9 ms·

I know there's gonna be a lot of people here that are happy about this for various reasons (anti-Google, anti-"smart cities", etc), but this is really disappoin

I know there's gonna be a lot of people here that are happy about this for various reasons (anti-Google, anti-"smart cities", etc), but this is really disappointing for me. It's true that the concept of "cities" (or even just "gatherings of people") predates the Internet by thousands of years, and that cities themselves haven't adapted much to the Internet and what it enables in the 40ish years it's been around. This project was inspiring because it embraced what's possible in a new way and enabled many new possibilities that wouldn't otherwise be possible in the typical piecemeal upgrades a city typically sees over time (especially in terms of construction guidelines and sustainability). People hated on Sidewalk Labs since its very inception, but I guess they bit off too much area and got shut down by the locals (and, I guess, covid-19 made a handy exit strategy). Hopefully the next EPCOT equivalent will either be a new city that attracts the kind of people who would want to live there, or at least find a city that would be happy to host their "experiments". FWIW I previously worked at a "smart cities" company that I won't besmirch, but I will say I would rather see a more well-known (and IMO trustworthy) company that has more experience managing and securing data at scale than them. In experimental projects like these, it just takes one "city's data leaks" headline and the whole market chills.

save_ferris 6y ago
How much have you read on the exploitative history of company towns[0]? There are some really good reasons why people are skeptical of a private company coming in and trying to reshape the foundation of a community, particularly when that company happens to be Google. Sure, there's something idyllic about the vision of a community driven by technology as a first-class citizen, but let's be real here: Google doesn't exist to make the world a better place, it exists to make money. Full stop. Some of what Google does may happen to improve quality of life for some, but they're also happy to do things like permanently lock people out of their accounts for TOS violations with no recourse, causing major disruptions some of for their users. And then when they've decided that a project is no longer worth pursuing, they just kill it. How would you resolve the scenario where Google builds this smart city and then decides to bail on it? What happens to the people living there? Does the city of Toronto pick up the tab to keep it going? Google's mentality is fundamentally inconsistent with projects that require long-term stability, because not everything makes the kind of money that search ads do. You really want that company dictating how the community should operate? I'll pass. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town#History edit: a word
- zaidf 6y ago
  Your questions are valid. But you could pick holes about any party trying to bring about change, right? For example, you say "let's be real here: Google doesn't exist to make the world a better place"...my question to you is, which org does exist purely to make the world a better place? And moreover, how are those orgs doing in terms of impact and scale?
  - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
    Plenty of orgs exists purely to make the world a better place: They're nonprofits. And many nonprofits work at a wide, international scale. Have you looked at how Disney built Disney World, and the way they... govern... Disney World? There's a lot of similarities in Google's plan and their requests with what Disney built with the Reedy Creek Improvement District[0]. Essentially a company territory with government, policing, and regulation all managed by the company. And did EPCOT actually create a world of tomorrow? No. But Disney World has made Disney a lot of money. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reedy_Creek_Improvement_District https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reedy_Creek_Improvement_Distri...
    - theklub 6y ago
      Nonprofits are bogus in a lot of cases. They make tons of profit and make their founders/ceos rich.
      - marcinzm 6y ago
        Non profit CEOs make a fraction of what they’d make at a comparably sized for profit company.
        andrekandre 6y ago
        that may be true, but it doesnt mean they cant be corrupt or inept (just look at mother teresa for example) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Mother_Teresa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Mother_Teresa
nostromo 6y ago
> got shut down by the locals That's not what happened though. Google was free to continue the project but decided not too, using Covid-19 as a fig leaf. I agree with the thrust of your comment (we need more experimentation with cities, not less) but this is Google doing what Google does: changing it's mind and abandoning projects.
- tenpies 6y ago
  And let's be thankful that it abandoned it now, instead of in 15 years when it would have created a horrible slum.
- rising-sky 6y ago
  Hard to say that wasn't a factor in shutting it down. After several missed deadlines, major controversies around trust and privacy, scope creep such as attempts by Sidewalk Labs to alter to the project scope, for example, redevelopment of 350 acres in the Port Lands area which was nearly 30 times the original proposal, withdrawal of key advisors, and proposals that were simply political explosive, etc. It seemed almost inevitable that the project was destined to fail or largely be a shadow it's lofty original goals. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/15/alphabets-sidewalk-labs-wants-a-cut-of-toronto-taxes-for-smart-city.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/15/alphabets-sidewalk-labs-want... https://betakit.com/ann-cavoukian-still-has-problems-with-sidewalk-labs-approach-to-data-with-quayside/ https://betakit.com/ann-cavoukian-still-has-problems-with-si... https://betakit.com/sidewalk-labs-announces-it-will-no-longer-pursue-quayside-project/ https://betakit.com/sidewalk-labs-announces-it-will-no-longe...
  - Tsarbomb 6y ago
    How can you say it was going to be a shadow of its original goals if was unable to scope creep.
    - rising-sky 6y ago
      As an observer, Sidewalk initially proposed grand plans which were supposed to cost $ millions, and overtime on one hand, they would get pushback on some parts of the proposal, on the other hand, they would get approval for some part and need to alter the proposal to assuage the opponents. These alterations usually featured some additional proposals ballooning to an estimated cost in the $ billions (scope creep), that seemed even more controversial... The whole process seemed like a tug-of-war, a game of cat and mouse, or whack-a-mole. They would cede a part of proposal, propose another, only to have some sort of new outcry. From Ars' article published today https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/05/alphabets-sidewalk-labs-scraps-its-ambitious-toronto-project/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/05/alphabets-sidewalk-l... > But Sidewalk Labs’ vision was in trouble long before the pandemic. Since its inception, the project had been criticized by progressive activists concerned about how the Alphabet company would collect and protect data, and who would own that data > The partnership took a bigger hit last summer, when Sidewalk Labs released a splashy and even more ambitious 1,524-page master plan for the lot that went well beyond what the government had anticipated, and for which the company pledged to spend up to $1.3 billion to complete. The redevelopment group wondered whether some of Sidewalk Labs’ proposals related to data collection and governance were even “in compliance with applicable laws.” It balked at a suggestion that the government commit millions to extend public transit into the area, a commitment, the group reminded the company, that it could not make on its own.
jocker12 6y ago
You should read this - https://smartenoughcity.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/8dthlkrx/release/1?readingCollection=64f19fb2 https://smartenoughcity.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/8dthlkrx/releas...
netcan 6y ago
I'd like us to be more forward looking, ambitious and experimental with our cities as well, especially in the west. But... I think there's an institutional aspect here that needs resolution before we can. The internet is worryingly centralised. A small number of extremely profitable companies monopolise huge markets. Google tends to do this with data. I think the reticence was justified: "Who owns the data? What kind of monopoly are google eventually going to have?" These are fair. A financial success case for google is some sort of data-centric monopoly. They don't really do business another way. It's fair to be dubious of their endgame.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
  I, for one, would like us to stop experimenting with re-inventing the wheel. We had functional cities for centuries now. We can make adjustments to match the century, but I do not think it is helpful to revamp the way we have lived until now to satisfy this odd new personality that pervades the web that needs to change UI every so often to feel relevant. Geez. I feel old now.
  - nefitty 6y ago
    Progress is inevitable, even necessary, especially when systemic problems like climate change are consequences of the current paradigm. This seems to happen throughout history, ie industrialization, abolishment of slavery, new forms of government, etc. We need deep changes now to get ahead of the looming consequences of the patterns we've held as a society up until now.
  - shoulderfake 6y ago
    If you think Toronto is a functioning city, I suggest you do some traveling.
- vvs29 6y ago
  >> A financial success case for google is some sort of data-centric monopoly. They don't really do business another way. It's fair to be dubious of their endgame. Reminds me of a board game called Risk that I like playing where you have to capture territories by attacking owners of other territories. The moment any one player looks like they are gaining a good lead over others, the rest of the players gang up against that player to prevent him from getting too powerful. The goal is to be the single largest player in the game and everyone is trying to do that. But the moment anyone is too ahead of the curve in doing that we don't like it. I guess we as a society are wired to hate a single large player. Maybe the last couple of centuries left a bad taste in our mouth.
anoraca 6y ago
If the whole thing is designed to be transparent from the get go you wouldn't have to worry about data leaks.
DHPersonal 6y ago
I don't think a "smart city" is our answer; I think actually looking to the past is a better plan for a good city, such as what Strong Towns advocates. https://www.strongtowns.org/ https://www.strongtowns.org/ (I have no affiliation with the organization)
- Andorin 6y ago
  Absolutely. We know perfectly well what works in cities and it's got nothing to do with smart tech.
- notatoad 6y ago
  i don't think a "smart city" is the answer either, but it's worth pointing out that the quayside project was not a smart city by any definition of the word city, it was a 4.9ha parcel (~7 standard city blocks) in a much larger city - possibly the perfect canvas for some experimentation.
AzzieElbab 6y ago
That land was up for grabs since Toronto's bid for 2008 Olympics. The only serious project that materialized was Sidewalks one. Kind of sad.
- spideymans 6y ago
  Sad for who? It’s not as if Toronto needed this development by any stretch of the imagination.
  - AzzieElbab 6y ago
    For me. It is sad to ser 12 acres of wasteland siting on top of most premium location for 20 years. It is a sign of deep disfunction
fossuser 6y ago
There's a YC startup called Culdesac I've been following that's doing something interesting around city design. I'm not sure 'smart city' would be the right phrase for it, but they seem pretty cool. https://culdesac.com/ https://culdesac.com/
- servercobra 6y ago
  I'm confused what they're going for here. All the benefits seem to be exactly what you'd get living in many neighborhoods in many cities across the world. Most large, mixed-use apartment complexes have all these "amenities".
Barrin92 6y ago
The entire idea of a "smart city" is pure anathema to how vibrant cities function. It's a technocratic wet dream, the digital version of Robert Moses and Corbusier making a comeback. The people preoccupied with this should read some Alain Bertaud and learn how markets work and then go do more productive things with their time than trying to micromanage cities.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- kunai 6y ago
  Jane Jacobs is required reading as well.
- ccktlmazeltov 6y ago
  I don't see how, I would say most of the decisions that were made in the US are. Cities in the US are not "vibrant" compared to Europe. I think cars are mostly to blame, roads are so large, no pedestrian-only streets, parkings take so much space, etc.
  - hannasanarion 6y ago
    That's all Robert Moses' doing. He was the great champion of bulldozing neighborhoods and downtowns to replace them with highways, and eliminating trains, busses, streetcars, and bike lanes to fill the sides of every road with free street parking. He had governments of all parties convinced of his utopian vision of soaring highways and personal rapid transit as depicted on automobile ads and sci fi comics.
  - systemvoltage 6y ago
    I actually prefer the vastness of space in the US. Just go out in the American country side and there is so much beauty. I would love to see a world where the idea of a city is obsolete, distributed local communities of 2000 people spread across the span of American wilderness. Basic services such as electricity, sewage and internet are all maintained by standards set by the state authorities, but run by locals. It all sounds too hipster, but it is not. This COVID-19 pandemic has taught us a lot about how we can survive as a distributed species as compared to dense city life. Europe has no such luxury due to the density of people cramped in tight corridors and old (but beautiful) architecture. There it makes sense to have a well organized city life. IMO city life is overrated but that's just my opinion/perspective of society.
badrabbit 6y ago
The internet is at least as much dangerous as it is useful. Technology changes social power dynamics, often the people that enable it will design it in a way that benefits their own power dynamic. Think of it this way, let's say a fascist genocidal group become rulers of that city/country, or let's say Google's intentions change and Google becomes many times more evil than it is now. Will this technology preserve the power of the people to nit just freely express their opinions but to take action based on their beliefs. Who controls access,surveillance and information? Even if the majority approve, will this preserve the liberties of the minority? It's too late to ask these questions after the fact. I think it will work really well at first, my fear is actually that it won't stop at Toronto, and it will in the short term make a lot of people happy. Technology has changed a lot but human nature has remained consistent. It would be foolish to fail to take into account hisorical lessons about humanity and social power dynamics when considering such drastic changes. Unfortunately, those who should make such considerations often lack technical knowledge and those with technical knowledge are blinded by immediate benefits and possibilities. I think this is the curse of living in relatively free socieites, you lack the perspective of seeing how fragile the ground you stand on really is.

save_ferris 6y ago

How much have you read on the exploitative history of company towns[0]? There are some really good reasons why people are skeptical of a private company coming in and trying to reshape the foundation of a community, particularly when that company happens to be Google. Sure, there's something idyllic about the vision of a community driven by technology as a first-class citizen, but let's be real here: Google doesn't exist to make the world a better place, it exists to make money. Full stop. Some of what Google does may happen to improve quality of life for some, but they're also happy to do things like permanently lock people out of their accounts for TOS violations with no recourse, causing major disruptions some of for their users. And then when they've decided that a project is no longer worth pursuing, they just kill it. How would you resolve the scenario where Google builds this smart city and then decides to bail on it? What happens to the people living there? Does the city of Toronto pick up the tab to keep it going? Google's mentality is fundamentally inconsistent with projects that require long-term stability, because not everything makes the kind of money that search ads do. You really want that company dictating how the community should operate? I'll pass. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town#History edit: a word

zaidf 6y ago
Your questions are valid. But you could pick holes about any party trying to bring about change, right? For example, you say "let's be real here: Google doesn't exist to make the world a better place"...my question to you is, which org does exist purely to make the world a better place? And moreover, how are those orgs doing in terms of impact and scale?
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  Plenty of orgs exists purely to make the world a better place: They're nonprofits. And many nonprofits work at a wide, international scale. Have you looked at how Disney built Disney World, and the way they... govern... Disney World? There's a lot of similarities in Google's plan and their requests with what Disney built with the Reedy Creek Improvement District[0]. Essentially a company territory with government, policing, and regulation all managed by the company. And did EPCOT actually create a world of tomorrow? No. But Disney World has made Disney a lot of money. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reedy_Creek_Improvement_District https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reedy_Creek_Improvement_Distri...
  - theklub 6y ago
    Nonprofits are bogus in a lot of cases. They make tons of profit and make their founders/ceos rich.
    - marcinzm 6y ago
      Non profit CEOs make a fraction of what they’d make at a comparably sized for profit company.
      - andrekandre 6y ago
        that may be true, but it doesnt mean they cant be corrupt or inept (just look at mother teresa for example) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Mother_Teresa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Mother_Teresa

nostromo 6y ago

> got shut down by the locals That's not what happened though. Google was free to continue the project but decided not too, using Covid-19 as a fig leaf. I agree with the thrust of your comment (we need more experimentation with cities, not less) but this is Google doing what Google does: changing it's mind and abandoning projects.

tenpies 6y ago
And let's be thankful that it abandoned it now, instead of in 15 years when it would have created a horrible slum.
rising-sky 6y ago
Hard to say that wasn't a factor in shutting it down. After several missed deadlines, major controversies around trust and privacy, scope creep such as attempts by Sidewalk Labs to alter to the project scope, for example, redevelopment of 350 acres in the Port Lands area which was nearly 30 times the original proposal, withdrawal of key advisors, and proposals that were simply political explosive, etc. It seemed almost inevitable that the project was destined to fail or largely be a shadow it's lofty original goals. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/15/alphabets-sidewalk-labs-wants-a-cut-of-toronto-taxes-for-smart-city.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/15/alphabets-sidewalk-labs-want... https://betakit.com/ann-cavoukian-still-has-problems-with-sidewalk-labs-approach-to-data-with-quayside/ https://betakit.com/ann-cavoukian-still-has-problems-with-si... https://betakit.com/sidewalk-labs-announces-it-will-no-longer-pursue-quayside-project/ https://betakit.com/sidewalk-labs-announces-it-will-no-longe...
- Tsarbomb 6y ago
  How can you say it was going to be a shadow of its original goals if was unable to scope creep.
  - rising-sky 6y ago
    As an observer, Sidewalk initially proposed grand plans which were supposed to cost $ millions, and overtime on one hand, they would get pushback on some parts of the proposal, on the other hand, they would get approval for some part and need to alter the proposal to assuage the opponents. These alterations usually featured some additional proposals ballooning to an estimated cost in the $ billions (scope creep), that seemed even more controversial... The whole process seemed like a tug-of-war, a game of cat and mouse, or whack-a-mole. They would cede a part of proposal, propose another, only to have some sort of new outcry. From Ars' article published today https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/05/alphabets-sidewalk-labs-scraps-its-ambitious-toronto-project/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/05/alphabets-sidewalk-l... > But Sidewalk Labs’ vision was in trouble long before the pandemic. Since its inception, the project had been criticized by progressive activists concerned about how the Alphabet company would collect and protect data, and who would own that data > The partnership took a bigger hit last summer, when Sidewalk Labs released a splashy and even more ambitious 1,524-page master plan for the lot that went well beyond what the government had anticipated, and for which the company pledged to spend up to $1.3 billion to complete. The redevelopment group wondered whether some of Sidewalk Labs’ proposals related to data collection and governance were even “in compliance with applicable laws.” It balked at a suggestion that the government commit millions to extend public transit into the area, a commitment, the group reminded the company, that it could not make on its own.

jocker12 6y ago

You should read this - https://smartenoughcity.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/8dthlkrx/release/1?readingCollection=64f19fb2 https://smartenoughcity.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/8dthlkrx/releas...

netcan 6y ago

I'd like us to be more forward looking, ambitious and experimental with our cities as well, especially in the west. But... I think there's an institutional aspect here that needs resolution before we can. The internet is worryingly centralised. A small number of extremely profitable companies monopolise huge markets. Google tends to do this with data. I think the reticence was justified: "Who owns the data? What kind of monopoly are google eventually going to have?" These are fair. A financial success case for google is some sort of data-centric monopoly. They don't really do business another way. It's fair to be dubious of their endgame.

A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
I, for one, would like us to stop experimenting with re-inventing the wheel. We had functional cities for centuries now. We can make adjustments to match the century, but I do not think it is helpful to revamp the way we have lived until now to satisfy this odd new personality that pervades the web that needs to change UI every so often to feel relevant. Geez. I feel old now.
- nefitty 6y ago
  Progress is inevitable, even necessary, especially when systemic problems like climate change are consequences of the current paradigm. This seems to happen throughout history, ie industrialization, abolishment of slavery, new forms of government, etc. We need deep changes now to get ahead of the looming consequences of the patterns we've held as a society up until now.
- shoulderfake 6y ago
  If you think Toronto is a functioning city, I suggest you do some traveling.
vvs29 6y ago
>> A financial success case for google is some sort of data-centric monopoly. They don't really do business another way. It's fair to be dubious of their endgame. Reminds me of a board game called Risk that I like playing where you have to capture territories by attacking owners of other territories. The moment any one player looks like they are gaining a good lead over others, the rest of the players gang up against that player to prevent him from getting too powerful. The goal is to be the single largest player in the game and everyone is trying to do that. But the moment anyone is too ahead of the curve in doing that we don't like it. I guess we as a society are wired to hate a single large player. Maybe the last couple of centuries left a bad taste in our mouth.

anoraca 6y ago

If the whole thing is designed to be transparent from the get go you wouldn't have to worry about data leaks.

DHPersonal 6y ago

I don't think a "smart city" is our answer; I think actually looking to the past is a better plan for a good city, such as what Strong Towns advocates. https://www.strongtowns.org/ https://www.strongtowns.org/ (I have no affiliation with the organization)

Andorin 6y ago
Absolutely. We know perfectly well what works in cities and it's got nothing to do with smart tech.
notatoad 6y ago
i don't think a "smart city" is the answer either, but it's worth pointing out that the quayside project was not a smart city by any definition of the word city, it was a 4.9ha parcel (~7 standard city blocks) in a much larger city - possibly the perfect canvas for some experimentation.

AzzieElbab 6y ago

That land was up for grabs since Toronto's bid for 2008 Olympics. The only serious project that materialized was Sidewalks one. Kind of sad.

spideymans 6y ago
Sad for who? It’s not as if Toronto needed this development by any stretch of the imagination.
- AzzieElbab 6y ago
  For me. It is sad to ser 12 acres of wasteland siting on top of most premium location for 20 years. It is a sign of deep disfunction

fossuser 6y ago

There's a YC startup called Culdesac I've been following that's doing something interesting around city design. I'm not sure 'smart city' would be the right phrase for it, but they seem pretty cool. https://culdesac.com/ https://culdesac.com/

servercobra 6y ago
I'm confused what they're going for here. All the benefits seem to be exactly what you'd get living in many neighborhoods in many cities across the world. Most large, mixed-use apartment complexes have all these "amenities".

Barrin92 6y ago

The entire idea of a "smart city" is pure anathema to how vibrant cities function. It's a technocratic wet dream, the digital version of Robert Moses and Corbusier making a comeback. The people preoccupied with this should read some Alain Bertaud and learn how markets work and then go do more productive things with their time than trying to micromanage cities.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
kunai 6y ago
Jane Jacobs is required reading as well.
ccktlmazeltov 6y ago
I don't see how, I would say most of the decisions that were made in the US are. Cities in the US are not "vibrant" compared to Europe. I think cars are mostly to blame, roads are so large, no pedestrian-only streets, parkings take so much space, etc.
- hannasanarion 6y ago
  That's all Robert Moses' doing. He was the great champion of bulldozing neighborhoods and downtowns to replace them with highways, and eliminating trains, busses, streetcars, and bike lanes to fill the sides of every road with free street parking. He had governments of all parties convinced of his utopian vision of soaring highways and personal rapid transit as depicted on automobile ads and sci fi comics.
- systemvoltage 6y ago
  I actually prefer the vastness of space in the US. Just go out in the American country side and there is so much beauty. I would love to see a world where the idea of a city is obsolete, distributed local communities of 2000 people spread across the span of American wilderness. Basic services such as electricity, sewage and internet are all maintained by standards set by the state authorities, but run by locals. It all sounds too hipster, but it is not. This COVID-19 pandemic has taught us a lot about how we can survive as a distributed species as compared to dense city life. Europe has no such luxury due to the density of people cramped in tight corridors and old (but beautiful) architecture. There it makes sense to have a well organized city life. IMO city life is overrated but that's just my opinion/perspective of society.

badrabbit 6y ago

The internet is at least as much dangerous as it is useful. Technology changes social power dynamics, often the people that enable it will design it in a way that benefits their own power dynamic. Think of it this way, let's say a fascist genocidal group become rulers of that city/country, or let's say Google's intentions change and Google becomes many times more evil than it is now. Will this technology preserve the power of the people to nit just freely express their opinions but to take action based on their beliefs. Who controls access,surveillance and information? Even if the majority approve, will this preserve the liberties of the minority? It's too late to ask these questions after the fact. I think it will work really well at first, my fear is actually that it won't stop at Toronto, and it will in the short term make a lot of people happy. Technology has changed a lot but human nature has remained consistent. It would be foolish to fail to take into account hisorical lessons about humanity and social power dynamics when considering such drastic changes. Unfortunately, those who should make such considerations often lack technical knowledge and those with technical knowledge are blinded by immediate benefits and possibilities. I think this is the curse of living in relatively free socieites, you lack the perspective of seeing how fragile the ground you stand on really is.