Author: qiong

Alternative Future

Reframing Reimaging Remarking Smart City

The author mentions the Promises and Perils in the process of smart city. One of them are: “ Will create a smart economy by fostering entrepreneurship, innovation, productivity, competiveness, and inward investment”  and “Promotes a strong emphasis on technical solutions and overly promotes top-down technocratic forms of governance, rather than political/social solutions and citizen-centred deliberative democracy”. After reading all the articles, I think the top – down is not against the democracy at all. It is just part of process. The totally democracy like bottom-up will not exist without top-down. But top- down will survived by it own. The question or fear is not to pause the develop of top-down system but engage the bottom-up system more. Then it goes back to the chapter: how can we engage the process of building the smart city. The development of multi-interface should be important component. Then another question emerges: what will be the benefit of citizen whom is engaging in the process, the sense of ownership?

Owning The City

One question before reading the article: what is the ownership in term of the smart city, and who is the owner and what did he/she/us own? The ownership is broad topic. In the aspect of smart city or big date, I do not think we as individual own anything, just because it is such big scale. Individual matters so little. We can claim we as group of user/ citizen owns our date. But what can we use it for? Research? Analysis? Development? I do not think the big data effect at all for our individual. The function of big data exists when it is processed. The person who process it, may claim he own it. But we are the generator of the date. From the base, we have the ownership. Just like the article I read before: Death of Authorship. The end of authorship is beginning of art. Could the death of ownership simulate a new page of smart city? We are no longer talking being the citizen of smart city but we are the smart city.

 

In the part of “ Recounting the role of urban tech: From smart city to social city”, author talks about the mobile device will allow the user to create the highly personalized image for their city. I just keep think the video that is post of Facebook. Even it is kind not related. But somehow the Facebook becoming a tool to review another city/ state for me. Maybe not only Facebook, but all other social media. Anyone which allow user to up load photos is kind creating a small file of city/ people. But not all image are nice, should we have a system to eliminate the “bad” one? Then who is doing that? Should we have a more “smart” upload system. Will this system reduce the participation of citizen?

Crashing and Hacking the Smart City

Based on Cesar Cerrudo’s reading: An Emerging US (and World) Threat: Cities Wide Open to Cyber Attacks, I think we can understand the smart city is tending to make citizen life better. It is like the large scale laptop. In the box there are many components which are working closely to perform its function. Can smart city like the laptop, it can be somehow back up itself and able to restart when it was attacked? Maybe the plan B will solve the partial problem that he mentions on paper such as cyber-attack. Then there will be another question, where to restore the data for such large “computer”? Since every second we produce thousands of data which will be process by some smart device, could be our phone, traffic sensor etc. Maybe on the end of data collection point we can have a smart filter device which only keep the important data. The idea of security is always going to be the major issue for today society. Maybe we should rethink the definition of security instead of fighting for it.

 

Also Cesar Cerrudo talks about the simple bugs with huge impact which is not an attack but the failure of software. Will the failure of software of the platform start impact other thing since we are trying to connect all smart things together? For example, he mentions that the traffic light system will be easiest system to be hacked. If we are using the smart phone to check the traffic on the road. Somehow the phone will hook up with traffic system. Will the failure of traffic system create a chine effect on our phone? Then the computer, maybe even bigger, other smart sensors/ system of city. Since the failure of software will exist somehow. Can we have some more complex interface just like he said on paper. For example, the internet access we have today. It should be the cellular data, wifi and line connection. Even the dinner next door. The example Townsend mentions on his book, the bug in BART system is the multiple failure of one single system. If we were not try to fix the problem immediately, instead we have another one which can have similar function. Then it will give us more time to fix the problem, not have the system shut down three times.

DIY and Participatory Urbanism

In Townsend’s reading, he described the city should be tree like and it should have more connection within branches. The urban sprawl during postwar period is the “tree” which lacks communication between braches. But I think city is more like nest: there are different start points and connection in multiple directions. Anyhow the connection is essential for a successful city. He mentioned the Foursquare as the tool to link people in the city. It simply connects people digitally through the platform of “check-in” meanwhile people share their opinions. What if the digital platform somehow determines our destination? Will city become generalized. For example, traveling. Base on Foursquare’s review, we may end up at most “popular” part of city. Will there be space for surprises or we just going to be “organized” to the “best” place. Then it come to the question: do we want to be connected in both big and small scale”

Undeniable, the DIY city is the free form of city which we can design a prefect city. But it is physical limited, only for tech elites. Functionally, it is unlimited. Not talking about whether the DIY city can from a city in reality. The idea of group of people gather together creating their own vision of settlement is like having a city. Does the freedom of DIY city benefit the process of making city? Just like at the end of reading, Townsend talked about the bugs in the grass roots. How to evolve the smart city organically? The word organically is the key. It is the fundamental different between concept of DIY city and concept of really city. Because there are limits for physical development of city, so the city starts from organic shape.

Do idiots have to participate in digital urbanism? Do we all have to be smart? May be having some idiots is not bed at all. Smart city with digital sensors is new and trendy. It need to be promoted but it does not mean to replace the old fashion. Start with computer. 2o years ago, it was so new, knowing it is smart. But today it just part of our life, knowing it is like eating and sleeping. Smart city could use the same way. The app FIXMYSTREET is great tool to communicate within community. But do we know our neibroghood expect the question/problem that he/she/it post? Smart city is based on the digital. Do we want to push the digital sense far? Or having some physical aspect is be supplement for it.

Urban Data Infrastructures

In Gabrys’s reading, she asked: What are the processes that these infrastructures instigate and sustain? How do they at once individuate and join up cities and citizens? What are the capacities of these infrastructures and what modes of inhabitation do they facilitate? She answered these question by the environmental approaches which bring up the idea of withness. However, the environmental quality is not how I image the withness. Could it be a hybrid solution which combine environmental approaches with moving approaches?

 

Considering the digital infrastructures as the physical infrastructure which is eventually going to be have some sort of maintenance. But different form the physical infrastructure such as road, we can partially fix it. The digital infrastructure such as sensors are all connected. How do we maintain the service of the digital infrastructure? If like Gabrys described, digital sensors are embedding into the environment, will be increase the difficulty of maintenance. Or the system could be node to node.

 

“Smart Urbanism” touched the concern about the corporatization of governance. Are there ways to result the conflict between the operation of smart city and the “profit” of smart. So the building process of smart city can equality distribute the benefit. One idea I have in mind is requiring the customized “dashboard”. The London dashboard and Dublin dashboard should not be the same. Each of them should be more specific focus on their own city problem in term of city management. Then this raise another question: who is willing to putting the extra effort?

Tabula Rasa: New Songdo- Qiong

From the reading “100 billion dollar jackpot”, Townsend describe Songdo as the model for new megacity which has been input all kinds of high-tech related infrastructure. The FPID system, the central central computer to process tons one information at one time. One smart card will support one individual basic daily routine. However, he still mention the conflict between the use of date and personal privacy. As long as we relaying on computer, the risk of lost identity will be high. Just because I believe the computer/ internet or the digital system we have today is too easy to be hacked. And the usership and ownership of data still unclear. So my question is is there a way which we as the creator of our own digital footprint can have equal right as others whoever use our data. And will this cause the serious problem?

From same reading, Townsend also mention the situation at China. I do not think the city like Songdo will be established at China. Because of the Land and the population. China is much bigger than Korea, the need for creating a new land is not essential. But the idea of investing high-tech infrastructure is necessary. Just like what NYC did: keep the old city structure, and adding new infrastructure. Is building a new city from nothing necessary if we have a small city to investigate. The city with nature growth will have much more city culture behind it. In China, there are numbers of secondary cities which is waiting for new investment. By developing those city, the economic will flourishing.

In the reading, ” Test Bed As Urban Epistemology”, author talked a lot about idea of test bed. Base on the knowledge form pervious reading. Songdo is the result of applying new technology in building city process. It is totally different story form organic grow city or planed city which change over time. It is more like a sudden thing. As test bed, there are many thing has be to test. Will the testing process benefit the civilian’s life? If the failing of test will compromise the need of civilian. The article mentioned the test bed is not stable but mobile. Test bed is not about private area but territories. Are these qualities against the essential idea of home and village?

Smart city and smart citizen

Form the reading Townsend, there are so many positive imagination about the development of technology especially in telecommunication. But what will the negative side of it. Just like industrialization, it change the world dramatically. Undeniably, there are huge consequences. Will the telecommunication technology become the force for decentralization. And because the technologies, will it limit the mobility or the willingness of moving? Since we can view everything though the small device. Also, the privacy. The digital process of smart city at some level violate the our privacy, such as tracking information. Most importantly, the physical communication. Smart city/ smart device should design for easy commutation. Now, at some level it is doing opposite thing.

Another question from Townsend reading is about the rapidly growth of city. In developing countries as well as developed countries, people move to urban for job opportunities and living condition. As the growth of city population, the infrastructure could be the problem. And the pattens of growing has been repeated in so many cities. What will be the need to develop same city all over the world. It question the definition of city just like Hill mentioned on his essay. Will it be better to slow down the development of smart city, make it customized for different location.

For Hill’s essay, his ideas of ‘Data>Information>Knowledge>Wisdom’ paradigm drawn the different aspect about computerized process. What will be more trustable, the data the being process by code or the wisdom that we have. His idea about the responsibility behind the decision making make me think about the role we play after having smart city. What can we do if computer take over the most process. Should we rely on computer or it is the tool just like a ruler.
Mm