Back to Top

Smart Cities: When the Technologies of Order and Optimization Fail Us

cstimmel:

Smart cities are a hot topic. They’re launched and maximized, emboldened by technology, and designed to perform. But let’s get real.

Your digital platform might just be another man’s privacy nightmare; your sensors and actuators are likely generating noisy distraction to solving the problems of poverty and quality of life in our urban environments. And further, do we really have any confidence that we are indeed improving economic, societal, and environmental outcomes in our cities? Are we making a difference?

We are fascinated with order, efficiency, and optimization. We desire facts, evidence of progress, and colorful charts and graphs that purport to fully predict and prescribe our measurable activities in the real world. And yet, for every detailed examination of the structure of our lives; each identification of every urban specimen; every survey, scrutiny, and study, we have greater potential to drown in the perfect data that fails to deeply and meaningfully account for the way we as human beings exist as part of the fabric of the landscape. Our vitality cannot be easily harnessed or applied, nor can our spirit and consciousness be manifested in our plans for the massive investments of time and money in our so- called smart cities. In fact, nowhere in our documents, defined processes, or project plans are we likely to see a serious treatment of ideas that are not somehow demonstrated through the scientific method. After all, we are often more comfortable with the winnowed truth, over those of cosmologists, artists, teachers, philosophers, and theocrats. We find it difficult to include these voices in our assembly of the components within our material world. We are drawn to the idea that if something counts, then we must account for it.

But for all the value that the emerging smart city can bring to us from its sensors, advanced models, and actuators, there are many things that become so much less by their deconstruction. Left to the pressures of social media today, Moby Dick might have been written in bursts of 140 characters with the hashtag #whitewhalerevenge, and related videos and still shots tagged #blubber #oil #leviathan showing Pip sobbing and beating on his tambourine. With so many of our hours spent tagging and posting every moment of our human voyage, we are in danger of failing to comprehend the full story of our lives in our natural and physical environments.

In our cities, where our buildings stand tall; our streets roll long; and our movements create an urban buzz composed of busker music from the subways, slamming car doors, engine brakes, the whirring of vending machines, the murmur of TVs, the cries and goo-goo-ga-gas of babies, and the whoosh of the revolving door—the things that make up the vital spirit of our urban lives. Simply, it is the buildings we reside in, sleep in, work in, and so often are born and die in that have personal properties that will either support our greatest capacities as human beings, or tear them down. It is all these things, coupled with global transportation, telecommunications, infrastructure, and climate constraints, that drive extremely complex conditions to emerge where we dump massive amounts of money and resources to build smart cities.

Yet, our population centers are far from intelligent or coordinated, and despite many pockets of innovation, our cities have had little net-positive impact on carbon control. Moreover, an uncertain relationship between the shifting demographics from rural to low-income urban remains. It’s time to acknowledge that the problem with many smart city efforts is the tendency to oversimplify the issues that cities face and to dangerously assume that those problems can be solved by technology alone. It seems clear that the florid vision of smarter cities as gleaming, efficient towers bursting from the sands, where a one-size-fits-all technology approach creates a sustainable living environment is misguided at best and a cultural failure at worst. But I sincerely believe that it is indeed technology that may play the most important role in helping us improve our urban environments. We just need to find a better way to engage technology for the benefit of people.

And so a paradox emerges: that technology can take away from our experience of living as much as it can add to it.

What’s needed now is an approach to building smarter cities that not only incorporates the issues of building technologically advanced smart cities, but also comprehends the shifts in human living within these environments. We need a plan for smart cities that leverages our best learning about technology but that fully acknowledges the importance of creating and sustaining vital communities. [My] book can help build and fulfill those plans by affording us an opportunity to look more closely at how our profound capabilities to do almost anything with technology can solve real problems that improve lives. All lives.

…as we move forward, seeking balance in an often unbalanced world, Ms. Stimmel’s voice resonates in deeply human prose and debate, relevant to our humanity today, the past and most succinctly, our collective future…
―John Stanmeyer, American photojournalist, National Geographic
It’s true that human beings are messy and fickle, and when it comes to technology, we can become supremely conflicted and confused. Every day, we fall further out of touch with advanced technologies, befuddled by how they work and what they’re doing. Even software engineers and app designers don’t know anymore. So when we hear about smart cities or efficiency, carbon controls, safety, and the Internet of Things, many of us are relieved to know that someone else must surely know what’s happening. But who are these technology designers? What is the technology doing? Why are certain technology implementations done the way they’re done? And why does it even matter anymore? I argue in this book that we must take charge of our urban destiny, that design thinking offers us a path forward, and that we must care more than ever about technology:

We can use the principles of design thinking to reframe the problems of the smart city to capture the real needs of people living in a highly efficient urban environment. In this light, [I] present the relevant technologies required for coordinated, efficient cities; explore the latent needs of community stakeholders in a culturally appropriate context; discuss the tested approaches to ideation, design, prototyping, and building or retrofitting smart cities; and propose a model for a viable smart city project.

The smart city vision that expresses perfection through technology is hypothetical at best and reflects the failed repetition through the ages of equating scientific progress with positive social change. Up until now, despite our best hopes and efforts, technology has yet to bring an end to scarcity or suffering. Technical innovation, instead, can and should be directed in the service of our shared cultural values, especially within the rapidly growing urban milieu.

It is the current and future possibilities of innovation that concern me most. With the ever-growing pools of data that are leaking into our daily lives, and to which we ourselves contribute grandly, we cannot just do anything and everything. Instead, we must focus on creating human-centered approaches to our cities that integrate our human needs and technology to drive us to meet our economic, environmental, and existential needs. You won’t find this philosophy in even the best technical specification. We must discover a way to cocreate with the urban dwellers themselves, developing an approach that transforms the complex forces inherent in an urban environment with inspiration and rationality. We must do more than solve problems; we must solve the right problems.

Reprinted from Building Smart Cities: Analytics, ICT, and Design Thinking by Carol L. Stimmel and published by CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group. ISBN 978-1-4987-0276-8. © 2016, Carol L. Stimmel. Reprinted with permission.

(via humanscalecities)

ryanpanos:

Rome’s Invisible City | ScanLAB | BLDG BLOG

BBC’s ONE’s 60 minute special Rome’s Invisible City follows ScanLAB Projects and presenters Alexander Armstrong and Dr Michael Scott as they explore the hidden underground secrets of Ancient Rome. The show explores Roman infrastructure and ingenuity, all below ground level. We journeyed via the icy, crystal clear waters of subterranean aqueducts that feed the Trevi fountain and two thousand year old sewers which still function beneath the Roman Forum today, to decadent, labyrinthine catacombs. Our laser scans map these hidden treasures, revealing for the first time the complex network of tunnels, chambers and passageways without which Rome could not have survived as a city of a million people.

The team experienced unprecedented access to some of Rome most recently discovered treasures and most recent archaeological finds, guided by a Rome’s Underground Archaeology Unit. Often access was complex but exciting - abseiling 20 meters down through a manhole cover into underground quarries or delicately picking our way in pitch black, water filled tunnels. The result is some of the most comprehensive scanning achieved in Rome, in an unprecedented level of colour, accuracy and detail.

(via lessadjectivesmoreverbs)

thedsgnblog:

Free Font Bundle by WebDesigner News

17 incredible typefaces for you to use in your designs. This bundle includes a variety of useful fonts, from highly geometric designs to elegant cursive scripts,
from modern minimalism to traditional text faces.

(Source: webdesignernews.com)

fabriciomora:

Temporary Shelter in Nepal ( Duwakot, Nepal ) -  Charles Lai + Takehiko Suzuki

archisketchbook:

“My home from December 2012 to July 2013”
2015
Silkscreen on 270 g. Duria paper
Edition of 40

"Through the last 2 years I have lived in and travelled through over 100 Danish homes. In this drawing, I merged together impressions from the first 56 homes I visited. Therefore, I call drawing for "My home from December 2012 to July 2013”, for that is exactly what it is: a free reflection on the people, stories, details and spaces that has been my home during this period.
I experience the drawing as a memory, a dream, a book or a blueprint for a brand new house. I am interested in lifestyles, habits, objects, living spaces, and I have been talking to a lot of people around these issues. I have worked in the drawing regularly and printed it myself at a screen print workshop at Vesterbro in Copenhagen. The drawing is printed in a edition of 40 pieces on 270 gr. Duria paper.”

Morten Sylvest Nøhr
stofogluft.dk

(Source: archisketchbook, via archidose)

partytilfajr:

If people tell you “…but you don’t look religious” don’t let that mess with you. I know, it comes from “religious” people and it comes from “nonreligious” people, but don’t let it get to you. Make sure they know you’re religious because of how you treat them, treat others, and how you treat yourself. Leave the rest to God.

Anonymous: Given that you've studied Sharia both Traditionally and Academically. I was thinking we need a Muslim intellectual to write a book, outlining how an Islamic State should run in the Modern world. No Muslim country can properly apply Sharia since we haven't understood Sharia in the modern world. Or do you think democracy is perfectly fine for Muslims? If so, do you believe creating a democratic state revolving around Islamic morals is the way forward? How would you argue this?

partytilfajr:

I think the mythology that no one can apply Shariah is a defensive argument so people can sort of distance themselves from some Muslim country that does something weird in the name of Shariah or claims to have a Shari’i legal system.

The simple reality is that no country has used Shariah for 150 years. Yes, 150 years. Saudi’s legal system is French. Egypt’s is French. Turkey’s is Swiss. Indonesia’s is Dutch. You see the trend? Even if you wanted to pretend that X country uses Shariah, you can’t, because they’re all civil law systems, and that’s not how Shariah works, it’s a common law structure. Civil law systems are codified law, like, big books of laws, while common law systems use case law to figure out the law based on precedent.

So, yeah, I don’t believe that Shariah cannot be practiced, the historical record says otherwise, and for greater detail on that, I’d suggest you read Noah Feldman’s The Fall and Rise of the Islamic State, I like the book a lot.

But then there’s the question of what do we do today?

First: no human exercise is capable of perfection, no legal system can do that, and so if your expectations are perfection, then you’re going to be sorely disappointed with like… all things involving people.

As far as the whole “can Izlam and DeMoCrAcY WORK?!” It’s pretty simple, er, yes.

When the Sahaba were trying to figure out who should be Khalifah, they voted on it, where this ayah: 

“and whose rule [in all matters of common concern] is consultation among themselves” [42:38]

was deemed so important, not only does the entire 42nd Surah get its name from the word in the sentence (Shura) but it was a cornerstone of how early Muslims felt that large choices should be made.

If you look at the process of selecting Sheikh Al-Azhar, the most senior Sunni Muslim figure in the world, it was through election. This process was ended by the “secularization” of President Gamal Abdel Nasser, who brought Al-Azhar from an independent institution to a government-run one.

So, again, the process of election and whatever is not that hard to make a case for, it’s pretty simple, and there are plenty of Hadith that underline the acceptance of this idea, of consultation as an important element towards communal life.

I think the issue of public morals is another subject, but it’s really annoying to have this discussion when we function in a liberal space. And I don’t mean liberal as most people think, like liberal v conservative, I’m talking about liberal as in classical liberalism, because within this framework we are told that we’re open to all ideas, to all people, but we’re not actually, and we also forget that one of the central features of liberalism is to not just have “free” minds or “free” press but also to have “free” markets.

This puts tremendous pressure on the system to actually protect wealth of those who are powerful in the name of maintaining the “free” order of things.

How does this play out? Well, it means that we actually have our morals dictated by economics, here, I’ll give you an example:

Let’s say you, nice Muslim kid, are meeting with your nice non-Muslim friend after class. You go “Hey (term of endearment here)! How are you!?” And then your nice non-Muslim friend smiles and then opens a beer. They proceed to drink it.

Now, if you go: “Hey, (term of endearment here)! You shouldn’t drink, that’s bad for you!”

You will have a chorus of people (including Muslims, mind you) be like “HAY! DON’T IMPOSE YOUR MORALS ON (term of endearment person here)!! THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT! THEY’RE NOT HURTING ANYONE!!”

Now, let’s say your friend is smoking a cigarette, and now you go: “Hey, (term of endearment here)! You shouldn’t smoke, that’s bad for you!”

You will have a chorus of people be like: “YEAH! PUT OUT THAT CIGARETTE! IT’S GROSS AND IT WILL GIVE YOU CANCER!!!”

Now, young people will attempt to use “sassy” retorts for this discrepancy, but the reality is this: we have chosen a set of morals, we have chosen what we want to enforce and what we don’t, and part of that is from the state, and the society that is the foundation of the state. Which is more powerful? Meh, that’s a big question, but regardless of your answer, the truth of the matter is that we function within the moral restraints of this environment.

So, how much impact would an Islamic State have on morals and the public? It matters what the public wants, and what its expects, and that’s a huge question and I think that Western liberalism’s greatest strengths lie in its hegemonic control of public discourse and authority and its assumptive role as the arbiter of truth and goodness for humanity.

Most Muslims need to have Islam agree with premises of morality that are found in the Western tradition. Why? Let’s say everything is meaningless, why this form? Or if you ask someone, why do you believe X people should have these rights? Or why is Y wrong but Z is okay? We generally struggle to find a way to express the source and foundation of those ideas that we hold dear. That’s the issue, we don’t know why we are so passionately for one thing but seldom question why we’re against another, besides the desire to conform to a political genre we identify with.

So I think before we can even talk about Islamic morals, you’d have to delineate how morals are enforced, what Islamic morality is, how the public would respond, how the public understands its morality, what the public (and which public [very important]) sees as the role of the state. There a million other questions, but, in short, it’s complicated.

If you want to read more on this topic, I’d suggest reading Muhammad Asad’s Principles of State and Government in Islam

Tell me when you read this, so I can delete it, insha Allah.

theeversocool:

Jon Charles Lopez _ Ground Waters

Diploma 11 _ AA School 2010

(Source: projectsreview2010.aaschool.ac.uk, via archidose)

datavis:

The Daily Routines of Famous Creative People

ryanpanos:

Architecture’s Patterns | Andre Chiote | Via

Hey, this post may contain adult content, so we’ve hidden it from public view.

Learn more.

Hey, this post may contain adult content, so we’ve hidden it from public view.

Learn more.

Penganiayaan Cinta

tehtarikgelasbesar:

Semalam, saya ternampak dua orang pasangan suami isteri, bergaduh di cyber cafe, hanya kerana si isteri tidak tahu bagaimana untuk menggunakan Microsoft Word. Si isteri, yang saya menjangkakan, menjadi kerani, mungkin admin kepada sebuah syarikat kecil, milik suaminya. Si isteri kemudiannya…