Smart Planning & ICT

Large cities are becoming more complex (due to increasing urbanization) and require even more sophisticated systems to control salient daily operations that keep the city running. In many cities, timely data on transportation, weather conditions and other measurements is always available. Thus, planners can react immediately on issues that rise from the timely data. Example of timely data that is available for public is available at citydashboard.org which presents accurate information on large cities like London. Indeed, we have seen a revolution of information and communication technology (ICT). In other words, our world is increasingly coded.

Historically, planners have gathered information by carrying out small sample surveys. Today, smart planning is available thanks to big data which can be gathered by direct surveillance, automated systems and volunteered projects (Kitchin, 2014); automated systems include calculators that measure usage of transportation systems, surveillances can be carried out through internet and volunteered data can be gathered by projects such as MyLA 2050 (see the third blog text). Big data gathered by using these methods has the following features:

1. It is huge in volume and high in velocity; 
2. It is exhaustive and diverse in variety;
3. It is fine-grained in resolution;
4. It is flexible and relational in nature (Kitchin, 2014, p. 3).

A good example of big data is Facebook: it indeed is huge in volume and exhaustive. It is fine-grained: we can pick an individual and find out their favorite food and relationship status. It is timely and updated all the time. Consequently, Facebook fulfills all the features of big data mentioned above.

Smart planning by exploiting big data has also a number of disadvantages that can be really harmful and make a city vulnerable to failures of technology. For example, electronic systems can be hacked which can cause traffic jams and even dangerous accidents. In addition, it has been pointed out that technology enables continuous monitoring of every citizen which threatens individual privacy.

However, smart planning and exploitation of ICT have a lot of benefits: it makes projecting easier and enables better policy making which in turn can improve the quality of life in certain regions. It increases transparency and citizen participation, and stimulates growth, innovation, and creativity. Finally, it can improve services delivery.

References

City Dashboard 2014, ’London’, viewed 9 November 2014, < http://citydashboard.org/london/>

Kitchin, R 2014, ‘The real-time city? Big data and smart urbanism’, GeoJournal, vol. 79, no. 1, p. 1-14.

Global Cities of Australia

Globalization has increased competition among large cities around the world. Despite the fact that advanced technology and globalization have made it possible to virtually run a global business located anywhere, central business districts are still important for multinational entities in order to perform operations that are necessary to run a business. These multinational businesses try to find the best facilities and most favorable location for them to run a business, which in turn creates rival among large cities, oftentimes called global cities. (Sassen, 2005)

There are two cities in Australia that can be defined as top global cities: Sydney and Melbourne. According to A.T. Kearney Global cities index (2014), Sydney’s position in global city ranking is 14 whereas Melbourne’s ranking is 25 (p. 4). The rival between these two cities has shaped urban and regional planning in both cities: in Sydney, the city central is devoted to finance business whereas in Melbourne, Southbank is full of large infrastructure for finance and service sectors. Even the nation’s capital, Canberra, was founded due to the rival of these two cities. But is Canberra a global city?

First look at the bush capital would indicate that Canberra is definitely not a global city. Indeed, it does not have an international airport and its infrastructure is far from Sydney’s or Melbourne’s infrastructure. In addition, Canberra is not competitive in sustainability measures and has relatively low proportion of workers in financial, marketing, and other service industries (Hu, 2013).

However, Canberra has high proportion of well-educated residents and work force in research and innovation fields. Indeed, knowledge is one of the most important assets of Canberra. According to measurements like access to Internet and people movement -%, Canberra has outperformed Sydney which is a strong signal that Canberra meets many features required from a global city. (Hu, 2013)

References

A.T. Kearney 2014, Global Cities, Present and Future: 2014 Global Cities Index and Emerging Cities Outlook, A.T. Kearney, viewed 4 November 2014, < http://www.atkearney.com/research-studies/global-cities-index/full-report>

Hu, R 2013, Centenary Canberra: A city on the world stage, Globalization and Cities Research Program, viewed 4 November 2014, <http://www.globalisationandcities.com/uploads/1/5/7/5/15751464/canberra_a_global_city_report.pdf>

Sassen, S 2005, ’The Global City: Introducing a Concept’, The Brown Journal of World Affairs, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 27-44.

Research on Planning History

The second blog text addressed early planning history and described general development directions in the United States and Britain. Both the US and Britain have had a remarkable impact on Australian planning since they all share a lot in history. British influence was evident in the colonialist era and early 20^th century, whereas the Americanization of Australian planning is more profound after WWII (Freestone, 2004; Freestone, 2014, p. 7). As discussed in the latest blog text, these influences include elements such as sprawl that appear to be harmful today. Therefore, it seems that understanding history is necessary to avoid repeating same mistakes.

Indeed, history can be really useful source of decision making but it can also be abused: it can be used to legitimize political ends and agendas (Macmillan, 2009). When planning something new we should always be aware that ‘our ideas and actions have been thought and done by others, long ago […] and understand our roots’ (Hall, 2002). That is, understanding and questioning uncritically accepted wisdoms of history can help to distinguish bad history from good history and contribute to better planning (Freestone, 2014).

Planning history is ‘what you make it’. It can generate various conclusions and ways we perceive things depending on ‘whether it is defined in regulationist, transformative or other ways’. Nevertheless, In Australia, the current state of understanding history is good: more information on history is documented and conventional paradigms are challenged more frequently. (Freestone, 2014, p. 23)

References

Freestone, R 2004, ’The Americanization of Australian Planning’, Journal of Planning History, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 187-214.

Freestone, R 2014, ’Progress in Australian planning history: Traditions, themes and transformation, Progress in Planning, vol. 91, no 1, pp. 1-29.

Hall, P 2002, Cities of Tomorrow: An intellectual history of urban planning and design in the twentieth century, 3^rd edition, Blackwell, London.

Macmillan, M 2009, Uses and Abuses of History, Allen & Unwin, Sydney.

The Americanization of Australian Planning & Canberra

The Americanization of planning refers to the influence that American planning has had on planning exercises and solutions around the world, especially in western countries. In Australia, the impact of American planning is remarkably significant because of the similarities between the two countries (Freestone, 2004, p. 187). The Americanization of Australian planning has been profound after WWII (Freestone, 2004, p. 198), but the first influences of Americanization can be found in early 20^th century when American planner Walter B. Griffin won the design competition of Canberra (Freestone, 2004, p. 191).

One of the key features of American planning after WWII was the creation of urban sprawl. Planners at the time did not perceive it as a bad thing. For instance, the Real Estate Research Corporation (1974) defined the word ‘sprawl’ simply as ‘low-density development’. Sprawl was mainly caused by a variety of governmental structures that favored low-density zoning and the growing automobile ownership that enabled households to move to areas farther from cities (Birch, 2009, p. 317). This in turn caused remarkable challenges for transportation systems. The solution for these transportation problems in 1960s and 1970s was to construct more freeways (Freestone, 2004, p. 201).

The increased use of freeways in the States also influenced the planning of Canberra in the late 1960s. In 1966 American consultants’ study on Canberra’s transportation led to the general concept of ‘Y-plan’ (illustrated below) which favored the use of freeways and created sprawl in Australia’s capital (Freestone, 2004, p. 203).

Today, the Y-plan is perceived as problematic in terms of sustainability and public transportation. Indeed, the substantial use of cars has harmful effects on climate. Furthermore, as mentioned above, it causes sprawl which in turn causes social and economic isolation. Commuting is also very difficult: it is estimated that the peak-hour commute from Gungahlin to Civic takes more than 50 minutes. One solution introduced in The Canberra Times is the construction of light rail which would not only change the way people commute but change the way the land is used.(The Canberra Times, 16 October 2014)

References

Birch, E 2009, The Urban and Regional Planning Reader, Routledge, New York.

Freestone, R 2004, ’The Americanization of Australian Planning’, Journal of Planning History, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 187-214.

Real Estate Research Corporation 1974, The Cost of Sprawl: A Detailed Cost Analysis, US Government Printing Office, Washington.

 

The Canberra Times 2014, Light rail key to Canberra's future prosperity, 16 October 2014, viewed 1 November 2014, http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/light-rail-key-to-canberras-future-prosperity-20141015-116eoi.html