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:
- Reduction of vehicular access within the Old Port.
- Friendlier pedestrian/bike paths across (on or over) Exchange street.
- Incorporating additional (potentially free-to-park) parking structures.
- Expansion of parks/sidewalks by reducing street width and sidewalk parking spaces.
- 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.
I really liked the idea of kiosks because they are built upon the idea of public accessibility. Many blogposts mentioned a universal city app that would contain data about walking routes, directions, restaurants, cafes and events but none of them considered people who do not have smartphones. I think kiosks will be a great way for people who do not own a smartphone to explore the city; this will contribute to the common good and provide basis for 5 basic qualities of the public space.
I also liked the idea of using kiosks as WiFi hotspots; this would be an example of a utilization of existing technology; we would need to bring internet to kiosks anyway so why not make it publicly available?
However, the most exciting was the idea of changing designs in order to make kiosks seamless; kiosks should not be something people notice, they need to be something that is an integral part of the city, that operates in the background without interfering into people’s lives. This is the kind of smart technology that we need today because people are still not comfortable with technologies that interfere with their lives too much.
Your idea of multipurpose information kiosks is fantastic! Rachel had brought up the issue of access to technology in her blog post; this kiosk idea would directly address that issue by giving those without smartphones and computers access to the resources that they need on the Internet. I also love how the kiosks you’ve described are able to do so much. Because money would obviously be a consideration with a project like this, having kiosks that are able to do a variety of things would ensure the city would be getting the most out of its money.
You also discuss the issue of parking in your blog post. As I said in a comment on Vivian’s blog post, my experiences with technologies that keep track of parking spaces indicate that it is very difficult to keep track of the number of available parking spaces using technology. During my time in Portland the other day, I saw that there were lots of free parking lots on the far side of Congress Street (especially in the Bayside area), but not near Old Port. Maybe something could be done to encourage people to use these parking areas that are not being utilized at the moment.
I really like the idea of information kiosks doubling as free wifi hubs. The idea incorporates both efficiency and accessibility for the residents and visitors. Additionally, kiosks are generally small enough that they would not be too imposing on the city. The level of utility from these kiosks would allow transactions to occur extremely efficiently and ideally encourage more economic growth. However, such kiosks could also attract vandalism or clog pedestrian movement at these hotspots.
I really liked your ideas about changes in infrastructure in Portland! More specifically I liked your idea about interactive information kiosks, scattered throughout the city, that function doubly as free wifi hotspots. At first I was slightly apprehensive of a physical kiosk because theoretically one could do all of these things from a phone or computer app from a remote location and it may be more efficient for a resident to avoid having to travel to a public space to use the kiosk’s services. But that being said, this is such an awesome concept because it benefits the entire city (and you also describe an associated app) – I feel like everyone (including myself) has solely thought about smart solutions for information as only mobile applications or online services, but this is potentially more useful to Portland because it does not bar the part of the population without phones of computers. I like the kiosk idea because, as you mentioned, it could draw people into public spaces and help the city’s overall vibe. Having a physical kiosk does seem like a step backwards though in terms of smart city technology no matter how awesome the idea is because everything is theoretically going to be online and invisible in the future. In addition to a great service, this app and kiosk would also create large amounts of data about where its residents are and what they enjoy doing – it is awesome.
Besides those in the public space group, few people actually addressed material interventions that extend beyond the placement or use of technology such as bus time signs or informational iPads around the city. Your idea bridges a lot of that work and also makes possible some of those indoor public spaces Annie and Emma have been thinking about. Given James’ interest in informational iPads–and a clever way to garner content for them–this idea would fit nicely with his. If you go this route, be sure to reach out.