length and move-in date) and the financial offer,” he said.   
Martino says he has experienced first-hand the frustration of looking for a rental property in Sydney and says he wants to reduce rental stress among renters by creating a transparent marketplace that will help keep rents under control.  
The project is being backed by his father, ex-Deloitte Australia CEO Domenic Martino.
</body></html>

Technolgoy

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Technolgoy

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News