So many fascinating case studies, general questions, and thoughts were had throughout the day, and the lunch brainstorm sessions were wonderful. It’s difficult to summarize but I’ll do my best.
We had to respond to a question along the lines of: “You’re here as part of a planning committee for urban development, and so what activities/things/objects would you encourage the development of in your city, and which would you discourage?”
First I will try to summarize what “Group One” presented to the rest of us. This group summed up their “urban solutions” into three bullet points: education, access to infrastructure, and open source infrastructure.
They suggested that education could be the engine to drive our vision of an interactive city. Education (in the broadest sense) could be used as a tool to empower people to make change in their cities. The main thrust of their second point, about access to infrastructure, was a suggestion that the Internet should be a public utility and should be free, and access to technology should be taken on as a civic issue. Their last point was perhaps the most intruiging: if infrastructure is open source, people can solve the problem rather than feeling helpless or dependent on government. For example, download the software that runs your electricity meter to figure out why it is overcharging you. (Of course, you could also reset your meter to zero… but that’s me being the devil’s advocate).
Two other points from their presentation: a suggestion was made to improve urban space by implementing “Faraday Speak Easys” – quiet spaces, free of urban electronic noise for gathering and socializing. Finally, a phrase they used that stuck with me was “indigenous intelligence” – recognizing and truly utilizing local solutions that have been developed.
I was part of Group Two and in a way we were the yin to Group One’s yang – Group One seemed to talk a lot about infrastructure (the physical city) while we were more concerned with behaviours (the social city).
We talked a lot about how we can interact socially and improve social relations/behaviours. I brought up one of my favourite examples of “social engineering” to the group: Antanas Mockus, former Mayor of Bogotá, who used what I might call “performative governance”. He famously hired a troupe of mimes to humiliate drivers as they committed traffic violations. He also distributed cards with “thumbs up” and “thumbs down” symbols on them, so people could express approval or disapproval of actions taking place in public space. Mockus said: “Knowledge empowers people. If people know the rules, and are sensitized by art, humor, and creativity, they are much more likely to accept change.” If change is what we want, and we are looking for how to positively influence behaviours, I think Mockus’s leadership is a powerful example.
Of course, Mockus’s solutions are very low tech (which I think is really part of their beauty) but we are here to discuss technological solutions in an urban context, so we brainstormed ideas for “normcasting” – expressing mass approval or disapproval or expressing simple social reinforcements. We talked about Bluetooth messaging, or using using wave messaging as less confrontational ways to communicate with each other. (and the devil’s advocates among us noted that independent moderators are probably still required for “normcasting”).