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

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.