Category Archives: Post #2: From Policy to Recommendation

Post #2: From Policy to Recommendation, Public Space

Creating a Smarter City Through Parks

7 Comments

Smart City Suggestions:
1. Rain water pond used for irrigation
2. Solar powered lights in park spaces
3. App for monitoring traffic in Portland (provides best routes for walking, driving, biking, etc. taking into account events, closed roads, and rush hour traffic)
4. App for Parking (Tells available parking times, locations, and cost)
5. App for Festivals, Concerts, etc schedule (what events are occurring and the details about each event)

Portland, Maine already has the necessary urban infrastructure to build a stronger, more networked system, which will help the transformation into a “smarter” city. In Greenfield’s Against the Smart City, he states that the typical “smart city” can refer to a “far more consequential drive to retrofit networked information technologies into existing urban places” [1], though this is not always the case. In fact, Greenfield argues that a city that relies too heavily on technology is unrealistic. Instead, when building smart cities, one should take into account the unpredictable and flawed nature of cities and their efficiency.
Listed above are five ideas  that would help create a “better” Portland. I am defining a “better” city as one that would provide an efficiently running, more connected, people-friendly cultural setting. The majority of these ideas rely on the technology of some sort of smart phone, such as the apps that can connect and update people with events occurring in Portland. However, the suggestion I am going to focus on in detail is the addition of a rain water pond used for irrigation [2].
When visiting Portland, I noticed a fountain located in a park that was lacking in both aesthetics and functionality. A solution to this would be creating a pond that could support aquatic life, while also naturally filtering and collecting water to reuse for irrigation for other plants in the park. This would be aesthetically pleasing for visitors of the park because it can host plants and provide the same satisfaction as viewing a water fountain. Additionally, in the September 3, 2014 Portland Council Meeting, the members discussed repairing the current water treatment system of the Stormwater Outfall at Capisic Pond Park [3], which could also benefit from a water collection pond. This addition could be routed to collect small amounts of run-off from areas in the park, which would help reduce the amount of run-off left at Capisic Pond Park in an environmentally friendly way. Although this pond is not “smart” in a typical technological manner, it is smart in that it runs efficiently in an innovative way. The pond not only contributes to the beautification of the park, but also provides an efficient solution to controlling water run-off and supporting the irrigation system in a park.

1. Greenfield, Adam (2013-12-20). Against the smart city (The city is here for you to use) (Kindle Locations 119-120).
2. This idea was actually inspired by the Aquatic Pond and Rainwater Harvesting System at Yale University’s Environmental Studies building.
3. Portland Regular City Council Meeting (September 3, 2014). http://portlandmaine.gov/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/09032014-583 (Accessed 9/25/14).

Infrastructure, Post #2: From Policy to Recommendation

Post #2–Small-Scale Intervention

5 Comments

Based on the City Council reports, its apparent that sound infrastructure within Portland is rather lacking, or that it at least needs a fair overhaul. What’s also apparent, however, is that the city council isn’t exactly sure how to go about solving its infrastructure issues, especially those that concern user friendliness. As a primer to a much broader discussion on infrastructure, I’ve detailed a few options that could be potential (and possibly cost-effective) interventions that could benefit Portland in the short and long run:

 

  1. Reduction of vehicular access within the Old Port.
  2. Friendlier pedestrian/bike paths across (on or over) Exchange street.
  3. Incorporating additional (potentially free-to-park) parking structures.
  4. Expansion of parks/sidewalks by reducing street width and sidewalk parking spaces.
  5. interactive information kiosks, scattered throughout the city, that function doubly as free WiFi hotspots.

 

I listed the information kiosks at the end intentionally, as I believe that this is an existing (though not well-loved) paradigm that could be modified to meet the demands of Portland’s users with a smart-city sort of flare. As Greenfield makes quite apparent, the idea that a smart city should be a perfectly autonomous system is misleading. For one thing, “perfectly autonomous systems” do not exist at the level of complexity on which a city operates. We only need to remember William Whyte’s overhead shot of the park in front of the Seagram Building; hundreds of people walked along unique, intersecting paths within a relatively small space, yet not one person collided with another. From a strictly algorithmic standpoint, the layers of code necessary to achieve such a complex feat with so many independent entities—with a 100% success rate—is utterly absurd. Secondly, such a “perfectly autonomous system” is incredibly unattractive to a city’s residents. Even if such a perfect writ system existed, the mere thought of its implication would likely be shot down. People, especially Americans, value their agency with a unique passion. These kiosks would use the ideas that city residents value personal freedom and that they don’t want their city to operate “perfectly” to its advantage, as it allows the city’s users to access the city at their own will and to whatever extent they determine desirable.

 

As a smart city application, the traditional idea of a tourist booth wouldn’t apply to these new kiosks. Instead, they would be interactive and multifaceted: while one aspect of the kiosk would maintain the traditional “where-am-I-in-the-city” aspect, it would also provide interactive touch screens that allow access to detailed maps of the city, showing points of interest such as local businesses, public parks, hotels, etc.; one could use a kiosk to look up the various entertainment venues and their respective schedules (and perhaps book a ticket for a film screening or a local play that night); one could look up Duck Fat or DiMillo’s, view a menu, get walking directions, and book a reservation; one could even look up the parking spaces within the city, viewing which parking garages were available/full and their respective fares, or simply finding an empty spot on Congress Street for no-charge parking. Such a kiosk could even act as an ATM, allowing customers to pay for concert tickets, parking fees, and complete various other monetary exchanges right from any convenient location throughout the city.

 

What really brings this information kiosk out of the 1980s and into smart-city dialogue is its accessibility and agency. These kiosks can be placed in public parks or along well-traveled routes, making them either places to hang out and explore the city options or make predetermined searches/exchanges from a convenient, en route location. Next, the kiosk can function as a free Wi-Fi hub, simultaneously making the kiosks a valued commodity for any flaneur as well as obtaining a city’s dream in a functional and attractive manner (kiosks would not have to look the same either; they could be designed to blend with their surroundings, incorporating like materials and also seamlessly integrating itself into the urban fabric. Finally, the clincher that makes these kiosks accessible is their co-function with a mobile app. The large majority of individuals who own mobile devices will be able to access the kiosk from their own pockets. Not only does the kiosk function as a valuable, in-city informational device, but it also can create a versatile database of all of its greatest assets—which can be shared from any living room, sidewalk, bus stop, or cafe across the country. People in San Diego could book seats at a concert at the State Theater following a business meeting that brings them to Portland; connoisseurs in Portland, Oregon could look up locations to buy gelato in their like-named sister city to sample, compare, and find inspiration for their own recipes. The possibilities are endless, and the agency in encapsulates meshes perfectly with how a city operates.

Post #2: From Policy to Recommendation, Public Space

Public Space Suggestions: Interactive Walking Tours

6 Comments

Smart City Suggestions:

  • Reconfiguring traffic space as public space:  Using longitudinal data about traffic patterns (I don’t know if this exists yet), the city could open and close streets to allow for more public space.  If certain streets get very little traffic, they could be repurposed as plazas.  I know they did this in many major squares in Manhattan and it really improved both traffic and the quality of the area.  The September 15th City Council Meeting made reference to the opening and closing of streets temporarily for festivals, it would be cool to seem them do this full time (City of Portland, 24).
  • Interactive public art:  It would be really interesting to see Portland’s public spaces integrate more public art, particularly interactive or “smart” art.  We all remember the sad little fountain on our walking tour, wouldn’t it be great if the fountain could sense movement and put on special shows as people walked by?  Or a sidewalk that played music to the beat you were walking?
  • Indoor public spaces:  Portland needs more indoor public spaces and atriums that would give a place for people to relax and socialize in the winter months.  Thinking of a “smart” indoor public space made me think of Songdo’s smart buildings.  These buildings could be designed as low environmental impact, with special temperature control mechanisms (maybe even those fancy shades).  It could also be a central information hub, with screens giving information on the weather, transportation, traffic and world news.
  • Interactive history tours:  Many students suggested that they wanted more information about the history of the city and historic landmarks.  Similar to the interactive public art idea, it would be great to have interactive history tours.  Screens dispersed throughout the city could give you information about the site, show historical pictures, and tell stories.  This could be similar to the bricks project we saw during the walking tour, except they could constantly update, with people submitting their own stories.
  • A public space events app: An app advertising events could make public spaces less of a placeholder and more of a destination.  Public spaces could host concerts, public theater, children’s workshops, and sponsored events from local organizations.  This would help these spaces gain a reputation as vibrant locales.  The app could also feature more day-to-day information, like which food trucks will be in which square when.

 

I think the most exciting suggestion would be the interactive history tours.  The kiosks could support of a host of activities – facts, photos, and serve as a platform to share stories and experiences.  It gives Portland a sense of places, teaching residents and tourists about the history of the area.  It fosters a sense of community and acts as a virtual artwork through the sharing of stories.  It would also help brand Portland as a cutting edge “smart” city.  In relation to public space, it incentivizes spending time on the sidewalks, and treats the street as not just a thoroughfare to walk but a place to spend time in, appreciate and interact with.

Greenfield’s notion that the smart city is built in generic space and time made me realize how important the location and history of a city really is (Greenfield*).  While a new smart city may be placed anywhere, generic versatility would totally neglect Portland’s unique charm.  That is why I think learning about the constantly-updating history of the city is so important when experiencing it.  Greenfield’s critique of smart cities as “pretending” to “perfect knowledge that are nowhere achievable” made my shy away from suggestions that were too far reaching.  Greenfield states: that algorithms used to design smart cities suggest “there is one and only one universal and transcendently correct solution to each identified individual or collective human need,” and that this can stifle diversity or malfunction (Greenfield).  The kiosks don’t carry this risk because they are about fostering the creative and human aspects of the city.  The September 15th City Council Meeting did not address any creative aspects of the city – it was only concerned with permits, development and maintenance of infrastructure.  I would be nice to change this.

On a completely unrelated note, why/how are they able to publically publish the criminal records of a man trying to get a liquor license for his restaurant? (City of Portland, 49)

 

Sources:

  • Greenfield, Adam. 2013. Against the Smart City. 1.3 edition. Do projects.
    * I couldn’t get page numbers on the Kindle.
  • City of Portland. Regular City Council Meeting: September 15th, 2014. Portland, ME: September 15th, 2014.
Assignments, Housing, Infrastructure, Post #2: From Policy to Recommendation, Public Space

Post #2: From Policy to Recommendation

In blog post #2 ( due by Thursday, September 25th, at 8pm for this specific post), you will dive further into the life of the city through various recommendations by examining recent board meeting minutes from the Portland City Council. This group is the lifeblood of public policy in Portland, Maine. They make the decisions that affect our research issues of housing, infrastructure, and public space, among others. These elected officials meet at least once a month for many, many hours to determine the best, next steps for the city.

Given your insights from your 1) first field  trip and 2) Greenfield’s ideas about the smart city, and by looking over 3) any one of the agenda documents from http://portlandmaine.gov/AgendaCenter/City-Council-5, make a list of 5 smart city suggestions that relate to your research group and would be of help to Portland, Maine. Then, in two to three paragraphs and using these documents, reflect on which you think may be the most exciting suggestions among them. Be serious and dig in. Convince me and your other readers that this is the way to go by using evidence from the readings to collaborate your idea(s).

As for your solutions being “smart,” these ideas can take the form of apps, software, hardware, data, algorithms, groups, etc. Here’s thelist of ideas you came up with so that you can build from there if you would like.

As a reminder, make sure to properly reference and cite each of these documents. Points will be lost for lacking proper citation. Also be sure to properly categorize this post not only as BP#2 but also within your research group. Recommendations ahoy!

Comment 1 on Blog Post #2 – due Oct. 15th at 9am (returning to day before deadline)

Given your close examination of issues of public space, housing. and infrastructure in Blog Posts #3-5, return to all of your research group members’ Blog Post #2 posts on their smart city ideas for Portland. In one solid paragraph (or two max) per post, comment on your group members’ ideas. What idea stands out to you as the most exciting and why? How do their ideas change their own? Draw from your ideas in your other blog posts to support your ideas when appropriate.