Using Sensor Data For Smarter Urban Planning

kenekaplan writes "Sensor technology and data analytics are becoming foundations of urban planning. Herman D'Hooge, Intel engineer and University of Oregon Instructor, says that so-called smart cities aren't merely defined by optimized energy or transportation systems. 'The analytics behind them have become more sophisticated so you can make sense out of sensor data,' he said. 'If we start mixing data from the transportation system with data from the building system and the schools system and start meshing that data together, we may start seeing efficiencies and opportunity that weren’t visible within each of those silos'"

Comments

sigh

[vswee]

this is where all the hipsters and apple users will live most likely.

The "problem" is private ownership

[GodfatherofSoul]

Here in KC we have a runaway sprawl problem (I know to the south where I live and probably north as well). The city is insanely large area-wise for it's population. A guy with 50 acres of prime real estate in the middle of the city won't sell because he's waiting for a great price, not just a good price. But, a farmer further south without such delusions of grand profits agrees to sell his 50 acres to the next apartment complex builder. So, the city now has to build infrastructure and bigger roads further south. There are very large plots of privately-owned undeveloped land and even farm land mixed in with normal suburban development, not quite large enough to be scenic but big enough to make it clear that we're sprawling.

I don't see a real solution without either refusing to push utilities further south or enacting price controls on land deals which is unfair to the owner (and maybe illegal).

Re:The "problem" is private ownership

[Ichijo]

There are very large plots of privately-owned undeveloped land and even farm land mixed in with normal suburban development, not quite large enough to be scenic but big enough to make it clear that we're sprawling.

Undeveloped land and farmland aren't sprawl. Sprawl is low density single-use development--singly family homes, strip malls, shopping malls, etc.

I don't see a real solution without either refusing to push utilities further south or enacting price controls on land deals which is unfair to the owner (and maybe illegal).

Undeveloped land costs the city more per capita for infrastructure than high density development. So one solution is for the city to recover its costs by raising the property tax.

If the city doesn't have a property tax, it ought to, not just for this reason, but also because sales taxes (which are the usual alternative) incentivize big-box stores while property taxes encourages the city to make land-use decisions that raise property values. Which would you rather have, more Wal-Marts or higher property values?

Re:The "problem" is private ownership

[clawhammer]

I don't see a real solution without either refusing to push utilities further south

Bingo. Cities (generally) subsidize sprawl by providing infrastructure at no cost. Cities look at current growth and say, "Gosh, that suburb is exploding! They'll have 500,000 more people in 5 years! We better build a freeway out there for all those new houses!" But if the city doesn't build a freeway, what does the developer tell his prospective clients? "You'll love the rural feel as you try to commute with 500,000 of your closest friends on this charming 2-lane country road"? I don't see where it says cities _have_ to build roads because people want to build out there. If the developers want to build out there, let them foot the bill. Meanwhile, cities can take the money (ok, so it's mostly state and federal money) and support the infrastructure and urban form that already exists.

Re:The "problem" is private ownership

[volmtech]

Two words, toll roads. Orlando, Fl has them. I just spent four days visiting Disney World. Using the toll road to avoid downtown Orlando I saw more new housing being built. It was a 36 mile trip and I was already in Orlando when I started!

Re:The "problem" is private ownership

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. We could have much smarter cities if we didn't build them so stupidly to begin with. I was going to say "plan" instead of "build", but the fact is that little real planning is involved, for the most part. Nobody really looks down the road to see what problems lie ahead, and rarely do lots of city leaders from lots of cities get together to share the problems and solutions they have seen, compare notes, and find out best practices. Perhaps there should be a wiki for this.

Re:The "problem" is private ownership

[GodfatherofSoul]

Correct but its sprawl when you have to run utilities 1/4 a mile past a farm to a new subdivision then 1/8 miles east to the next one. It's not the farmland, it's sporadic development throughout it.

And undeveloped land isn't the actual problem it's the reduced tax revenue per foot of utilities when you're leapfrogging over it.

Re:The "problem" is private ownership

[dintech]

not quite large enough to be scenic but big enough to make it clear that we're sprawling

Wizard of Oz 2: Dorothy's Road Trip

Dorothy: Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas City any more.
Toto: Dude, we totally still are...

Re:The "problem" is private ownership

[Anonymous Coward]

Higher property values means bulldozing houses and putting apartments and condos in their place. Crime is directly correlated with population density, and quality of life is generally negative correlated. Just because a property value is increased doesn't mean it's automatically a good thing.

Re:The "problem" is private ownership

[Ichijo]

Crime is directly correlated with population density...

Don't worry, there's less crime in areas with higher property values.

...and quality of life is generally negative correlated.

When you narrowly define quality of life in terms of a sprawling tract home and two cars in the garage, it's easy to conclude that without these things, your quality of life is low.

Futurist discussion about urban planning

[GeorgeJenkins]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Buy9GAMsGmY

Sensor data etc

[Anonymous Coward]

Very nice thought - about time we tried to make our cities work more efficiently...

Sensor data

[PPH]

Aerial photography to identify empty lots with hobo camps.

Bulldoze and build high rise condos.

More data analytics, not more sensor

[haggais]

IMHO, just throwing more sensors at a city does not make it smarter. What city infrastructures are really missing now is smart data analytics to make sense of raw sensor data. Such analytical technology is only beginning to emerge (for example, in the space I know best, my own company TaKaDu which provides software to analyse the data from a rather sparse array of sensors in local water distribution networks, and monitor for faults). Without that, you end up with ranks of analysts and engineers staring at columns of numbers which go up and down for a long list of reasons, hunting for the few meaningful patterns or anomalies, with predictably limited results. "More data" or even "more mixing of different data" is just the first stepping stone.

On a related note, an interesting industry collaboration on these topics (again, within the water industry) is SWAN -- Smart Water Networks Forum, focused on the wide variety of data systems which go into managing water networks, one of the more hidden, but most critical, city infrastructures.