I think that we don’t need to trademark that one. 
…we leave it out there to marinate.
1 Like
the topic of control also seems to be one that is on peoples mind in this context, and I remember you mentioning that the trust or rather lost trust of the citizens is a large obstacle in the further development of city planning in this direction. Maybe this is again also connected a bit to this discussion of the term beeing connected to all the “smart devices getting your data”, which has quite a bad reputation at this point.
Do you think that going to the edge, as we have more powerful devices that can do analytics/meaning on device, that it becomes easier to break down offerings along these lines - creating conditions for mobility in a specific location for example - when you are not in a situation when just one cloud provider ‘takes in’ all data and gives back recommendations?
I have another question going forward. It strikes me how the smart city concept was mostly looking at gathering data about, and optimizing, the behavior of private citizens, rather than that of businesses. I mean, if you are going to do system integration at the city scale there are many B2B systems that you could look at – for example waste management. I thought that the reason for that is that businesses are already supposed to be networking and collaborating, and this collaboration is supposed to be more or less optimal in a Coasian sense.
And yet, history shows that this collaboration does not always work so smoothly, with standards wars etc. Are you (@BasBoorsma and @gordonfeller) seeing trends towards a form of digitalization at the urban scale meant to enable (but still govern) this sort of thing? I am thinking about Google Maps more or less pushing cities worldwide to publish their public transport timetables in GTFS; or, in a more Jacobs-Greenfield perspective, of the city of Barcelona only allowing Telefonica to operate on its territory as long as the city retains ownership of the generated data. Are these one-offs?
2 Likes
Hackers, Facebook and some others have all managed to create an environment where citizens lost trust – and the public-opinion surveys which I read tell me that they increasingly feel that their choices (to opt-out, for example) are ‘narrow to non-existent’…which, in turn, inspires more than just bad feelings.
Lack of trust is harmful on all fronts and a challenge difficult to overcome. Digital reputations and the ‘Trustlessness’ of blockchain in fact facilitating a new kind of contract (trust), hopefully provide us with a sense of direction how digital innovation and rebuilding trust can come together
I’m personally praying that these experiments (in Barcelona, for example) are NOT simply one-offs. My hope is that these breakthrough experiments, almost always pushed into being by the city executives, are setting in motion the positive-patterns that can become the norm for cities. the key question: what specifics can/will make it possible (in terms of support for the cities, or otherwise) for the positive-patterns to become the norm for cities?
1 Like
‘going to the edge’ will do as you say (""break down offerings along these lines). that is making it possible for the cities and tech providers (mostly for-profit) to work together in different ways, always in service of the citizens. an approach like this is not just a ‘nice-to-have’…it’s a ‘must-have’.
1 Like
Yes. In my opinion it is not about data gathering per se that is ‘bad’ or ‘problematic’ but the fact that only small subset of the population gets to look at it (whether that is a corporation or the police or any unit). In may opinion all data should be open to all and any stakeholder. As we go into a fully connected world we need new tools for conflict management (we need a design for friction) because all our roles are changing and simple citizens, see, corporations and governments need all to revaluate their functions in a world with AI, Big Data, blockchain, crypto, IoT. So we open it all up to all. Then we get problems. Fine. We solve them and build a new balance between private and public. There is a way we can have our cake and eat it. That is where our framework of disposable identities starts to play:
Similarly, we need to give any device in an IoT ecosystem a unique identity. This is a necessary step to create a layer of IoT security and control the risks, especially those associated with IoT deployment in home area networks and in public infrastructures. Such an identity can make these devices identifiable when they come online and improve the security of the use of the IoT devices within service chains, thus improving both cybersecurity and end-user’s privacy. These identities do not need to be persistent, but on the contrary, must be designed as ephemeral or disposable to avoid systematic tracking of the device and of the owners of the device, but they should become regulated, accepted and widely used. They will obviously be based on the use of standardized digital certificates that will ensure proper authentication, transparency and authorization efficiency, and encryption. https://www.digicert.com/blog/guest-opinion-iot-devices-need-greater-conformity-and-security
Hey, With Corona showing that people can work from home much more actively than many thought, do you think cities will play the same roll in the future as they have before Corona? Thanks!
4 Likes
That is a super tough question. Many pieces of an answer but hardly a comprehensive one… Several advances helps us forge an environment that at one point allows for more interoperability, more trust. Once a market becomes sizable, the interest in letting go of walled gardens becomes larger (think video communications, think email and how an AOL subsriber could only send mail to another AOL subsriber, think office automation). Now look at something like vehicle to vehicle communications: the industry is on the verge of accepting full interoperability and standardization. Second, the unbundling of data by organizing data utilities, data commons etc Third, blockchain as an example of organizing trust by means of networked trustlessness
Electronic waste management will become a big business soon. The ICT sector faces its own green challenge: estimations show that it currently accounts for between 5 and 9% of global electricity consumption and more than 2% of global greenhouse gas emissions.
Let’s hope the Mafia stays with the old-fashioned physical waste management contracts
2 Likes
Uh… is this a good fit? I cannot shake off the impression that mobility is best served by low-tech solutions: 30 kmh speed limit, ban on private cars everywhere, bike lanes, this sort of things. Of course you could go very innovative with self-driving vehicles etc., but that would be “bullshit innovation”, where you get people around with the same level of effectiveness and satisfaction as with bicycles, but it costs 50x. This is very likely affected by my own living experience being mostly in a certain kind of tier 2- tier 3 city: Milan, Brussels.
That said, a smart city-ish technology that did take off is bike/scooter sharing. It works quite well, even in Brussels, where famously nothing ever works well. 
getting deeper on this --authentication, transparency and authorization efficiency, and encryption – is going to be a major focus of mine in the coming weeks and months. I’m certainly going to read this: https://www.digicert.com/blog/guest-opinion-iot-devices-need-greater-conformity-and-security
1 Like
The very notion of ‘things urban’ gets recontextualized as we accelerate in transitioning towards more time and place independency. Covid19 has pushed that massively. More people than ever before have access to “urban services” without living in a city. That will stay and evolve further I believe
Thanks for doing this AMA.
I’d like to ask for comments on the adoption of circular economy practices, services and technologies in smaller cities and municipalities. Any concrete success cases one could learn from? Best practices and models?
And your views on remote work and on “everything” going remote: how will it affect cities and what will be the compound environmental effect?
2 Likes
Who knows. You might be right, but many ingredients of what we thought was our smart mobility future are likely to make their way to another iteration. Apart from that, what I like about your statement is the human sharing piece enabled by networks, the Sharing City. Its a healthy vision
smart city-ish technology that did take off is bike/scooter sharing. It works quite well, even in Brussels? Because senior citizens don’t dare step outside and get run over. And ownerless scooters are abandoned everywhere so you can trip on them.
1 Like
here in Silicon Valley and San Francisco there are multiple mobility technologies that are helping reduce car use and increase pedestrian safety and bike safety. (Check out Strava, for instance). there is no compelling contradiction between useful tech and dramatic change in mobility that makes it not only greener but safer and more accessible to users from all income categories.
1 Like