A key distinction is that Roosevelt Island does not really operate outside of the existing municipal and state legal frameworks of New York, whereas Sidewalk Labs is asking for changes in legal frameworks for its redevelopment.
There's eventually gonna be a fundamental disagreement here. Google wants control in order to execute on its vision for this project. Governments don't give up control without bloodshed.
The only wildcard is what the people want and quite frankly that could still turn out to be anything because it seems like the masses are mostly apathetic to both sides at this point.
I'm not sure how this is gonna turn out but I am willing to bet that no matter how it goes "pfffft, yet another boondoggle" will be how we'll look back on it in 10yr.
The government is the one ceding control in this instance via Waterfront Toronto, but even then there was an original agreement to what was actually being given up, which seems like it's being pushed aside by Sidewalk Labs.
People at least have a say in how government is run; a lot of times they're not motivated to, but with enough public protest the public has turned the large ship of government around (see: freeway revolts of the 1970s). In general I may not trust the government, but I certainly trust it a lot more than a corporation which I have no stake in and no hope of influencing at all.
> This data will be de-identified, the company claims, and much of it will be made available to residents and planners
I wonder how much of this will be re-indentified.
For example, the path and browsing habits of someone as they travel through a store can be completely anonymous. But when they go to the register, it can be attached to a specific individual.
Ideally, this data should be _fully_ publicly available. Zero exemptions for Sidewalk to harvest data that isn't released publicly. This is the only way to ensure accountant.
On the one hand, I appreciate the level of innovation and forward thinking that Google is doing here. It's a lot of neat ideas and designs.
But on the other hand, I don't like the idea of a private company deciding how a city should develop- especially not my city. No matter what they say, they are a for-profit publicity-traded company whose goal, always, is ROI for investors. And that conflicts with the goals of city management, where the goal is the benefit of the public and not just those with money.
Better transit to new neighbourhoods, outside the "core".
It's nothing mind blowingly bleeding edge, but it's an improvement over current practices. I see nothing committing them to any of this though, so who knows what gets cost engineered out of the project.
But you're right. It's misdirection. They want more data, and to establish a precedent.
Google is a highly profitable company with tons of smart engineering talent, that can put the time and effort into planning future projects like this. I honestly believe they have good intentions. I also honestly believe that corporate interests will win in the end and this wouldn't turn out well in 20 years.
The wood and timer building are surprisingly folksy, I agree.
However the awnings will do nothing to prevent windblown snow from accumulating.
I mean if they did, then you'd see Torontonians install all kinds of non IOT awnings for this purpose.
I also hear that they will install special pavers that will be heated to melt ice/snow, but that will be very expensive energy wise.
None of it seems practical.
I appreciate that they are proposing better transit connections, but the TTC has a stranglehold on that kind of thing in this city, and I don't see how they are going to get past that.
Also it's a bit patronizing to the local residents to assume that, just because they are Google, that they will immediately have better insights into solving local problems.
It reminds me a bit of that form for telling people why their anti spam idea would never work.¹ They should have one for IOT projects too.
The core problem with their entire proposal, is that they are proposing technical solutions to political problems.
The heated pavers would be terribly wasteful. It's a bad idea.
And awnings aren't a replacement for good indoor walkways. Shitty weather is shitty weather. But they're a huge benefit on sidewalks, for the 90% of rain/snow that isn't shitty weather. I live in a build that has these along the entire block and it's a godsend.
But mass timber / cross-laminated timber is actually projected to be an ideal future building material. Even for high rises. It's not folksy. Almost every architect I've talked to would love to build a mid/high rise with it.
> It's not folksy. Almost every architect I've talked to would love to build a mid/high rise with it.
I didn't mean 'folksy' as an insult. I was just surprised that google would propose a material outside the usual brutalist design palette (concrete, glass, steel, etc...)
Many towns have found that heated sidewalks actually save money vs snow removal (when lawsuits from slips and falls are included). The main problem with it is public perception its a wasteful luxury item instead of the money saver it is.
> Holland also calls its heating system a money-saver, saying it has reduced slips and falls, requires no snow removal, salt or sand, and has extended pavement life.
And yes, they might save money on snow removal. Downtown Toronto though, I don't see it. Even if 3 blocks have heated sidewalks, the sidewalk plow has to drive over them to reach the next segment. Those costs wouldn't decrease.
Saving on salting and sidewalk damage from freeze/thaw could be impactful.
But the cost of digging up sidewalks (which happens _all the time_) would increase significantly. Then there's the added expenses of maintenance - leaky pipes that requiring digging up the sidewalk.
The installation and maintenance requires skilled labour - union plumbers. Installing concrete sidewalks and plowing requires much lower wages.
Overall, the article makes no solid argument for it saving money, and does nothing more than speculate it could be cost saving. Where's the actual numbers from other cities who have implemented this?
Yes but they all require a ~1bn dollar investment by somebody. Let's not forget the price alphabet is paying for this. And they have already agreed that they would not have IP level access to any of the data collected. Nothing personally identifiable. And all data goes through a 3rd party committee over which they have no control. I'm not sure what would lead somebody to vandalize the sensors besides ignorance and paranoia. What people fail to realize is that mass data collection, when done right, can be an extremely useful tool in improving convenience and efficiency of service. While alphabet may have a dodgy history of collecting information they had no right to, they are not Facebook or Equifax. As far as I am aware they havent mishandled or abused the data they've collected and it genuinely seems like they are committed to honest data collection this time around. Honestly I'm more concerned that the privacy committee that Toronto puts together will botch the data collection/storage end up leaking the data. And most likely they will blame alphabet for it in an "see we knew this would happen" kind of way. I lived in Toronto for a decade. Maybe it's because of Rob Ford but I have zero faith in the competence of Toronto city politics and fully expect them to over involve themselves beyond their capacity and royally fuck things up and then shift the blame to somebody else. #blockthesidewalk really says it all.
Isn't this how almost all redevelopment happens? The city puts out a call for proposals, and various architectural firms and builders submit master-planned mega proposals, and one gets picked?
Why is SideWalk labs any different than redevelopment projects that happened elsewhere?
I mean, this project is for a location (77 hectares) that is barely bigger than the Apple campus (71 hectares). They've proposing to develop a tiny slice of the city, about the size of most large condominium projects that localities approve.
If SideWalk Labs was not associated with Alphabet, but say, one of these (https://www.cpexecutive.com/post/2017-top-development-firms/) I bet it pretty much would have gone under the radar, and people would be enjoying their new waterfront without batting an eye.
In what world is "wood" a novel construction material? What am I missing?
Also, from a legal standpoint how is this any different from the tens of thousands of planned developments put together by other corporations, other than the fact that it's Google and not a traditional real estate developer?
I think tracking building energy and indoor ambient conditions in order to optimize the former is a good example of how collected data should be used. There's a lot of subtlety in being able to manage building systems to run passively (i.e using natural ventilation to condition buildings) that are too complex for facility managers or residents. This is a problem domain that desperately requires predictive tools, integrated with effective visual/interactive methods for dynamic feedback from occupants and owners.
One area that could be improved in their write-up, as it stands now, is a better discussion of demand-side energy management (meaning controlling the energy _demand_ that is a function of the architecture, material elements, to be resolved with passive and active systems of energy _supply_). This proposal reflects the kind of thinking I always see from engineers/energy modelers, which tends to tackle energy reduction primarily from the supply-side (i.e with more optimized HVAC systems) and omit strategies to reduce the the demand-side of the energy equation.
There is a section on using Passive House methods which addresses this in terms of building insulation, window thermal properties etc, but that's primarily for small residential use, and starts to show it's limitations once you get into multi-family housing, and commercial buildings. At that scale there's a lot more interesting opportunities to coordinate energy demand trade-offs that they could explore. For example, there's the classic case of optimizing window size and placement to reduce heating loss while increasing daylight, or trying to reduce peak loads, typically associated with cooling energy, versus designing for annual energy reduction associated with heating energy (in Toronto). The pace of the design cycle means most of this kind of optimization is done using rules of thumbs, even though the simulation engines to model this exists.
I also think this is important because proper consideration of demand-side energy forces you to grapple with the building's interaction with the local environment. Therefore it's the most obvious way in which the building energy logic translates to issues of urban identity and scale. Without that nuance, you just end up with abstract, large boxes crammed with hyper-efficient HVAC systems (i.e the worst of modernism). You need the constraining factor of demand-energy to provide some needed traction for the architecture.
27 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 70.4 ms ] threadThe only wildcard is what the people want and quite frankly that could still turn out to be anything because it seems like the masses are mostly apathetic to both sides at this point.
I'm not sure how this is gonna turn out but I am willing to bet that no matter how it goes "pfffft, yet another boondoggle" will be how we'll look back on it in 10yr.
People at least have a say in how government is run; a lot of times they're not motivated to, but with enough public protest the public has turned the large ship of government around (see: freeway revolts of the 1970s). In general I may not trust the government, but I certainly trust it a lot more than a corporation which I have no stake in and no hope of influencing at all.
You say that like it's a bad thing?
I wonder how much of this will be re-indentified.
For example, the path and browsing habits of someone as they travel through a store can be completely anonymous. But when they go to the register, it can be attached to a specific individual.
But on the other hand, I don't like the idea of a private company deciding how a city should develop- especially not my city. No matter what they say, they are a for-profit publicity-traded company whose goal, always, is ROI for investors. And that conflicts with the goals of city management, where the goal is the benefit of the public and not just those with money.
I don't really see much innovation in their plan beyond solutions in search of a problem.
What they really want is the data about citizens, I don't see that there's anything to see in this beyond that.
Wood/timber in commercial buildings and condos.
Public awnings (snow and rain suck).
Better transit to new neighbourhoods, outside the "core".
It's nothing mind blowingly bleeding edge, but it's an improvement over current practices. I see nothing committing them to any of this though, so who knows what gets cost engineered out of the project.
But you're right. It's misdirection. They want more data, and to establish a precedent.
Google is a highly profitable company with tons of smart engineering talent, that can put the time and effort into planning future projects like this. I honestly believe they have good intentions. I also honestly believe that corporate interests will win in the end and this wouldn't turn out well in 20 years.
However the awnings will do nothing to prevent windblown snow from accumulating.
I mean if they did, then you'd see Torontonians install all kinds of non IOT awnings for this purpose.
I also hear that they will install special pavers that will be heated to melt ice/snow, but that will be very expensive energy wise.
None of it seems practical.
I appreciate that they are proposing better transit connections, but the TTC has a stranglehold on that kind of thing in this city, and I don't see how they are going to get past that.
Also it's a bit patronizing to the local residents to assume that, just because they are Google, that they will immediately have better insights into solving local problems.
It reminds me a bit of that form for telling people why their anti spam idea would never work.¹ They should have one for IOT projects too.
The core problem with their entire proposal, is that they are proposing technical solutions to political problems.
1: https://craphound.com/spamsolutions.txt
And awnings aren't a replacement for good indoor walkways. Shitty weather is shitty weather. But they're a huge benefit on sidewalks, for the 90% of rain/snow that isn't shitty weather. I live in a build that has these along the entire block and it's a godsend.
But mass timber / cross-laminated timber is actually projected to be an ideal future building material. Even for high rises. It's not folksy. Almost every architect I've talked to would love to build a mid/high rise with it.
https://www.constructiondive.com/news/mass-timber-101-unders... https://globalnews.ca/news/4957218/canada-mass-timber-high-r...
I didn't mean 'folksy' as an insult. I was just surprised that google would propose a material outside the usual brutalist design palette (concrete, glass, steel, etc...)
> Holland also calls its heating system a money-saver, saying it has reduced slips and falls, requires no snow removal, salt or sand, and has extended pavement life.
https://toronto.citynews.ca/2019/01/30/a-new-canadian-city-f...
And yes, they might save money on snow removal. Downtown Toronto though, I don't see it. Even if 3 blocks have heated sidewalks, the sidewalk plow has to drive over them to reach the next segment. Those costs wouldn't decrease.
Saving on salting and sidewalk damage from freeze/thaw could be impactful.
But the cost of digging up sidewalks (which happens _all the time_) would increase significantly. Then there's the added expenses of maintenance - leaky pipes that requiring digging up the sidewalk.
The installation and maintenance requires skilled labour - union plumbers. Installing concrete sidewalks and plowing requires much lower wages.
Overall, the article makes no solid argument for it saving money, and does nothing more than speculate it could be cost saving. Where's the actual numbers from other cities who have implemented this?
Far as I'm concerned, if this happens it becomes the duty of every person to destroy these sensors and destroy the ability to deploy new ones.
Why is SideWalk labs any different than redevelopment projects that happened elsewhere?
I mean, this project is for a location (77 hectares) that is barely bigger than the Apple campus (71 hectares). They've proposing to develop a tiny slice of the city, about the size of most large condominium projects that localities approve.
If SideWalk Labs was not associated with Alphabet, but say, one of these (https://www.cpexecutive.com/post/2017-top-development-firms/) I bet it pretty much would have gone under the radar, and people would be enjoying their new waterfront without batting an eye.
Which is not to say that the actual project plan shouldn‘t be heavily scrutinized. But a lot of the comments around it are just FUD.
Also, from a legal standpoint how is this any different from the tens of thousands of planned developments put together by other corporations, other than the fact that it's Google and not a traditional real estate developer?
They will use "mass timber" materials such as cross-laminated timber and glue-laminated timber.
https://theweek.com/articles/816653/how-build-skyscraper-woo...
Seems fair and totally reasonable.
I think tracking building energy and indoor ambient conditions in order to optimize the former is a good example of how collected data should be used. There's a lot of subtlety in being able to manage building systems to run passively (i.e using natural ventilation to condition buildings) that are too complex for facility managers or residents. This is a problem domain that desperately requires predictive tools, integrated with effective visual/interactive methods for dynamic feedback from occupants and owners.
One area that could be improved in their write-up, as it stands now, is a better discussion of demand-side energy management (meaning controlling the energy _demand_ that is a function of the architecture, material elements, to be resolved with passive and active systems of energy _supply_). This proposal reflects the kind of thinking I always see from engineers/energy modelers, which tends to tackle energy reduction primarily from the supply-side (i.e with more optimized HVAC systems) and omit strategies to reduce the the demand-side of the energy equation.
There is a section on using Passive House methods which addresses this in terms of building insulation, window thermal properties etc, but that's primarily for small residential use, and starts to show it's limitations once you get into multi-family housing, and commercial buildings. At that scale there's a lot more interesting opportunities to coordinate energy demand trade-offs that they could explore. For example, there's the classic case of optimizing window size and placement to reduce heating loss while increasing daylight, or trying to reduce peak loads, typically associated with cooling energy, versus designing for annual energy reduction associated with heating energy (in Toronto). The pace of the design cycle means most of this kind of optimization is done using rules of thumbs, even though the simulation engines to model this exists.
I also think this is important because proper consideration of demand-side energy forces you to grapple with the building's interaction with the local environment. Therefore it's the most obvious way in which the building energy logic translates to issues of urban identity and scale. Without that nuance, you just end up with abstract, large boxes crammed with hyper-efficient HVAC systems (i.e the worst of modernism). You need the constraining factor of demand-energy to provide some needed traction for the architecture.