Smart Citizens build cities
Last week I hinted at my interest in the vision of a smart city in which connected and engaged citizens bring smartness about instead of sensors, feedback loops and algorithms. One of the many ways this smartness surfaces is urban farming.
Another manifestation of this smartness that I find deeply fascinating is the getting together of citizens who set out to enhance/improve their urban environment. In bottom-up urban planning we all get a say in the design of our street, block, neighborhood or city. Citizens are increasingly more often getting together and starting Kickstarter-like projects to fund an enhancement to their neighbourhood. The year-old Citizenvestor aims to close the gap between people with ideas and their local government. The days of dull meetings in the city hall seem to be ending.
While funding a public bench with your neighbours is a feasible project “you can’t” – as Dan Hill succintly remakrs – “crowdsource lightrail”. Crowdfunding urban interventions seems to work best for small and highly local projects. Crowdfunded urban projects are capped financially because the number of people who care for a certain project are probably located in the vicinity of said project e.g. the chances of someone in Japan funding a project in Germany are nill.
Another important issue to consider is legislation; citizens cannot do whatever they want, even when the funding is secured. They need to adhere to zoning plans, safety regulations, secure the backing of their neighbours, etc. The folks at Brickstarter have thoroughly investigated all the aspects involved in the urban crowdfunding process and especially the communication between the people and local governmental bodies. One of their conclusions is that the citizens are ahed of government; local authorities in Finland find it difficult to cope with this new form of city making.
Get the conversation going
We use Geodan’s Phoenix applications to collect the people’s ideas about how to organize and design the city.
It is here, in the meeting of bottom-up and traditional governing bodies and practices, that I see great potential for deploying modern information technologies to start a constructive discourse between both parties. Participatory place making involves a large number of highly diverse people and therefore calls for streamlined and intuitive tools.
I want to contribute to this issue by figuring out what geospatial tools can aid design phase of a project and how these are to be deployed to support the deliberation process. More specifically, I want to analyze how modern geospatial technologies can help citizens and urban planners to cooperate in future place making.
Of course, technology plays a minor role in the whole conversation. My goal and focus is therefore to bend the technologies to fit the process instead of imposing it on the people in a “here, use this” manner. Geospatial technology is, for reasons I’ll discuss in a later post, very much underused. I see a great deal of opportunities to improve the tools (ever so slightly) to make the deliberation process easier, more transparent and more pleasant.
I’ll be making headway in this direction by participating in urban planning projects in which citizens want a place at the discussion and planning table. The plan is to analyze the needs of both parties and see I am currently exploring the various disciplines involved in urban planning in order to better design an experiment/lab/trial in which to test the role of technology.
Read more