{"id":19817,"date":"2011-10-20T10:27:36","date_gmt":"2011-10-20T08:27:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/naider.com\/naiderlab\/la-inteligencia-de-la-ciudad-esta-en-la-calle\/"},"modified":"2023-04-24T13:39:22","modified_gmt":"2023-04-24T11:39:22","slug":"the-intelligence-of-the-city-is-in-the-street","status":"publish","type":"naiderlab","link":"https:\/\/naider.com\/en\/naiderlab\/knowledge\/articles\/the-intelligence-of-the-city-is-in-the-street\/","title":{"rendered":"The intelligence of the city is in the street"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"81766439_6c8e0d898c\"<\/a>I recommend listening carefully to thisintervention<\/a> by Adam Greenfield<\/a>, founder of Urbanscale<\/a> and one of the people with the clearest ideas about the role that technology can play in urban life<\/strong>. As a pioneer of urban computing<\/a>, his book Everyware: The dawning age of ubiquitous computing<\/a> is a reference on ubiquitous computing and its presence in the built environment. A shorter work in the form of an interview, Urban Computing and its Discontents<\/a >, <\/em> is also required reading for anyone who approaches these topics to understand the dilemmas of the interaction of the digital and the physical space of the city. They are works that have enough time to understand that, first of all, that nothing that falls under the smart city<\/strong> label is new (here is a good one selection of books<\/a> on the subject in the last ten years which give some perspective) and, secondly, they allow us to take a little distance to see how many of the promises have been fulfilled and how much there has been and is optimistic exaggeration about the value of digital technologies in cities .<\/p>\n

Smart City is an expression that I try to avoid, precisely because its relevance has only confused things. I prefer to talk about technologies for urban functioning<\/strong> when I think about improving public services, and civic empowerment technologies<\/strong> when it comes to new forms of digital intervention in collective creation from the city or simply from the experience of life in the city. It is also an absolutely misleading expression, and those who use it most often admit that they do not know what it means. You have to go down the scale, to street level<\/strong>, for example, to understand the value of technology in everyday life. Looking at the city from above, as the generic idea of \u200b\u200bsmart city does, allows us to see certain needs (energy distribution networks, traffic flows, etc.) but does not give us sufficient clarity to look at real life of the city and its citizens<\/strong>. And that life occurs on a smaller scale and that is where we can discover the small daily interactions between people and between people and urban services and find new innovations that are really necessary and have better prospects for success<\/ strong>. It is the scale that allows us to understand what real needs we have to use public transport more, what real obstacles exist to create viable business models for real-time parking information automation systems. The street<\/a> is the dynamic space where we can find more everyday applications that allow us to use all the potential of the city in its interaction between the physical and the digital. The street as a platform<\/a> Dan Hill called him a long time ago.<\/p>\n