Over the past 25 years, the western edge of Missoula, Montana, has been a hotbed of growth. Thousands of residents have moved into new neighborhoods built on former agricultural land, with big box stores like Costco and Home Depot cropping up nearby. The city and county are now considering multi-use development of the 2,000 or so undeveloped acres remaining in the area—a tract surrounded on two sides by housing and adjacent to a main thoroughfare and the regional airport—and public input is key to shaping the direction of the project. But with the COVID-19 crisis halting all in-person planning meetings and approvals in the region, including a scheduled community charrette, the planning process went online.

During a multi-day virtual charrette in April, participants watched presentations and videos on the current plan, whose elements include affordable housing, community-supported agriculture, walkable urban centers, and the restoration of a local creek. They submitted questions and answered daily online polls, and those who couldn’t attend could access videos and submit comments after the fact. All told, more than 280 people participated in the charrette or later visited the “virtual studio.” The videos—on topics including historical and environmental preservation, traffic planning, and stormwater management—have gotten thousands of views.

“The event was attended by far more people and a wider variety of people than a live event,” said Jason King, a principal at Florida-based project consultant Dover, Kohl & Partners. “Landowners called in from Seattle, and a member of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation called in from the Flathead Reservation. These are people who it is difficult to get to an on-site charrette but who we talked to specifically because they could call in from their homes and offices.” At this virtual charrette and others the firm has held, King says, “we see more than just ‘the usual suspects’ from city council night.”

Amy Cotter of the Lincoln Institute, who previously directed regional planning initiatives for the Metropolitan Area Planning Council in Boston, says casting that broader net can make planning processes more representative and more robust. “Using technology could open the doors to people who have barriers to attending public meetings in person,” said Cotter. “Maybe they have to look after kids in the evening, or they don’t feel comfortable entering a public building, or have night class. By giving people more ways to access meetings, you’re going to get more participation and, I’d argue, better decisions.”

But shifting to virtual convenings isn’t always simple. Many localities have had to wait for state leaders to remove legal barriers preventing them from going forward. Florida, Delaware, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Rhode Island, and Utah are among states with executive action seeking to suspend, amend, or clarify open meeting laws to allow for remote meetings. Some legislatures are taking up the issue as well, with states including Oklahoma, Ohio, Tennessee, and Pennsylvania considering legislation that addresses open meeting laws and virtual engagement.

In New York City, the epicenter of the COVID-19 crisis in the United States, Mayor Bill de Blasio temporarily suspended the city’s land-use decision making processes even as the city received state permission to hold online meetings. Anita Laremont, executive director of the city’s planning department, expects that planning meetings will restart shortly. But she also said that COVID-19, the economic crisis it has created, and its disruption to daily life means that planning departments need to be realistic about what needs to move forward and what can wait.

“We will look at everything we put forward through the lens of whether it helps with the recovery,” Laremont said. “If we have neighborhood rezonings designed to develop additional affordable housing, we might choose to go forward because that remains an issue in the city.”

When it comes to executing the meetings themselves, planners must consider access and equity. How can online meetings conducted in English provide translation for speakers of other languages? How can cities best reach those without internet access or technical know-how?

Many platforms do offer language interpretation services for meetings and webinars, and options such as a call-in number can give attendees without internet access the opportunity to listen and participate in a meaningful way. But whether planners use general videoconferencing tools such as Zoom or GoToMeeting or planning-specific tools such as coUrbanize and Polco, figuring out which platform’s services work best for a city’s needs requires legwork. 

“It means speaking to all of these platforms and trying to understand what they can accommodate,” said Laremont. “That’s the only way we’ve really been able to do it, is to go and talk to them.”

Comparing notes with fellow planners is also vital, said Milwaukee Long Range Planning Manager Sam Leichtling. His department has been exploring the methods peers across the country are employing and collecting examples of approaches that capture different audiences. 

“I applaud the private vendors trying to adapt their technology to COVID-19, and with the right scenario, those tools have amazing uses,” Leichtling said. “But as a profession, we have to acknowledge that’s not going to be the solution to every case. Phone trees, dropping literature off at neighborhood facilities, these analog methods are still vital.”

It may well be that future planning processes use some combination of methods to reach as many people as possible. King confirmed that Dover, Kohl intends to combine virtual and on-site sessions going forward, pointing out that online convenings offer additional benefits including a lower carbon footprint and reduced travel time and costs for consultants and other experts. Cotter also noted that the Lincoln Institute advances more effective and inclusive public engagement strategies through its Consortium for Scenario Planning, which involves stakeholders beyond the planning office by introducing diverse voices into the process.

“Will we return to a situation where we rely only on traditional public meetings?” Cotter asked. “I doubt it. I think this will be a component of the way cities conduct business going forward.”

Liz Farmer is a fiscal policy expert and journalist whose areas of expertise include budgets, fiscal distress, and tax policy. She is currently a research fellow at the Rockefeller Institute’s Future of Labor Research Center.

Photograph: A virtual charrette allowed planners and the public to exchange information and ideas related to a potential development in Missoula, Montana. Credit: Courtesy of Dover, Kohl & Partners.

In the face of rapid changes to technology, the climate, and the global economy, a growing number of cities and regions use scenario planning to prepare for an uncertain future. The new book Scenario Planning for Cities and Regions: Managing and Envisioning Uncertain Futures, by Robert Goodspeed, explores this growing and evolving practice and offers the first in-depth examination of how urban planners and the communities they serve can make better decisions about the future.

A procedural tool originally developed for military and corporate strategic planning, scenario planning enables communities to create and analyze multiple plausible versions of the future. Unlike traditional approaches that begin with forecasting, scenario planning starts with a consideration of multiple plausible futures based on the different ways that major uncertainties could evolve. 

Historically, the planning field has largely ignored uncertainty, resulting in plans that perpetuated the status quo rather than preparing residents for the future. Inflexible plans can lead to disaster, however: homes flooded because they were built in areas thought to be safe from storms, public funds wasted on infrastructure to accommodate overestimated growth, or expensive mismatches between affordable housing types and residents’ needs.

By contrast, scenario planning puts uncertainties at the heart of the process, prompting practitioners to examine key variables like changing climate and weather patterns, uncertain growth trends, and evolving housing preferences. With this focal shift, a city might implement strategies that contend directly with unknown levels of sea-level rise, that direct efforts to maximize housing affordability, or that use critical natural resources more equitably and sustainably.

When this analysis focuses on forces within the city itself, planners can explore not only what may change but also what could change to advance community goals—or as the result of other interventions. When participants focus on external uncertainties, they can better prepare for changes in the broader environment, improving resilience to uncertain but foreseeable events. Taken together, these investigations help cities pursue practical transformation.

Scenario Planning for Cities and Regions examines how this tool can be adapted to a range of urban and regional planning contexts—and how it can empower practitioners and citizens alike to better address the unprecedented challenges that lie ahead for cities and regions. Intended for urban planners, students, and researchers, the book features practical guidance on scenario planning methods, modeling and simulation tools, and detailed case studies.

University of Southern California Professor Dowell Myers notes, “This masterwork on scenario planning is wonderfully accessible and deeply grounded in planning theory and systems thinking about interconnections and uncertainties. Robert Goodspeed has created the best explanation I’ve ever seen for understanding this planning strategy that is so urgently needed for guiding our cities through the turbulent 21st century.”

The book brings scenario planning to life with in-depth explorations of how planners and citizens have used the tool in their communities. Cases explored in the book include the Austin Sustainable Places Project, which used normative scenarios for low-budget, neighborhood-level land use planning in Texas, and the Sahuarita Exploratory Scenario Project, which employed exploratory scenarios to analyze an Arizona town’s general plan applied to possible futures. Although it focuses on U.S. cases, the book also describes international applications of scenario planning, including an ambitious Queensland, Australia, regional planning project, and covers foundational work by the Royal Dutch Shell company, which developed scenario creation methodology in the 1980s to analyze the global business environment.

Goodspeed also examines the history of both scenario and urban planning, showing how once-distinct fields can combine to create comprehensive long-range plans that account for a wide range of potential futures and build consensus among diverse stakeholders. He further demonstrates how scenario planning is uniquely suited to contemporary planning challenges and concludes, “Cities exist as they are, not as we wish they were, and scenario planning offers a good way to comprehend and plan them well.” 

“This book is an essential resource for anyone interested in using scenario planning to inform and improve planning and policy making,” University of Akron Emeritus Professor of Geography, Planning, and Urban Studies Richard E. Klosterman said. “It combines an instructive history of scenario planning, illustrative case studies, an overview of digital tools for creating and evaluating scenarios, a careful review of empirical studies, and a useful framework for evaluating urban scenario outcomes.”

Allison Ehrich Bernstein is principal at Allative Communications.

Photograph: Dripping Springs, Texas, was one of four towns outside of Austin that completed a scenario planning process to inform its local land use plan. Credit: Robert Goodspeed. 

A couple of years ago, landscape architect Pamela Conrad got curious about the climate impact of her work. How much carbon dioxide did her chosen materials release into the atmosphere? How much carbon was sequestered, or captured, by any given project’s mix of trees, shrubs, grasses, and other plants? What factors could she adjust to improve the net outcome? Conrad, a principal at the San Francisco firm CMG Landscape Architecture, decided to investigate.

“I went online and I just assumed there was going to be some magical tool that I could download, and it would just tell me,” she says. “I kind of expected to find it that afternoon.” That didn’t happen. She did find helpful tools and data intended to help gauge and improve the emissions impact of the built environment, but what she was looking for didn’t seem to exist: a tool to help landscape architects understand, in a holistic way, the climate impacts of their work.

Beyond her personal curiosity, this struck Conrad as a surprising absence. “We haven’t been measuring anything outside the building,” she says. That meant crucial conversations with policy makers and clients weren’t happening, because “we haven’t had the data.” Because landscape architecture can not only reduce emissions but also make tangible contributions to carbon sequestration, this field is perfectly positioned to offer “climate positive design,” as Conrad calls it: design that sequesters more carbon dioxide than it emits.

Conrad set out to make the tool she couldn’t find, with the support of a research grant from the Landscape Architecture Foundation. She worked with environmental consultants and tech developers to create a beta version of the free, web-based app now known as Pathfinder. The app, which formally launched in September 2019, has been used by 300 firms and counting. It is intentionally simple and accessible. Users enter various details of a project, large or small, from a backyard garden to a city plaza. The interface asks for information about materials (e.g., sand, crushed stone), plant types (e.g., trees, lawn), and other details.

On the back end, the app draws on data from sources including the U.S. Forest Service and the Athena Impact Estimator software created by the Athena Sustainable Materials Institute (ASMI) for building materials. It provides a kind of carbon profile for each project and offers suggestions to improve it, such as substituting a no-mow meadow for a lawn, or a wood deck for paving. The suggestions are intended to reduce the time it will take for each project to become carbon neutral, and then carbon positive. In the course of designing Pathfinder, Conrad tapped into a vein of similar efforts in other corners of the architecture and construction sectors that are contributing fresh insight to broader discussions of policy, planning, and land use. ASMI, a nonprofit collaborative, has been a pioneer on this front: since 2002 it has provided a variety of software tools that help designers measure the building, construction, and material impacts of their projects and materials.

Interest in this sort of resource is surging. Stephanie Carlisle, a principal at Philadelphia architecture firm KieranTimberlake, caused a stir earlier this year with a lengthy call-to-arms essay on the contribution of architects to climate change in Fast Company. New construction contributes massively to carbon emissions, she wrote: “Although it’s become mainstream to discuss energy efficiency and advocate for minimizing those impacts, architects, engineers, and planners have yet to truly reckon with the magnitude and consequences of everyday design decisions.”

Carlisle says she has been heartened by the enthusiastic response to the essay. As it happens, KieranTimberlake introduced its own carbon measurement tool, Tally, a few years ago. Tally was designed to be folded into workflow processes, as a plug-in to a 3D modeling software commonly used in the industry called Revit. This means, Carlisle explains, that a designer can substitute and change material and other options Tally allows architects to compare the climate impacts of various materials on a work in progress, then run a report on its potential carbon impact. “It tells designers where to spend their energy,” she says. Some 200 firms now use Tally, and its sales rose about 150 percent last year.

Tally, Pathfinder, and other similar tools fit into a broader trend of architects and landscape architects responding to climate change. “These [projects] are great pieces of the puzzle,” says Billy Fleming, Wilks Family Director for the Ian L. McHarg Center at the University of Pennsylvania and a coeditor of the recently published Design with Nature Now, a collaboration between the university and the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. “The core of [the challenge] is absolutely about social, technical, and political systems that have to be reorganized around an international mobilization and response to climate change. So these efforts should be treated as the beginning of a conversation—not the end of it.”

Indeed, both Carlisle and Conrad emphasize that these tools are just a means to an end. Such tools are “directly empowering architects and engineers,” Carlisle says, but they can also help establish common benchmarks that make it easier for communication around carbon standards to “make its way into policy and code.” That’s starting to happen—Carlisle cites Marin County’s recent introduction of carbon standards for construction materials, and Conrad notes that San Francisco is embarking on a sustainable neighborhoods framework that factors in carbon sequestration standards—but they say there’s still not enough awareness of the possible positive impacts of design outside the design professions, or perhaps even within them. “We need way more investment in R&D, and in tools,” Carlisle says.

Conrad extends the point: as much as she intends Pathfinder to offer “really quick, accessible answers” with practical impacts on real projects, she also wants it to serve as an educational experience that builds awareness. “Landscape architects are the primary target,” she says. “But I see [potential use for] a lot of other players in the space, like policy makers using it to set standards.” While it’s easy for an individual to use Pathfinder to plan a backyard renovation, large-scale landowners can use it to gauge the impact of setting aside portions of development for trees and other elements that build climate resilience. A simple slider interface shows the user that, for example, a combination of 400 large trees and 1,100 medium-sized ones can sequester 2.3 million kilograms of carbon. “Once we’re able to measure what we’re doing and collect that data and get that feedback,” Conrad continues, “then we can start understanding what we’re doing and evolve our practices.”

Conrad has been spreading the word about Pathfinder through conferences and webinars, and has been taking suggestions that will guide updates in 2020. Late last year, she helped organize the Climate Positive Design Challenge, aimed at landscape architects, which established specific targets for projects large and small to achieve carbon-positive status: five years for parks, for instance, or 20 years for streetscapes or plazas. Pathfinder is meant to play a central role in helping designers meet that challenge. 

“We could potentially take a gigaton of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere over the next 30 years,” Conrad says. “We think you can cut emissions [on a given project] in half, and increase sequestration by two or three times, just by having the right information in front of you.”

Rob Walker is a journalist covering design, technology, and other subjects. His book The Art of Noticing was published in May 2019. 

Photograph: The web-based app Pathfinder was the brainchild of landscape architect Pamela Conrad, who created the tool to measure the climate impacts of her work after discovering that no such tool existed. Credit: Courtesy of CMG Landscape Architecture.

Editorial note: Scenario planning is a process that enables communities to create and analyze multiple plausible versions of the future in the face of rapid technology advances, climate change, and other twenty-first century challenges. Robert Goodspeed is the author of the forthcoming book Scenario Planning for Cities and Regions, currently available for pre-order, which describes the fundamentals of the tool and the ways it can be useful for a wide array of projects. In this article, adapted from a post that was first published on his blog Goodspeed Update, he offers a few pieces of advice for scenario planning success.

1. Name Your Scenarios

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve flipped open a detailed scenario planning report, only to find the scenarios simply labeled A, B, and C. How forgettable! For the findings to be memorable, the gist of each scenario must be clear. I suggest that urban planners adopt the best practice from corporate strategic planning: Use pithy, evocative names that can help your audience remember the key ideas, which improves their ability to digest the analysis and conclusions. Sometimes, public sector urban planners feel uncomfortable giving scenarios names that might trigger unwanted associations; calling one “sprawl,” for example, might suggest the planners are already biased against it. But there are ways to come up with names that are both vivid and accessible to diverse audiences. For example, one case I discuss, the Gwinnett 2030 Unified Plan for a county in the suburbs of Atlanta, Georgia, contained scenarios for regional growth with names that suggested some of the factors they explore: Middle of the Pack, Regional Slowdown, International Gateway, and Radical Restructuring.

2. Limit the Number of Scenarios You Create

There is a common mistake that undermines the power of the scenario approach. It’s very understandable—once you go to the trouble of holding the scenario workshop or adopting a powerful scenario planning tool, why not analyze as many scenarios as possible? The problem is people have trouble keeping track of more than roughly seven distinct ideas in working memory. Your huge matrix of scenarios may be a marvel of analytical rigor, but it is likely to glaze the eyes of decision makers who find it overwhelming. Instead, cognitive theories suggest that four to seven scenarios may be ideal. That’s enough to highlight the range of possible futures, but not too many to be confusing. Many projects create three, but that tends to encourage the audience to understand them as simply different degrees of one dimension, when most scenarios are defined by more than one dimension. For example, Vibrant NEO in the Cleveland, Ohio, region considered both urban form as well as regional growth to create four regional scenarios: Trend, Grow the Same, Do Things Differently, and Grow Differently.

3. Make Your Scenarios Plausible

This is perhaps one of the trickiest issues in scenario planning theory. I believe all scenarios should be plausible, meaning they really could occur, even if the expected likelihood is small. This is a critical distinction from utopian planning, which is much less concerned with real-world plausibility. This does not mean a good set of scenarios should play it safe and remain confined to, say, a range of options currently accepted in local policy debates. To the contrary, effective scenarios are often constructed to specifically illustrate futures that are quite different from today, in order to broaden our understanding of what could happen. But sometimes scenarios make implausible assumptions; for example, modeling all growth for a city or region as occurring within transit oriented development (TOD). The defense of this type of scenario is that it is just a “what if” exercise. But it is implausible that no growth could occur anywhere else, even if there is a strong shift toward TOD.

Although such an extreme scenario might be interesting for the analyst, it will likely be immediately dismissed by stakeholders who hold real power. The effect of implausible scenarios is to give the impression that scenario planning is an irrelevant academic exercise that has no place in decision-making. The best scenarios, therefore, balance potential dramatic change with plausibility.

4. Focus on the Issues, Not the Tools

Plenty of planning organizations have caught the scenario bug, and then immediately asked their technical modelers to create—or write an RFP for—a new tool they “need” to create scenarios. Focusing on the digital tools first puts the cart before the horse, since there is a diverse array of technical approaches to modeling scenarios. Agencies that work on tools without figuring out the substantive focus of their scenarios often end up with tools that don’t answer the right questions. My book’s chapter on digital tools reviews a wide range of models that can be used for scenarios, stressing the importance of fitting them to the project, not the other way around. Equating scenario planning with the tools can shift the focus away from the underlying conceptual approach of scenario planning, which is often quite different than conventional forecast- or vision-led approaches known by the agency’s staff. Effective scenario planning exercises begin with a focus on the issues and scope of the project, then move on to decide on the suite of tools needed to bring it to life.

5. Collaborate, Collaborate, Collaborate

Although planning professionals generally understand the ethical and practical importance of participation, they can be tempted to avoid the real work it takes to truly collaborate. The truth is, most agencies can “check the box” of participation without allowing much substantive input into their projects. The problem with this approach is that it undercuts the potential power of the scenario method. As I argue in the book, the aim of planning is not simply to generate analytically rigorous and visually arresting plans, but to actually impact decision-making. To do that, the diverse stakeholders who hold power to shape the city must be meaningfully engaged in the project, and be provided with opportunities to shape the scenarios and learn from the results. After all, creating the right number of well-named, plausible, and appropriately modeled scenarios is not enough to make an impact if the key decision makers are not at the table all the way along.

Robert Goodspeed is an assistant professor of urban and regional planning at the University of Michigan’s Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning. He teaches and conducts research in the areas of collaborative planning, urban informatics, and scenario planning theory and methods. He is a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners and serves as a board member of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy’s Consortium for Scenario Planning.

Photograph: Courtesy of Robert Goodspeed.

Por lo general, los proyectos de desarrollo de 5 hectáreas no tienden a llamar la atención nacional ni internacional. Pero en el caso de Quayside, un lote junto al lago Ontario, en Toronto, esto fue diferente. Hace dos años, Waterfront Toronto (la entidad gubernamental que supervisa el redesarrollo y la reconfiguración de una franja más amplia de propiedades junto al río Don que incluye a Quayside) incorporó a Sidewalk Labs como socio privado. Sidewalk es subsidiaria de Alphabet, empresa matriz de Google, y prometió invertir US$ 50 millones en el emprendimiento. La empresa parecía ideal para ayudar a hacer de Quayside un prototipo de vecindario de “ciudad inteligente”, y elaboró planes ambiciosos.

También causó bastante controversia, y por momentos pareció que la sociedad misma terminaría por implosionar. Al momento de esta publicación, esta amenaza parece haber desaparecido, al menos por un tiempo. Toda la fricción tuvo un resultado inesperado: Quayside terminaría siendo un prototipo mucho más valioso para la planificación de ciudades inteligentes de lo que se había pensado.

Esto no se debe a lo que se construyó (que, a la fecha, es nada), sino más bien a la manera en que el camino escabroso ha aclarado los problemas centrales de las ciudades inteligentes, que se deben resolver antes de que se pueda construir, no solo en Toronto, sino en cualquier zona urbana. Si bien es difícil encontrar un proyecto de ciudad inteligente que sea tan cabal como pretende ser Quayside, se están desarrollando muchos a escala más limitada, desde el “corredor de ciudad inteligente” de Kansas City, centrado en una línea de tranvía de tres kilómetros, hasta el programa LinkNYC (también de Sidewalk Labs), que reemplaza los teléfonos públicos de la ciudad de Nueva York por puestos estrechos habilitados para wifi.

Probablemente, el mayor problema que se debe solucionar es la privacidad. Esto puede resultar intuitivo, e incluso Sidewalk Labs declaró en la propuesta inicial estar al tanto y ser consciente de las preocupaciones acerca de la privacidad. Dicha propuesta incluyó muchas ideas de tecnología avanzada que se esperarían de una entidad conectada con Google, desde bicisendas con calefacción hasta robots autónomos para entregas. Muchos de los elementos que se propusieron dependían de que unos sofisticados sensores recopilaran datos y gestionaran la eficiencia para todo, desde la recolección de basura hasta el tráfico y la iluminación.

Si bien la propuesta de Sidewalk tenía en cuenta la privacidad, aparentemente la empresa recibió con sorpresa las críticas de que demasiada discreción quedaba en manos de proveedores tecnológicos privados. Sin embargo, alguien no se sorprendió: Ann Cavoukian, ex comisionada de privacidad en Ontario, prominente defensora de la privacidad que Sidewalk había incorporado al comité asesor, pero que renunció de inmediato.

Hoy, Cavoukian es directora ejecutiva de la consultora Global Privacy & Security by Design Centre, especialista en privacidad, y explica que reconoce el valor potencial de recolectar datos para dar forma a un vecindario o una ciudad. Pero, en esencia, cree que, en el contexto de la ciudad inteligente, garantizar la privacidad es una decisión a nivel de planificación que es mejor dejar para el sector público. “La tecnología, los sensores, siempre estarán encendidos”, dice. “No hay una instancia en que las personas puedan dar o no dar su consentimiento. No tienen opción”.

Defiende específicamente lo que denomina estrategia de “privacidad por diseño”, que “limpia” los datos cuando se los recopila. Por ejemplo, las cámaras o los sensores que recogen datos de tráfico también podrían detectar números de matrícula. Si se hiciera como indican Cavoukian y otros defensores de la privacidad, sencillamente no se recolectaría ese nivel de datos personales. “Se sigue obteniendo el valor que dejan los datos [totales]”, dice. “Pero no corres riesgos de privacidad porque los datos se desidentificaron”. La esencia de la privacidad por diseño es que prioriza el interés público por sobre el uso privado de datos; Cavoukian señaló como modelo el Reglamento General de Protección de Datos de la Unión Europea, que protege estrictamente la privacidad de los individuos y, desde que se implementó en 2018, ha obligado incluso a las empresas tecnológicas más grandes a realizar ajustes.

Sidewalk Labs propuso recolectar grandes paquetes de datos en una especie de “custodia”, y alentar a los proveedores privados a anonimizar los datos. Para los críticos como Cavoukian, esto postergó las decisiones sobre privacidad hasta un punto tardío en el proceso: luego de planificar e implementar; más que un punto de partida, son una acotación. Según una encuesta, el 60 por ciento de los residentes de Toronto que conocían el plan no confiaban en la recolección de datos de Sidewalk. Ambas partes siguen ultimando detalles, pero por ahora hemos acordado que los datos recogidos por sensores se tratarán como un activo público, y no privado (Sidewalk Labs no respondió al pedido de entrevista).

La propuesta de Toronto fue controversial por otros motivos. Destaca el hecho de que buscó supervisar mucho más que el terreno original de 5 hectáreas, y tentó con la posibilidad de ubicar una sede central canadiense de Google en la costanera de la ciudad, como parte de una estrategia que otorgaría a Sidewalk laxitud sobre 77 hectáreas de propiedades con potencialidad lucrativa. Esta propuesta se rechazó, pero incentivó un debate útil acerca de las ciudades inteligentes y la igualdad.

Jennifer Clark, profesora y jefa de la Sección de Planificación Regional y de Ciudades en la Escuela de Arquitectura Knowlton, Facultad de Ingeniería de la Universidad Estatal de Ohio, estudió las labores de ciudades inteligentes en todo el mundo. Es autora de Uneven Innovation: The Work of Smart Cities (Innovación despareja: el trabajo de las ciudades inteligentes), que publicó Columbia University Press en febrero de 2020. Ella explica que las empresas tecnológicas y las entidades gubernamentales o de planificación llegan a estas colaboraciones con perspectivas diferentes. Dice que las empresas como Sidewalk Labs, que se dedican a las nuevas tecnologías en la ciudad, “vienen de una orientación particular de pensar quién es el ‘usuario’. Piensan mucho a partir de un modelo de consumidor, y, en esencia, los usuarios y los consumidores son lo mismo. En las ciudades, los planificadores no piensan así. Los usuarios son ciudadanos”.

Del mismo modo, las empresas que diseñan tecnología pensada para hacer que una ciudad sea “inteligente” buscan un modelo de ingresos que no solo financie un proyecto determinado, sino que termine por demostrar que es rentable; esto orienta la naturaleza de sus productos y servicios prototípicos, que, con el tiempo, se podrían aplicar en otras partes. Clark destaca que un elemento poco debatido en el fenómeno de las ciudades inteligentes es la “implementación despareja”. Se espera que Quayside y el redesarrollo más amplio de la costanera donde se encuentra generen como resultado propiedades de alto valor, que utilice y frecuente un sector demográfico atractivo para las empresas.

“Se presupone que, si se hacen estos distritos de desarrollo urbano, se experimenta con el modelo, se logra un buen modelo, y luego se lo implementa de forma extensiva, entonces hay igualdad”, dice Clark. Pero en la práctica, suele “no haber un camino para eso”. Sean cuales sean las innovaciones que surgen, tienden a repetirse en contextos demográficos similares.

Lo que suele subyacer a esta dinámica es una especie de desequilibrio de poder. La parte privada de una sociedad de desarrollo suele estar muy bien financiada y tener la posibilidad de ofrecer incentivos económicos y, por lo tanto, básicamente, establecer los términos; la parte pública puede tener menos recursos y ser menos sofisticada en la evaluación o implementación total de la tecnología de vanguardia. Pero Clark observa que, en este caso, la historia de Quayside (que menciona en su libro) podría ser un tanto distinta.

“Toronto tiene antecedentes de organización y desarrollo comunitarios”, destaca. “Y allí las organizaciones comunitarias poseen un conocimiento complejo de las prácticas de recolección de datos que se propusieron”. Así, puede que el retroceso en la privacidad y el modo en que se resuelva sean la verdadera ventaja duradera, en particular si se resuelve de un modo que los demás puedan emular.

En esencia, el resultado que quiere Cavoukian es un modelo replicable, que ofrezca pautas para la tecnología y las reglas que esta debe acatar. Ahora está trabajando con Waterfront Toronto, y guarda la esperanza explícita de que Quayside (ya sea con Sidewalk Labs u otros socios al mando) se pueda convertir en una réplica de las versiones de ciudad inteligente orientadas a la vigilancia que están tomando forma en zonas urbanas con tecnología avanzada, desde Shanghái hasta Dubai.

“Queremos ser los primeros en mostrar cómo se puede hacer y ofrecerlo como modelo”, dice. “Queremos una ciudad inteligente con privacidad”.

Rob Walker es periodista; escribe sobre diseño, tecnología y otros temas. Su libro The Art of Noticing (El arte de darse cuenta) se publicó en mayo de 2019.

Imagen: Renderizado de sendero peatonal interior en Quayside, un desarrollo de ciudad inteligente plani cado en la ribera de Toronto. Crédito: Picture Plane para Heatherwick Studio para Sidewalk Labs.

Martin J. Walsh nació y creció en el barrio obrero de Dorchester, en Boston. En su segundo mandato como 54.º alcalde de Boston, se centra en escuelas, viviendas asequibles e inmigración, y muchos otros asuntos. También se convirtió en líder internacional de la respuesta al cambio climático y la construcción de resiliencia, al haber sido anfitrión de una importante cumbre climática en 2018 y formar una coalición de alcaldes dedicados a trabajar en energías renovables y otras estrategias. Juró lograr neutralidad en las emisiones de carbono en Boston para 2050 y lideró Imagine Boston 2030, el primer plan cabal de toda la ciudad en medio siglo, además de la iniciativa Resilient Boston Harbor. Se hizo un tiempo para hablar con Anthony Flint, miembro sénior, y reflexionar sobre su posición de alcalde en medio de la crisis climática actual.

Anthony Flint: Ha sido uno de los alcaldes más activos del país en el apremiante problema del cambio climático. Cuéntenos acerca de sus últimas labores para coordinar acciones. ¿Cómo se siente acerca de que todo este trabajo se haga a nivel local, sin una iniciativa federal?

Marty Walsh: Por primera vez, fuimos anfitriones de una cumbre climática, y trabajamos con alcaldes de todo el país. Fui electo copresidente de América del Norte de C40 [la red global de ciudades dedicadas a abordar el cambio climático], antes de que el presidente Trump se retirara del acuerdo climático de París. Trabajamos con el alcalde [Eric] Garcetti de Los Ángeles y otros para asegurarnos de que las ciudades renueven el compromiso con ese acuerdo. Este es un tema muy importante para el país y para Boston, y es muy importante contar con dedicación y liderazgo. Es una lástima que no hayamos contado con un socio [federal] en los últimos años. Pero seguiremos enfrentando las dificultades y seguiremos pensando en la próxima generación. Lo que deseo es que terminemos por tener un socio federal, y cuando llegue ese momento, no empezaremos de cero.

AF: Hablemos primero de la mitigación. ¿Cuáles son las formas más importantes en que las ciudades pueden ayudar a reducir las emisiones de carbono? ¿Deberían exigir modernizaciones en los edificios más antiguos, por ejemplo, para que sean más eficientes en el consumo de energía?

MW: Tenemos un programa llamado Renew Boston Trust, que identifica ahorros de energía en edificios que pertenecen a la ciudad. Es importante saber que comenzamos en nuestro propio patio trasero. Ahora hay 14 edificios que se están modernizando: bibliotecas, centros comunitarios, y estaciones de policía y bomberos. Segundo, estamos evaluando la posibilidad de electrificar algunos vehículos. La tercera parte es observar las modernizaciones y las nuevas construcciones, asegurarnos de que lo nuevo se construya bajo mayores estándares de rendimiento, con menos emisiones de carbono. A fin de cuentas, si pensamos en reducir las emisiones de carbono, se trata de 85.000 edificios en la ciudad . . . si queremos llegar a carbono cero para 2050, debemos modernizar esos edificios, los pequeños y los grandes. Y luego está el transporte: que el sistema de transporte sea más limpio y ecológico. Aunque tuviéramos una política nacional más fuerte, son las ciudades quienes al final deben ejecutar las reducciones.

AF: Aunque detuviéramos todas las emisiones de carbono mañana, el planeta aún debería gestionar un importante aumento del nivel del mar, inundaciones, clima volátil, incendios y más, debido a que las temperaturas aumentarán inexorablemente. ¿Cuáles son las labores más prometedoras aquí y en el país para construir resiliencia?

MW: Para Boston, las ciudades de la Costa Este y las propiedades frente al mar, el plan Resilient Boston Harbor establece algunas estrategias buenas. Tenemos 75 kilómetros de costa, y ríos que atraviesan y rodean la ciudad. Hemos observado lo que pasó con la supertormenta Sandy [el huracán en el Atlántico en 2012] y lo que ocurrió en Houston [por el huracán Harvey en 2017], en términos de proteger a la gente ante grandes inundaciones. Tenemos un plan grande para el puerto, pero hay otros vecindarios donde debemos asegurarnos de estar preparados. Estamos haciendo estudios de planificación en todas esas áreas [bajo la iniciativa Climate Ready Boston] para lidiar con el aumento del nivel del mar. Con el tiempo, será un plan ambiental.

Es un asunto de seguridad pública. Se trata de calidad de vida y del futuro de nuestra ciudad. En el pasado, los alcaldes se centraron en desarrollo económico, transporte y educación. Hoy, el cambio climático, la resiliencia y la preparación son parte de la conversación como no lo eran hace 25 años.

AF: En el Instituto Lincoln, estamos convencidos de que se debe con la naturaleza mediante a infraestructura verde e hídrica, y crear nuevas formas de pagarla. ¿También es fanático de este enfoque, desarrollado por los holandeses y otros?

MW: En realidad, Resilient Boston Harbor es un plan de infraestructura verde. Un proyecto que encara eso es Martin’s Park, que lleva el nombre de Martin Richard [la víctima más joven del bombardeo en la maratón de Boston de 2013]. Elevamos partes del parque para evitar que las inundaciones avancen, e instalamos mini pilas y mantos con vegetación reforzados con piedra para evitar la erosión de las mareas altas. Estamos analizando hacer algo parecido en todo el puerto interior. Gastaremos US$ 2 millones en Joe Moakley Park, que es el punto de acceso de las inundaciones a varios vecindarios . . . intentamos reducir todo lo posible los daños a propiedades y la manera en que las inundaciones alteran la vida de las personas. Los terraplenes y otras barreras pueden ayudar a mantener el agua a raya . . . pero hay oportunidades para dejarla pasar y que no se acumule, si ocurre una tormenta muy fuerte.

AF: Además de los nuevos impuestos que se propusieron, ¿apoyaría una disposición de captura de valor por la cual el sector privado contribuya más con este tipo de inversiones públicas masivas?

MW: Además de la inversión privada (necesitaremos más de ella), estamos trabajando con organizaciones filantrópicas para ver si más de ese dinero puede llegar a ese tipo de proyectos. En el presupuesto de este año, dedicamos un 10 por ciento de presupuesto capital a la resiliencia. También estamos pensando en tomar parte de la renta dedicada y llevarla a la resiliencia. Por ejemplo, aumentamos las multas y penalizaciones de estacionamiento. Eso volverá directamente al transporte y la resiliencia, como elevar las calles. Ese es un comienzo. Con el tiempo, dedicaremos más del proyecto a esto. Ojalá en algún momento invierta el gobierno federal. Ahora, están pagando millones y millones en asistencia ante catástrofes. En vez de presentarse luego de que ocurra el evento y la tragedia, yo espero que querrán hacer inversiones antes de tiempo.

AF: Según las proyecciones de que grandes franjas de Boston estarán bajo agua antes de que termine el siglo, ¿puede hacer una reflexión personal sobre esta amenaza a la ciudad que hoy lidera? ¿Cómo llamaría a un mayor apremio por abordar este problema?

MW: Ese es nuestro trabajo. Nuestro trabajo es gobernar en el presente, y gestionar todas las operaciones cotidianas, pero también es establecer las bases de lo que será nuestra ciudad en el futuro. La infraestructura que construyamos estará aquí en los próximos 50 a 60 años. El plan Resilient Boston Harbor está [diseñado] para lidiar con el aumento del nivel del mar en los próximos 40 o 50 años. Estamos construyendo todo eso con la expectativa de conservar y proteger a los residentes de la ciudad. Espero que, cuando ya no sea el alcalde, el siguiente venga y también quiera invertir. Este es el legado de la ciudad (no diría necesariamente que es el mío): mirar hacia atrás dentro de varios años, que los residentes recuerden el pasado y estén agradecidos por las inversiones y el tiempo que se tomaron los dirigentes en 2017, 2018 y 2019.

Creo que como país no estamos donde debemos estar. Los holandeses y otros países de Europa están adelantados. Entonces, estamos intentando alcanzarlos. Y no vamos a esperar a que la próxima generación intente resolver el problema.

Anthony Flint s miembro sénior del Instituto Lincoln de Políticas de Suelo y editor colaborador de Land Lines.

Fotografía: El alcalde de Boston, Marty Walsh, habla en los premios anuales Greenovate, que reconocen a los líderes del clima y la sostenibilidad en la comunidad. Crédito: John Wilcox, cortesía de la Alcaldía de la Ciudad de Boston.

As a rule, 12-acre development projects don’t tend to receive national or international attention. But that hasn’t been the case for Quayside, a parcel off Lake Ontario in Toronto. Two years ago, Waterfront Toronto—the government entity overseeing the redevelopment and reconfiguration of a larger swath of real estate along the Don River that includes Quayside—brought in Sidewalk Labs as a private partner. A subsidiary of Google’s parent company, Alphabet, Sidewalk Labs pledged to invest $50 million in the endeavor. The company seemed an ideal choice to help make Quayside a kind of prototype “smart city” neighborhood, and produced ambitious plans.

It also produced no small amount of controversy, and at times it has appeared that the entire partnership might implode. That threat seems to have passed, at least temporarily. All the friction has had an unexpected result: Quayside could prove to be a much more valuable prototype for smart city planning than originally imagined.

That’s not because of what has been built (which is, to date, nothing), but rather because of the way its bumpy ride has clarified the core smart-city issues that need to be resolved before any building can happen—not just in Toronto, but in any urban area. While it’s hard to find an example of a smart city project that’s quite as comprehensive as Quayside aims to be, there are many playing out on a more limited scale, from Kansas City’s “smart city corridor” effort centered on a two-mile streetcar line to the LinkNYC program (also from Sidewalk Labs) replacing pay phones in New York City with WiFi-enabled kiosks.

The biggest issue needing resolution may be privacy. That may seem intuitive, and Sidewalk Labs itself professed to be aware of, and sensitive to, privacy concerns in its initial proposal. That proposal included plenty of the sort of tech-forward ideas you’d expect from a Google-connected entity, from heated bike lanes to autonomous delivery robots. Many of the proposed elements relied upon sophisticated sensors to collect data and guide efficiency in everything from trash collection to traffic to lighting.

While Sidewalk’s proposal addressed privacy, the company was apparently caught off guard when it was criticized for leaving too much discretion to private-sector tech vendors. Among those unimpressed: former Ontario privacy commissioner Ann Cavoukian, a prominent privacy advocate Sidewalk had added to its advisory board who promptly resigned from that role.

Cavoukian, now the executive director of the privacy-focused Global Privacy & Security by Design Centre consultancy, explains that she recognizes the potential value of data collection for shaping a neighborhood or a city. But she believes, in essence, that in the context of the “smart” city, securing privacy is a planning-level decision better left to the public sector. “The technology, the sensors, will be on 24-seven,” she says. “There’s no opportunity for people to consent or revoke consent. They have no choice.”

She specifically advocates what she terms a “privacy by design” strategy, which “scrubs” data at the point of collection. For instance: Cameras or sensors gathering traffic data might also pick up license plate numbers. If Cavoukian and other privacy advocates have their way, that level of personal data would simply not be collected. “You still have the value rendered from the [aggregate] data,” she says. “But you don’t have the privacy risks because you’ve de-identified the data.” The essence of the privacy by design idea is that it privileges the public interest over private use of data; Cavoukian has pointed to the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation—which strictly protects individual privacy and has forced even the biggest tech players to adjust since its implementation in 2018—as a model.

Sidewalk Labs proposed gathering wide swaths of data in a kind of “trust,” with private vendors encouraged to anonymize data. To critics like Cavoukian, this delayed privacy decisions until too late in the process: post-planning, post-implementation, less a baseline than an afterthought. One poll found that 60 percent of Toronto residents who were aware of the plan didn’t trust Sidewalk’s data collection. The two sides are still working out details, but have agreed for now that sensor-gathered data will be treated as a public asset, not a private one. (Sidewalk Labs did not respond to an interview request.)

The Toronto proposal was controversial for other reasons. Notably, it sought oversight of much more than the original 12-acre parcel, dangling the possibility of locating a new Google Canadian headquarters along the city’s waterfront as part of a scheme that would give Sidewalk latitude over 190 acres of potentially lucrative properties. This proposal was turned back, but spurred a useful debate about smart cities and equity.

Jennifer Clark, a professor and head of the City and Regional Planning Section at the Knowlton School of Architecture in the College of Engineering at the Ohio State University, has studied smart city efforts around the world, and is the author of Uneven Innovation: The Work of Smart Cities, forthcoming from Columbia University Press in February 2020. As she explains, technology businesses and government or planning entities come to these collaborations with distinct perspectives. Enterprises like Sidewalk Labs that are devoted to new city technologies, she says, “come from a particular orientation of thinking about who the ‘user’ is. They’re very much thinking through a consumer model, with users and consumers as essentially the same thing. That’s not how planners think about it in cities. Users are citizens.”

Similarly, companies designing the technology meant to make a city “smart” are looking for a revenue model that will not just fund a given project, but can ultimately prove profitable—which guides the nature of their prototyping products and services that might be applied elsewhere. Clark points out that a seldom-discussed element of the smart city phenomenon is its “uneven implementation.” Quayside and the wider waterfront redevelopment it is part of are expected to result in high-value properties, used and frequented by a demographic attractive to businesses.

“There’s an assumption that if you do these urban development districts, you’re experimenting on the model, you get the model right and then you do broad deployment, so that there’s equity,” Clark says. But frequently, in practice, “there is no path to that.” Whatever innovations emerge tend to recur in demographically similar contexts.

What often underlies this dynamic is a kind of power mismatch. The private side of a development partnership is often richly funded, in a position to offer financial incentives, and thus to essentially dictate terms; the public side may have fewer resources, and less sophistication about assessing or fully deploying cutting-edge technology. But in this case, Clark notes, the Quayside story (which she addresses in her book) may be a bit different.

“Toronto has a history of community organizing and community development,” she notes. “And the community organizations there have a sophisticated understanding of the data collection practices that were proposed.” Thus the privacy pushback, and how it gets resolved, might prove to be the real lasting payoff, especially if it’s resolved in a way others can emulate.

A replicable model, one that offers guidelines for both technology and the rules that technology must play by, is essentially the outcome that Cavoukian wants. She is now working with Waterfront Toronto, and explicitly hopes that Quayside—with either Sidewalk Labs or new partners—can become a rejoinder to the surveillance-oriented versions of the smart city that are taking shape in tech-advanced urban areas from Shanghai to Dubai.

“We want to be the first to show how you could do this and put that out as a model,” she says. “We want a smart city of privacy.”

Rob Walker is a journalist covering design, technology, and other subjects. His book The Art of Noticing was published in May 2019. 

Photograph: Rendering of an interior pedestrian walkway at Quayside. Credit: Picture Plane for Heatherwick Studio for Sidewalk Labs.

Según Bloomberg, la mediana de alquileres en Brooklyn aumentó entre un dos y un seis por ciento al mes en la primera mitad de 2019, y llegó a US$ 2.914 en julio (Price 2019). Según se indica en el mapa, los créditos fiscales estatales (LIHTC, por su sigla en inglés) tienden a concentrarse en la sección noreste del distrito. Las viviendas asequibles escasean en los vecindarios más occidentales, cuyos proyectos de uso mixto con biblioteca y viviendas se describen en este número: Brooklyn Heights, donde el alquiler promedio aumentó un 53 por ciento entre 1990 y 2010 a 2014, y Sunset Park, donde el alquiler promedio aumentó un 24 por ciento durante el mismo período (NYU 2016).

Ver la versión PDF de este mapa para obtener más detalles y una clave.

Referencias:

Centro Furman de la NYU. 2016. “State of New York City’s Housing and Neighborhoods in 2015.” Nueva York: Universidad de Nueva York. https://furmancenter.org/files/sotc/NYUFurmanCenter_SOCin2015_9JUNE2016.pdf.

Price, Sydney. 2019. “Brooklyn Beats Manhattan for NYC Apartment Rent Increases.” Bloomberg. 11 de julio. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-11/brooklyn-beats-manhattan-for-new-york-apartment-rent-increases.