6 ms·

Google wants to run cities without being elected. Don't let it

60 points by Caveman_Coder 9y ago

FreakyT 9y ago
Honestly, given how badly literally every town/city/municipality here in California is run, I say let Google take over for a while. Maybe we'll at least get decent public transit systems.
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  Self-driving cars are expected to do the opposite of improving public transit. Since cars can drive themselves in addition, there are actually more cars on the road than before, and the added convenience of summoning a private vehicle makes using public transit less appealing and less likely. An article... last week? pointed out that Uber and Lyft have also hurt public transit usage.
  - FreakyT 9y ago
    In the short term, sure. But larger self-driving vehicles, especially combined with dedicated lanes, could have the potentially to fully realize personal-rapid-transit[1] concepts. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_rapid_transit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_rapid_transit
chris__butters 9y ago
This is both cool and really f*cking scary; I'm glad there's going to be a "smart city" or at least "smart district" but at the same time what would Google do with this data? I've got a massive issue regarding my digital footprint and I know Google spreads my data like the plague if it gets chance. There needs to be some sort of organisation that could do this but not for profit which Google/Alphabet will no doubt get in someway shape or form.
funkjunky 9y ago
What's up with The Guardian and all these hit pieces against Google? Did they get screwed on a bill or something? Am I the only one who feels like there's a shady, coordinated media attack on silicon valley right now? Somebody wants these companies dead.
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  Or, you know, there's a lot of really valid concerns about the way Silicon Valley companies are behaving right now and a lot of people are increasingly upset about it. Insinuating articles that criticize your employer have ulterior motives while conveniently forgetting to mention you're being paid by the company being criticized is significantly more concerning behavior than The Guardian's.
  - cromwellian 9y ago
    Well, the Guardians behavior is concerning when they are making hyperbolic, distorted, or wrong claims. For example: https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/20/security-researchers-call-for-guardian-to-retract-false-whatsapp-backdoor-story/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/20/security-researchers-call-... This article on Sidewalk labs leaves out a lot of details and for "journalism" didn't even bother to ask the local authorities if Sidewalk had the authority to build or execute any plans without approval by the government. The reality is that this appears more like every other property developer master-planned community. Localities find a bit of land they want to develop or re-develop, they solicit architects and builders to submit proposals. Typically those proposals are master-planned, including commercial, residential, and public spaces. The city signs off on the plan, and then it is built. And like most such areas, there is a property management organization responsible for up keap, landscaping, repairs, maintenence, etc. This is not the same as the company becoming the "government", they don't run the police, fire departments, schools, etc. The only difference it seems between what Sidewalk is doing, and what Centex, or Shea Homes, or other master-plan community builders, is that the latter are real estate companies, and Sidewalk is a tech company. Oooh, scary. It's Omni Computer Products, better watch out for those ED-209's on the corners.
brockers 9y ago
It looks like the whole crux of the authors arugement rests on this paragraph: "But cities are not machines that can be optimized, nor are they labs for running experiments. Cities are not platforms with users, nor are they businesses with shareholders. Cities are real places with real people who have a right not to live with whatever “smart solutions” an engineer or executive decides to unleash." The reaction seems more visceral than thoughtful. Cities in many ways ARE machines that need to be optimized; and, regardless of our feelings, are always in a constant state of experimentation. Cities may not be platforms, but they are certainly businesses with shareholders called voters. Businesses are real places with real people; and while I agree that they should have the right to live without any "smart solution" that a business would like to unleash... my neighborhood covenant (enforced by city ordnance) already disagrees with my opinion. I don't disagree with the intent of the author, but she failed to make any reasonable argument in support of her point.
projectramo 9y ago
What is the complaint here? It sounded like a very generic accusation without any specifics on what the author believes the ethical problems are. I think he would have to take specific proposals by Alphabet and then point out flaws for this to have meat.
projectramo 9y ago
If a non-tech company -- say a property developer -- wanted to develop the land would the author have the same problems?
fhood 9y ago
I agree, tech billionaires should not be allowed to own parts of cities. Lets leave that to the real estate billionaires.
- brockers 9y ago
  I see what you did there...
- RasputinsBro 9y ago
  I get that you're being sarcastic. But what's your actual point?
  - fhood 9y ago
    There is nothing new to be scared about. Landlords already exist.
- stonewhite 9y ago
  Your comment reminds me of a documentary about bike gangs and mafia rivalry. As it turns out, people prefer having the bike gangs take over mafia businesses. Even though they are more or less the same, the former delivers its "services" in a cleaner and cheaper way. I guess we can say the same here too.
- cisanti 9y ago
  The whole problem is because of the fact that Google is scary big and has data no government or company has ever owned during the human kind.
zitterbewegung 9y ago
Allowing Google to remember it for you wholesale for modernization and experimentation doesn't seem like a good deal for what you get. Also, when Google pulls out because they don't know how to budget for most of their experiments after one year will still allow them to keep your data.
- mcguire 9y ago
  I wonder if they're going to use Google's support approach? Three weeks after they turn your water off for no readily apparent reason, you post here in hopes that someone that works there will see it and intercede.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    Just three weeks? That's would be an improvement compared to some water utilities I've known.
mtgx 9y ago
This is a modern version of giving cable companies local monopoly for internet connectivity. And we've seen how bad that has gotten in terms of the ISPs controlling the local politicians. How much more would a company like Google control the local politicians when it would be in charge of many more things than just providing citizens with internet connectivity?
cromwellian 9y ago
Isn't this just the equivalent of saying Disney wants to run Disney EPCOT, don't let it? Or that Google wants to run a Campus, don't let it? It seems like he's arguing if you live in Canada, Sidewalk will become your mayor automatically without any choice on your part which seems a distortion.
misterbowfinger 9y ago
On one hand, I don't see how this is different than any of the other numerous influences we have in our cities through corporate lobbies. To suggest that the way we live is solely due to the good nature of elected representatives is naive. On the other hand, maybe Google is flexing a little much here. I sincerely believe them that they have peoples' best interests at heart - because that will eventually be beneficial to Google as well. But inserting a little more competition here I think would lend itself a long way.
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  Google, like any corporation, has no best interests at heart but their own. I don't know how the idea that a multibillion-dollar international corporation "has people's best interests at heart" has survived to 2017.
  - mfoy_ 9y ago
    The interests of the people are more or less aligned with Sidedwalk Lab's interests. So you're not wrong, but you miss your mark a little bit. You're generally right though, that any publicly-traded company has primarily its shareholders best interests at heart. But that doesn't mean they'll ruin their public image by doing something untowards. Google especially seems to be more forward thinking than the traditional "quarterly results" style company. So I think it's worth giving them a shot at this just to see what happens. (Spoiler alert: it'll probably be the ultimate form of sacrificing privacy for convenience)
  - ams6110 9y ago
    This is different from cities how? Corruption and self-interest amongst elected city officials, especially in large cities such as Toronto, is endemic.
- Klathmon 9y ago
  The million dollar question is how to insert a little more competition? Do we have our government fund alternative companies? Do we force Google to break up into smaller companies? Do we make laws and regulations limiting what companies can and cannot do? I genuinely don't know the right answer (if there even is one), but I know that most of the answers i've heard on this have very large tradeoffs and downsides.
rafiki6 9y ago
There was no argument being made here. Just some frivolous claim that since Google is a big scary ambitious company and unelected we should be worried. No. Back up your absurd claim with evidence. 1) Who's to say that "elected" is the best approach for humanity's benefit? Has a double blind study ever been done? Some dictatorships have flourished while most have floundered. 2) An elected government is working in partnership with with a company (Google) to develop a part of it's jurisdiction. Is the author proposing the government should do it all it's self? Canadian city governments aren't in the business of developing anything. They contract or provide permits. How is this different than the city giving any other developer a permit to build?
- mfoy_ 9y ago
  You're "rebuttal" is equally, if not more so, absurd than any claim made in the article. You're calling democracy into question as your first argument for letting Google do this? REALLY? Then you ask for research, as evidence, that would be impossible to do? I agree if the city wants to let Google do this then so be it, but your response to the article was even more pointless than you claim the article to be.
  - rafiki6 9y ago
    My "rebuttal" isn't a "rebuttal". It's taking the serious lack of objectivity in the article to task. Yes, I am calling democracy into question. Especially representative democracy which is the only real democracy that currently exists. The US has Donald Trump for a president. If that isn't a refutation of the hypothesis of democracy I'm not sure what is. In order for social and political sciences to carry weight they should be held to the same standard as all sciences. Therefore they should follow the scientific method:http://www.bio.miami.edu/dana/dox/scientific_method.html http://www.bio.miami.edu/dana/dox/scientific_method.html I've included the link so there's no confusion as to what the scientific method actually entails. Democracy is an unproven hypothesis that we are using to govern society and has shown time and time again that it can be poorly executed and have dire consequences. For example, Hitler was democratically elected. Your response to my response was by far the most pointless activity. You achieved nothing but showing that you lack a certain awareness and might have a reading comprehension issue. Thanks.
burnt1ce 9y ago
Has the author seen Toronto's eastern waterfront? It's the ugliest part of the city. A friend of mine said that much of the soil there is polluted and a ton of money will be needed just to clean it for residential purposes. I have been rowing there for a couple of years and I'm happy that they are revitalizing the area. Here's Google street view of the area: https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.644809,-79.3348222,3a,75y,340.34h,84.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stKZ-Qn_l0sacgjFZiBQsCQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.644809,-79.3348222,3a,75y,340...
- chillingeffect 9y ago
  I feel for you, but that's a civic responsibility, not a corporate one. Civil governments are created with goal (yes I know it's imperfect) of providing access to resources equally. Corporations are formed with the goal of evading individual responsibility for financial benefit. They have no incentive to treat expensive individuals such as the less educated, the disabled, the poor, etc. They only support them in the most minimalist ways legally required and actually spend money to change laws to support the disadvantaged even less. If you want that area to be better, round up your fellow residents and get an initiative passed in the city.
  - drivingmenuts 9y ago
    > They only support them in the most minimalist ways legally required and actually spend money to change laws to support the disadvantaged even less. Are you describing corporations or city governments here, because I don't see much of a difference. The bulk of that work gets forced on NGOs and charitable organizations.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    That's what happened; the city's initiative to restore the place was to launch a competition and partner with the winner.
aaron-lebo 9y ago
Eric Schmidt said on Tuesday the genesis of the thinking for Sidewalk Labs came from Google's founders getting excited thinking of "all the things you could do if someone would just give us a city and put us in charge," although he joked he knew there were good reasons that doesn't happen. He then related his reaction when the company discovered it had won the bid for the development of its city-as-a-platform model: "Oh my God! We've been selected. Now, it's our turn." Google being given a city sounds like hell, but they'll probably stop supporting it after a few years, anyway. The grandiosity and ego of tech CEOs never ceases to amaze. You'd think someone with so much power wouldn't so casually drop that they want a city, too. Why don't you guys focus on your existing empire?
- loceng 9y ago
  Grandiosity is in part how big ideas exist. The important part is balanced with being humble and not greedy - being aware of ego and its potential influence. If Google or its founders are able to pave way for some significant improvement and value for a city/society without extracting too much value or adding unreasonable cost to a society, then it could be good. We of course can't blindly assume this will be the case.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
rublev 9y ago
When will all this annoying tech bullshit be over? I'm so tired of screens and data and information and whatever-the-fuck. Can we please just stop at the smart phone? There is no chance Google will improve my life. It's going to be a disgustingly modern sterile piece of crap which is where everything is headed these days. I want to smoke some cigarettes and have a malt 40 without anyone complaining to me while looking out at the water. Not sip $7 lattes on some 'smart campus' designed for business assholes. They are a corporation. They are here to do nothing but make more money. They are not here to make your life better. Fuck off Google, this article ruined my day.
- jayess 9y ago
  Thank you for summing up my feelings. I've been actively moving everything away from Google and Facebook lately. They're just distractions to living a fulfilling life.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- pokemongoaway 9y ago
  The loudest most outspoken people are rarely the people we need to hear from... We need more people like you helping organize competitors to Google. There's so much demand for this, but Qwant, Zoho, vid.me, and CopperheadOS aren't quite cutting it as a Google replacement scheme. We're getting closer though!
  - rublev 9y ago
    Unfortunately I'm too much of an idealist to work for a random company so there's not much opportunity to work on meaningful stuff. Would love to though, currently unemployed! Working on crypto/payments stuff so I can break more into that world.
- mfoy_ 9y ago
  You're entitled to your opinion, but this is a tech news aggregator, so...
spditner 9y ago
The city and Waterfront Toronto have not abdicated anything, as reported by the CBC: "They have no permission to build anything," said Coun. Paula Fletcher, who has been heavily-involved in plans to redevelop the nearby Port Lands. Fletcher says she's looking forward to seeing the ideas Sidewalk comes up with following a year's work and a series of public consultations, but warns they'll be held to a high standard. "It has to be good enough for Toronto. And it has to meet certain standards as far as jobs and land use are concerned," she said. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/sidewalk-labs-toronto-development-1.4365431 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/sidewalk-labs-toronto-...
- mcgarnagle 9y ago
  "It has to be good enough for Toronto." As a Toronto resident: I guess this means begin construction and then don't do any work for 5 years, all while burning through city funds.
  - spditner 9y ago
    Well, at least Sidewalk Labs is putting some money behind it. Mentioned in the linked article, and also in The Toronto Star: Doctoroff said his company will spend $50 million on a yearlong discussion, starting at a Nov. 1 public meeting, with citizens, governments, universities and others, about what the project dubbed “Sidewalk Toronto” should be. https://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2017/10/17/google-firm-wins-competition-to-build-high-tech-quayside-neighbourhood-in-toronto.html https://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2017/10/17/google-fir... I've attended some of the other consultations hosted by the city planning department, and I agree their timelines are epic. It was good however to engage with neighbours I wouldn't otherwise and hear differing opinions. I can understand why it can take so long when engaging with the general public, land redevelopment can be very divisive. The town hall meeting is November 1st if you're interested in participating: https://www.eventbrite.ca/e/sidewalk-toronto-community-town-hall-tickets-39231506492 https://www.eventbrite.ca/e/sidewalk-toronto-community-town-...
- notahacker 9y ago
  Yeah, reading between the lines of the Guardian's hyperbole, Google are building a campus site and are doing a bit of property development around it, which will incorporate some of their ideas on transport and security systems. There's nothing particularly odd about a company which has an urban planning subdivision doing a bit of urban planning. They might have got a sweetheart deal on the land offering dubious value to the local taxpayer, but that isn't discussed. There might be something about their IoT technology which is worse than the cameras and sensors which most high end office/apartments are already equipped with, but again, this isn't discussed. The city is still approving the planning process through normal channels, and the land is apparently an ex-industrial wasteland without existing residents to be affected. Just because Google is after you(r browsing data) doesn't mean this article isn't paranoid... (For those unfamiliar with the Guardian, its mix of news content bemoaning young British people's lack of access to affordable housing and relentless stream of opinion pieces objecting to any and every type of (sub)urban development has always been one of its more amusing quirks)
gremlinsinc 9y ago
I for one say let's see what google builds? I think city management/development is something that definitely could use some 'disruption' if it takes a google/fb to re-imagine modern cities I'm all for it, esp if we get some 'Jetson-like' technologies out of it... Like escalator walks in lieu of public transit.

60 points by Caveman_Coder 9y ago

Honestly, given how badly literally every town/city/municipality here in California is run, I say let Google take over for a while. Maybe we'll at least get decent public transit systems.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago
Self-driving cars are expected to do the opposite of improving public transit. Since cars can drive themselves in addition, there are actually more cars on the road than before, and the added convenience of summoning a private vehicle makes using public transit less appealing and less likely. An article... last week? pointed out that Uber and Lyft have also hurt public transit usage.
- FreakyT 9y ago
  In the short term, sure. But larger self-driving vehicles, especially combined with dedicated lanes, could have the potentially to fully realize personal-rapid-transit[1] concepts. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_rapid_transit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_rapid_transit

chris__butters 9y ago

This is both cool and really f*cking scary; I'm glad there's going to be a "smart city" or at least "smart district" but at the same time what would Google do with this data? I've got a massive issue regarding my digital footprint and I know Google spreads my data like the plague if it gets chance. There needs to be some sort of organisation that could do this but not for profit which Google/Alphabet will no doubt get in someway shape or form.

funkjunky 9y ago

What's up with The Guardian and all these hit pieces against Google? Did they get screwed on a bill or something? Am I the only one who feels like there's a shady, coordinated media attack on silicon valley right now? Somebody wants these companies dead.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago
Or, you know, there's a lot of really valid concerns about the way Silicon Valley companies are behaving right now and a lot of people are increasingly upset about it. Insinuating articles that criticize your employer have ulterior motives while conveniently forgetting to mention you're being paid by the company being criticized is significantly more concerning behavior than The Guardian's.
- cromwellian 9y ago
  Well, the Guardians behavior is concerning when they are making hyperbolic, distorted, or wrong claims. For example: https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/20/security-researchers-call-for-guardian-to-retract-false-whatsapp-backdoor-story/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/20/security-researchers-call-... This article on Sidewalk labs leaves out a lot of details and for "journalism" didn't even bother to ask the local authorities if Sidewalk had the authority to build or execute any plans without approval by the government. The reality is that this appears more like every other property developer master-planned community. Localities find a bit of land they want to develop or re-develop, they solicit architects and builders to submit proposals. Typically those proposals are master-planned, including commercial, residential, and public spaces. The city signs off on the plan, and then it is built. And like most such areas, there is a property management organization responsible for up keap, landscaping, repairs, maintenence, etc. This is not the same as the company becoming the "government", they don't run the police, fire departments, schools, etc. The only difference it seems between what Sidewalk is doing, and what Centex, or Shea Homes, or other master-plan community builders, is that the latter are real estate companies, and Sidewalk is a tech company. Oooh, scary. It's Omni Computer Products, better watch out for those ED-209's on the corners.

brockers 9y ago

It looks like the whole crux of the authors arugement rests on this paragraph: "But cities are not machines that can be optimized, nor are they labs for running experiments. Cities are not platforms with users, nor are they businesses with shareholders. Cities are real places with real people who have a right not to live with whatever “smart solutions” an engineer or executive decides to unleash." The reaction seems more visceral than thoughtful. Cities in many ways ARE machines that need to be optimized; and, regardless of our feelings, are always in a constant state of experimentation. Cities may not be platforms, but they are certainly businesses with shareholders called voters. Businesses are real places with real people; and while I agree that they should have the right to live without any "smart solution" that a business would like to unleash... my neighborhood covenant (enforced by city ordnance) already disagrees with my opinion. I don't disagree with the intent of the author, but she failed to make any reasonable argument in support of her point.

projectramo 9y ago

What is the complaint here? It sounded like a very generic accusation without any specifics on what the author believes the ethical problems are. I think he would have to take specific proposals by Alphabet and then point out flaws for this to have meat.

projectramo 9y ago

If a non-tech company -- say a property developer -- wanted to develop the land would the author have the same problems?

fhood 9y ago

I agree, tech billionaires should not be allowed to own parts of cities. Lets leave that to the real estate billionaires.

brockers 9y ago
I see what you did there...
RasputinsBro 9y ago
I get that you're being sarcastic. But what's your actual point?
- fhood 9y ago
  There is nothing new to be scared about. Landlords already exist.
stonewhite 9y ago
Your comment reminds me of a documentary about bike gangs and mafia rivalry. As it turns out, people prefer having the bike gangs take over mafia businesses. Even though they are more or less the same, the former delivers its "services" in a cleaner and cheaper way. I guess we can say the same here too.
cisanti 9y ago
The whole problem is because of the fact that Google is scary big and has data no government or company has ever owned during the human kind.

zitterbewegung 9y ago

Allowing Google to remember it for you wholesale for modernization and experimentation doesn't seem like a good deal for what you get. Also, when Google pulls out because they don't know how to budget for most of their experiments after one year will still allow them to keep your data.

mcguire 9y ago
I wonder if they're going to use Google's support approach? Three weeks after they turn your water off for no readily apparent reason, you post here in hopes that someone that works there will see it and intercede.
- icebraining 9y ago
  Just three weeks? That's would be an improvement compared to some water utilities I've known.

mtgx 9y ago

This is a modern version of giving cable companies local monopoly for internet connectivity. And we've seen how bad that has gotten in terms of the ISPs controlling the local politicians. How much more would a company like Google control the local politicians when it would be in charge of many more things than just providing citizens with internet connectivity?

cromwellian 9y ago

Isn't this just the equivalent of saying Disney wants to run Disney EPCOT, don't let it? Or that Google wants to run a Campus, don't let it? It seems like he's arguing if you live in Canada, Sidewalk will become your mayor automatically without any choice on your part which seems a distortion.

misterbowfinger 9y ago

On one hand, I don't see how this is different than any of the other numerous influences we have in our cities through corporate lobbies. To suggest that the way we live is solely due to the good nature of elected representatives is naive. On the other hand, maybe Google is flexing a little much here. I sincerely believe them that they have peoples' best interests at heart - because that will eventually be beneficial to Google as well. But inserting a little more competition here I think would lend itself a long way.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago
Google, like any corporation, has no best interests at heart but their own. I don't know how the idea that a multibillion-dollar international corporation "has people's best interests at heart" has survived to 2017.
- mfoy_ 9y ago
  The interests of the people are more or less aligned with Sidedwalk Lab's interests. So you're not wrong, but you miss your mark a little bit. You're generally right though, that any publicly-traded company has primarily its shareholders best interests at heart. But that doesn't mean they'll ruin their public image by doing something untowards. Google especially seems to be more forward thinking than the traditional "quarterly results" style company. So I think it's worth giving them a shot at this just to see what happens. (Spoiler alert: it'll probably be the ultimate form of sacrificing privacy for convenience)
- ams6110 9y ago
  This is different from cities how? Corruption and self-interest amongst elected city officials, especially in large cities such as Toronto, is endemic.
Klathmon 9y ago
The million dollar question is how to insert a little more competition? Do we have our government fund alternative companies? Do we force Google to break up into smaller companies? Do we make laws and regulations limiting what companies can and cannot do? I genuinely don't know the right answer (if there even is one), but I know that most of the answers i've heard on this have very large tradeoffs and downsides.

rafiki6 9y ago

There was no argument being made here. Just some frivolous claim that since Google is a big scary ambitious company and unelected we should be worried. No. Back up your absurd claim with evidence. 1) Who's to say that "elected" is the best approach for humanity's benefit? Has a double blind study ever been done? Some dictatorships have flourished while most have floundered. 2) An elected government is working in partnership with with a company (Google) to develop a part of it's jurisdiction. Is the author proposing the government should do it all it's self? Canadian city governments aren't in the business of developing anything. They contract or provide permits. How is this different than the city giving any other developer a permit to build?

mfoy_ 9y ago
You're "rebuttal" is equally, if not more so, absurd than any claim made in the article. You're calling democracy into question as your first argument for letting Google do this? REALLY? Then you ask for research, as evidence, that would be impossible to do? I agree if the city wants to let Google do this then so be it, but your response to the article was even more pointless than you claim the article to be.
- rafiki6 9y ago
  My "rebuttal" isn't a "rebuttal". It's taking the serious lack of objectivity in the article to task. Yes, I am calling democracy into question. Especially representative democracy which is the only real democracy that currently exists. The US has Donald Trump for a president. If that isn't a refutation of the hypothesis of democracy I'm not sure what is. In order for social and political sciences to carry weight they should be held to the same standard as all sciences. Therefore they should follow the scientific method:http://www.bio.miami.edu/dana/dox/scientific_method.html http://www.bio.miami.edu/dana/dox/scientific_method.html I've included the link so there's no confusion as to what the scientific method actually entails. Democracy is an unproven hypothesis that we are using to govern society and has shown time and time again that it can be poorly executed and have dire consequences. For example, Hitler was democratically elected. Your response to my response was by far the most pointless activity. You achieved nothing but showing that you lack a certain awareness and might have a reading comprehension issue. Thanks.

burnt1ce 9y ago

Has the author seen Toronto's eastern waterfront? It's the ugliest part of the city. A friend of mine said that much of the soil there is polluted and a ton of money will be needed just to clean it for residential purposes. I have been rowing there for a couple of years and I'm happy that they are revitalizing the area. Here's Google street view of the area: https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.644809,-79.3348222,3a,75y,340.34h,84.12t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1stKZ-Qn_l0sacgjFZiBQsCQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.644809,-79.3348222,3a,75y,340...

chillingeffect 9y ago
I feel for you, but that's a civic responsibility, not a corporate one. Civil governments are created with goal (yes I know it's imperfect) of providing access to resources equally. Corporations are formed with the goal of evading individual responsibility for financial benefit. They have no incentive to treat expensive individuals such as the less educated, the disabled, the poor, etc. They only support them in the most minimalist ways legally required and actually spend money to change laws to support the disadvantaged even less. If you want that area to be better, round up your fellow residents and get an initiative passed in the city.
- drivingmenuts 9y ago
  > They only support them in the most minimalist ways legally required and actually spend money to change laws to support the disadvantaged even less. Are you describing corporations or city governments here, because I don't see much of a difference. The bulk of that work gets forced on NGOs and charitable organizations.
- icebraining 9y ago
  That's what happened; the city's initiative to restore the place was to launch a competition and partner with the winner.

aaron-lebo 9y ago

Eric Schmidt said on Tuesday the genesis of the thinking for Sidewalk Labs came from Google's founders getting excited thinking of "all the things you could do if someone would just give us a city and put us in charge," although he joked he knew there were good reasons that doesn't happen. He then related his reaction when the company discovered it had won the bid for the development of its city-as-a-platform model: "Oh my God! We've been selected. Now, it's our turn." Google being given a city sounds like hell, but they'll probably stop supporting it after a few years, anyway. The grandiosity and ego of tech CEOs never ceases to amaze. You'd think someone with so much power wouldn't so casually drop that they want a city, too. Why don't you guys focus on your existing empire?

loceng 9y ago
Grandiosity is in part how big ideas exist. The important part is balanced with being humble and not greedy - being aware of ego and its potential influence. If Google or its founders are able to pave way for some significant improvement and value for a city/society without extracting too much value or adding unreasonable cost to a society, then it could be good. We of course can't blindly assume this will be the case.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

rublev 9y ago

When will all this annoying tech bullshit be over? I'm so tired of screens and data and information and whatever-the-fuck. Can we please just stop at the smart phone? There is no chance Google will improve my life. It's going to be a disgustingly modern sterile piece of crap which is where everything is headed these days. I want to smoke some cigarettes and have a malt 40 without anyone complaining to me while looking out at the water. Not sip $7 lattes on some 'smart campus' designed for business assholes. They are a corporation. They are here to do nothing but make more money. They are not here to make your life better. Fuck off Google, this article ruined my day.

jayess 9y ago
Thank you for summing up my feelings. I've been actively moving everything away from Google and Facebook lately. They're just distractions to living a fulfilling life.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
pokemongoaway 9y ago
The loudest most outspoken people are rarely the people we need to hear from... We need more people like you helping organize competitors to Google. There's so much demand for this, but Qwant, Zoho, vid.me, and CopperheadOS aren't quite cutting it as a Google replacement scheme. We're getting closer though!
- rublev 9y ago
  Unfortunately I'm too much of an idealist to work for a random company so there's not much opportunity to work on meaningful stuff. Would love to though, currently unemployed! Working on crypto/payments stuff so I can break more into that world.
mfoy_ 9y ago
You're entitled to your opinion, but this is a tech news aggregator, so...

spditner 9y ago

The city and Waterfront Toronto have not abdicated anything, as reported by the CBC: "They have no permission to build anything," said Coun. Paula Fletcher, who has been heavily-involved in plans to redevelop the nearby Port Lands. Fletcher says she's looking forward to seeing the ideas Sidewalk comes up with following a year's work and a series of public consultations, but warns they'll be held to a high standard. "It has to be good enough for Toronto. And it has to meet certain standards as far as jobs and land use are concerned," she said. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/sidewalk-labs-toronto-development-1.4365431 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/sidewalk-labs-toronto-...

mcgarnagle 9y ago
"It has to be good enough for Toronto." As a Toronto resident: I guess this means begin construction and then don't do any work for 5 years, all while burning through city funds.
- spditner 9y ago
  Well, at least Sidewalk Labs is putting some money behind it. Mentioned in the linked article, and also in The Toronto Star: Doctoroff said his company will spend $50 million on a yearlong discussion, starting at a Nov. 1 public meeting, with citizens, governments, universities and others, about what the project dubbed “Sidewalk Toronto” should be. https://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2017/10/17/google-firm-wins-competition-to-build-high-tech-quayside-neighbourhood-in-toronto.html https://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2017/10/17/google-fir... I've attended some of the other consultations hosted by the city planning department, and I agree their timelines are epic. It was good however to engage with neighbours I wouldn't otherwise and hear differing opinions. I can understand why it can take so long when engaging with the general public, land redevelopment can be very divisive. The town hall meeting is November 1st if you're interested in participating: https://www.eventbrite.ca/e/sidewalk-toronto-community-town-hall-tickets-39231506492 https://www.eventbrite.ca/e/sidewalk-toronto-community-town-...
notahacker 9y ago
Yeah, reading between the lines of the Guardian's hyperbole, Google are building a campus site and are doing a bit of property development around it, which will incorporate some of their ideas on transport and security systems. There's nothing particularly odd about a company which has an urban planning subdivision doing a bit of urban planning. They might have got a sweetheart deal on the land offering dubious value to the local taxpayer, but that isn't discussed. There might be something about their IoT technology which is worse than the cameras and sensors which most high end office/apartments are already equipped with, but again, this isn't discussed. The city is still approving the planning process through normal channels, and the land is apparently an ex-industrial wasteland without existing residents to be affected. Just because Google is after you(r browsing data) doesn't mean this article isn't paranoid... (For those unfamiliar with the Guardian, its mix of news content bemoaning young British people's lack of access to affordable housing and relentless stream of opinion pieces objecting to any and every type of (sub)urban development has always been one of its more amusing quirks)

gremlinsinc 9y ago

I for one say let's see what google builds? I think city management/development is something that definitely could use some 'disruption' if it takes a google/fb to re-imagine modern cities I'm all for it, esp if we get some 'Jetson-like' technologies out of it... Like escalator walks in lieu of public transit.