Google ends plans for smart city in Toronto(bbc.com)
bbc.com
Google ends plans for smart city in Toronto
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52572362
376 コメント
And collectively, Torontonians breath a sigh relief
‘I’ve met thousands of Torontonians from all over the city, excited by the possibility of making urban life better for everyone.’
This is simply not true, in my experience as a Torontonian. The overall opinion of this project was incredibly low, from at least dozens of people it’s come up with - at work, at events, with friends - if anything, there’ll be a lot of people happy to hear this. There were even questions as to why our tax dollars would even support this when we’ve got issues like homelessness, etc. As Forbes said, it was ‘tech for tech’s sake’.
Forbes: ‘In June of 2019, Sidewalk’s master plan was released, eliciting a barrage of controversy around privacy and participation.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association initiated a lawsuit against local, provincial and federal government over data privacy concerns. Vice called the proposal a “democracy grenade“.‘
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ellistalton/2019/09/26/why-side...
Edit: I’m shocked at the number of downvotes for similar comments - I guess backing up your points counts. If you don’t think this closure is good for Toronto, especially if you live here, I’d like to know why.
This is simply not true, in my experience as a Torontonian. The overall opinion of this project was incredibly low, from at least dozens of people it’s come up with - at work, at events, with friends - if anything, there’ll be a lot of people happy to hear this. There were even questions as to why our tax dollars would even support this when we’ve got issues like homelessness, etc. As Forbes said, it was ‘tech for tech’s sake’.
Forbes: ‘In June of 2019, Sidewalk’s master plan was released, eliciting a barrage of controversy around privacy and participation.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association initiated a lawsuit against local, provincial and federal government over data privacy concerns. Vice called the proposal a “democracy grenade“.‘
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ellistalton/2019/09/26/why-side...
Edit: I’m shocked at the number of downvotes for similar comments - I guess backing up your points counts. If you don’t think this closure is good for Toronto, especially if you live here, I’d like to know why.
Couldn't agree more as a Torontonian. It didn't help that they conducted most of the discussions in bad faith with the whole "trust us with your data" approach when these were geniune concerns due to the amount of oversight and control they were provided.
I agree that this was a train wreck in slow motion. What is sad is I didn't see any significant open engagement with GTA's existing tech scene (did hear a lot of talk of it though). Maybe the VCs club had access but as a technologist, I certainly didn't. If this was happening in SF, there would be grass roots meetups all over the place, and a more serious focus on action rather than planning.
They did a series of town halls, funded a bunch of urban / tech meetups. Pretty proactive for a period. The townhalls were very... SF style, it didn't mesh with the local culture well. But I don't think they did a lot of work either, there's a pretty lackluster showroom and they put out some very middling concept sketches - not proper renders like you see in most smart city projects. Didn't seem like they were taking things seriously. A lot of words. Maybe too many. At least not enough right ones.
I think lots of people were interested in the idea of such a project.
I don't know anyone with real experience in development, city planning, etc. who took it seriously though as anything other than a source of a few ideas. None of them thought google had the skills, experience, or even commitment to do the project - probably correctly.
I don't know anyone with real experience in development, city planning, etc. who took it seriously though as anything other than a source of a few ideas. None of them thought google had the skills, experience, or even commitment to do the project - probably correctly.
> As Forbes said, it was ‘tech for tech’s sake’.
It was more than that.
A sizable number of people carry Android-based surveillance, or data collection, devices in their pockets.
Imagine the upside for Google if people lived and worked inside Google devices.
It was more than that.
A sizable number of people carry Android-based surveillance, or data collection, devices in their pockets.
Imagine the upside for Google if people lived and worked inside Google devices.
I'm a Torontonian and I was looking forward to the project. I'm sad to see it cancelled. (It's a big city with many opinions, I don't think you can fairly claim that quote about "thousands of Torontonians" is "simply not true" from a sample size of dozens, the author is not even claiming all those people supported the Quayside project specifically).
Sure, some parts of the project looked like tech for tech's sake but I was excited about the urban design plans and architecture. And who knows, maybe some of the tech-y things would turn out to be good too. That's what experiments are for, and this wasn't a very large scale or risky one when compared to the size of the city so it's worth it to me to try new things even if many of the ideas don't work out. As for data issues, it seemed like the city and Waterfront Toronto were not afraid to exercise a lot of control on that front so Sidewalk Labs wasn't going to be able to do whatever they wanted, a lot of effort was going into ensuring it was in the public interest. This latest news supports the idea that the city was uncompromising in supporting what they see as the public interest - even to the extent that Sidewalk labs gives up entirely.
Sure, some parts of the project looked like tech for tech's sake but I was excited about the urban design plans and architecture. And who knows, maybe some of the tech-y things would turn out to be good too. That's what experiments are for, and this wasn't a very large scale or risky one when compared to the size of the city so it's worth it to me to try new things even if many of the ideas don't work out. As for data issues, it seemed like the city and Waterfront Toronto were not afraid to exercise a lot of control on that front so Sidewalk Labs wasn't going to be able to do whatever they wanted, a lot of effort was going into ensuring it was in the public interest. This latest news supports the idea that the city was uncompromising in supporting what they see as the public interest - even to the extent that Sidewalk labs gives up entirely.
This is great news. As a Torontonian I found their plan to be nothing more than a money grab on public space and the public in general. They also massively overreached in all their applications to the city.
Just a big tech company hyping up a project they were never really up to. Hopefully the city didn't spend a fortune on this. The fizzling out will come to no one's surprise.
> I found their plan to be nothing more than a money grab on public space and the public in general
You're going to get a big real estate developer doing it instead.
You're going to get a big real estate developer doing it instead.
Maybe.
Their plan would have implied the eradication of the properties of much of the film industry in the city who would have had to move to likely more expensive locations.
Frankly, I was surprised they were cleared to build residences in that area (or were they?)
When I worked in the film industry down on Commissioners—just a short bit west of Cherry St—there was still phosphorus seeping up through the ground on occasion...
AFAIU Waterfront Toronto has rule over the area and they've done some pretty great work with the Harbourfront area, so I would put faith in them to do a good job with the region. I think their major roadblock (prior to the pandemic) is funding. https://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/nbe/portal/waterfront/Home/w...
https://portlandsto.ca/project-details/
Their plan would have implied the eradication of the properties of much of the film industry in the city who would have had to move to likely more expensive locations.
Frankly, I was surprised they were cleared to build residences in that area (or were they?)
When I worked in the film industry down on Commissioners—just a short bit west of Cherry St—there was still phosphorus seeping up through the ground on occasion...
AFAIU Waterfront Toronto has rule over the area and they've done some pretty great work with the Harbourfront area, so I would put faith in them to do a good job with the region. I think their major roadblock (prior to the pandemic) is funding. https://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/nbe/portal/waterfront/Home/w...
https://portlandsto.ca/project-details/
$50M and two years later - where are the conclusions? The results? A blog post of what happened? Two years seems like enough time to say we tried some amazing things and this is how it did or did not work.
Two years is nothing when it comes with planning and development in the US, unfortunately.
A little anecdote, here in Cincinnati I was peripherally involved with a local nonprofit taking over management of an abandoned bit of city part to build new multi-use trails. It took 20 years for the park board to even listen, then once an agreement was reached it took another /year and a half/ to get the paperwork to the point where they would officially sign it. Just for a group to build trails, with no money needed from the city, no permits, etc.
Projects like what sidewalk labs was trying to accomplish frequently take 5-10 years+ to get anywhere. Planning in the US is absolute garbage. It is a big part of the reason SF and other large US cities are so expensive. Luckily there are some groups like YIMBY making headway here.
A little anecdote, here in Cincinnati I was peripherally involved with a local nonprofit taking over management of an abandoned bit of city part to build new multi-use trails. It took 20 years for the park board to even listen, then once an agreement was reached it took another /year and a half/ to get the paperwork to the point where they would officially sign it. Just for a group to build trails, with no money needed from the city, no permits, etc.
Projects like what sidewalk labs was trying to accomplish frequently take 5-10 years+ to get anywhere. Planning in the US is absolute garbage. It is a big part of the reason SF and other large US cities are so expensive. Luckily there are some groups like YIMBY making headway here.
local nonprofit taking over management of an abandoned bit of city
This is why it took a long time. The city was handing over management over part of itself in perpetuity. That needs to be done with care and deliberation.
Moreover, there are liability issues related to third parties making alterations to city lands that could result in ruinous liability to the city if citizens get injured on the altered lands and the city didn't fully inspect the alterations.
You also have potential drainage and soil issues to deal with, which need to be reviewed by geologists. And that's not getting into environmental reviews if there are at-risk species dwelling in that park.
All of those things take time. Programmers always complain about their customers wanting X in a few weeks when it really takes months.
So why are programmers always complaining that it takes engineers, geologists, architects, and city planners months to do their jobs? Unlike programming, the stuff these professionals are doing/reviewing can't just be fixed with a patch.
This is why it took a long time. The city was handing over management over part of itself in perpetuity. That needs to be done with care and deliberation.
Moreover, there are liability issues related to third parties making alterations to city lands that could result in ruinous liability to the city if citizens get injured on the altered lands and the city didn't fully inspect the alterations.
You also have potential drainage and soil issues to deal with, which need to be reviewed by geologists. And that's not getting into environmental reviews if there are at-risk species dwelling in that park.
All of those things take time. Programmers always complain about their customers wanting X in a few weeks when it really takes months.
So why are programmers always complaining that it takes engineers, geologists, architects, and city planners months to do their jobs? Unlike programming, the stuff these professionals are doing/reviewing can't just be fixed with a patch.
Thankfully Waterfront Toronto has been doing those studies and has their own plan for the region! They want to convert a large part of the area into green lands and proper drainage of the Don River to prevent further flooding.
I'm not sure if SWL's plan would have worked in conjunction with that work or if they would have overridden it.
I'm not sure if SWL's plan would have worked in conjunction with that work or if they would have overridden it.
>This is why it took a long time. The city was handing over management over part of itself in perpetuity. That needs to be done with care and deliberation.
The city has the right at any time to revoke the MOU between the city and this group, so there wasn't really risk there. I understand that care should be taken, but at a certain point you begin having serious inefficiencies.
>Moreover, there are liability issues related to third parties making alterations to city lands that could result in ruinous liability to the city if citizens get injured on the altered lands and the city didn't fully inspect the alterations. This is through an IMBA chapter which accepts all liability and responsibility and includes insurance coverage. This is not some new, unique thing that is happening. There are many dozens if not hundreds of these agreements in place in other cities already.
>You also have potential drainage and soil issues to deal with, which need to be reviewed by geologists. And that's not getting into environmental reviews if there are at-risk species dwelling in that park. There aren't major structures being put in place, and most of the parks around here have very, very degraded ecosystems except in a few notable, well known locations.
>All of those things take time. Programmers always complain about their customers wanting X in a few weeks when it really takes months.
>So why are programmers always complaining that it takes engineers, geologists, architects, and city planners months to do their jobs? Unlike programming, the stuff these professionals are doing/reviewing can't just be fixed with a patch. For what its worth I'm an electrical engineer, not a programmer, that deals more with manufacturing. My last job involved electronics for explosive atmospheres that were expected to last 10+ years minimum, so I have a good understanding of not being able to quickly send out fixes with a patch.
The process wasn't really transparent, so it really felt like people kind of dragging their feet and being very resistant to change. Something my city is known for (see famous Mark Twain quote about Cincy and the end of the world). I understand very well taking months to do things, but years for something like this is maddening.
The city has the right at any time to revoke the MOU between the city and this group, so there wasn't really risk there. I understand that care should be taken, but at a certain point you begin having serious inefficiencies.
>Moreover, there are liability issues related to third parties making alterations to city lands that could result in ruinous liability to the city if citizens get injured on the altered lands and the city didn't fully inspect the alterations. This is through an IMBA chapter which accepts all liability and responsibility and includes insurance coverage. This is not some new, unique thing that is happening. There are many dozens if not hundreds of these agreements in place in other cities already.
>You also have potential drainage and soil issues to deal with, which need to be reviewed by geologists. And that's not getting into environmental reviews if there are at-risk species dwelling in that park. There aren't major structures being put in place, and most of the parks around here have very, very degraded ecosystems except in a few notable, well known locations.
>All of those things take time. Programmers always complain about their customers wanting X in a few weeks when it really takes months.
>So why are programmers always complaining that it takes engineers, geologists, architects, and city planners months to do their jobs? Unlike programming, the stuff these professionals are doing/reviewing can't just be fixed with a patch. For what its worth I'm an electrical engineer, not a programmer, that deals more with manufacturing. My last job involved electronics for explosive atmospheres that were expected to last 10+ years minimum, so I have a good understanding of not being able to quickly send out fixes with a patch.
The process wasn't really transparent, so it really felt like people kind of dragging their feet and being very resistant to change. Something my city is known for (see famous Mark Twain quote about Cincy and the end of the world). I understand very well taking months to do things, but years for something like this is maddening.
[deleted]
I'm so confused by this comment. You're saying there is some city planning problem unique to the United States, but also cities in Canada? Could you help me understand how some friction to building in Cincinatti is relevant to Toronto or San Francisco, when different laws and political bodies apply to all?
Sorry, in my mind I combine the US and Canada since much of the planning coverage is in the same news outlets (e.g. streetsblog). For what its worth Canada seems to have many of the same planning and development issues the US has struggled with for the past decades.
> It took 20 years for the park board to even listen
On that sort of timescale, that's less down to "things move slowly" and more down to "you can't get anything done in the wrong political climate, so you have to wait until appointed officials die and/or an entire generational shift in your municipality produces a sea-change of political views."
On that sort of timescale, that's less down to "things move slowly" and more down to "you can't get anything done in the wrong political climate, so you have to wait until appointed officials die and/or an entire generational shift in your municipality produces a sea-change of political views."
Which is almost precisely what happened. Cincinnati is notorious for this sort of thing.
Sure, but my point was that that's not just "moving slowly", it's Brownian motion: there's no guarantee political winds will ever shift favorably in your direction at all. They might drift in the opposite direction for hundreds of years. Community "evaporative cooling" in a city of decreasing population might just see whatever political currents are there get concentrated over time, rather than diminished.
So, basically, any municipal political plan that involves "waiting the problem out" as a strategy, should never actually be chosen/pursued, because if time has any associated overhead costs, then the indefinite amount of time required will cause the overall strategy to have predictably negative ROI.
So, basically, any municipal political plan that involves "waiting the problem out" as a strategy, should never actually be chosen/pursued, because if time has any associated overhead costs, then the indefinite amount of time required will cause the overall strategy to have predictably negative ROI.
I know the average Torontonian wasn't into this, but I live nearby and was really excited about what it could have been, even though it was fraught with missteps.
This area is a concrete wasteland–just car-parks and abandoned lots–that's now going to be portioned off to more giant, glass condo buildings, and while Sidewalk's proposal had problems, it was focused on building something very different, community-oriented, without prioritizing roads.
Sidewalk really pushed the technology angle way too hard, and it was a clear overstep– most of it wasn't necessary for any sort of quality of life improvements, but many of the ideas like wooden 'skyscrapers' and de-prioritizing roads were exciting, now lost.
This area is a concrete wasteland–just car-parks and abandoned lots–that's now going to be portioned off to more giant, glass condo buildings, and while Sidewalk's proposal had problems, it was focused on building something very different, community-oriented, without prioritizing roads.
Sidewalk really pushed the technology angle way too hard, and it was a clear overstep– most of it wasn't necessary for any sort of quality of life improvements, but many of the ideas like wooden 'skyscrapers' and de-prioritizing roads were exciting, now lost.
You can still advocate for such urban redevelopment and community planning without Big Tech behind it.
Local HOAs and similar have loud voices against these kind of projects. It might take another big voice (like Sidewalk Labs) to counter.
I've tried calling my local reps to support walkable community projects and have been told, nearly verbatim, that if the HOA doesn't like it, they won't be voting for it. Then when big tech offices started moving in, the redevelopment projects finally started too.
I've tried calling my local reps to support walkable community projects and have been told, nearly verbatim, that if the HOA doesn't like it, they won't be voting for it. Then when big tech offices started moving in, the redevelopment projects finally started too.
[deleted]
Sure, but it would have been really interesting to see what Sidewalk could have done here, especially given that it was a blighted area.
You can but change is measured in decades and even then often doesn't happen.
Starting "fresh" with a single leading implementer is really how it needs to be done.
Take San Francisco. There's the planning board, the planning department, environmental lawsuits, HOAs, abusing "historic landmarks" designations, political showmanship, developers, affordable housing, community meetings, unions, community groups (the cycling people are borderline militant) etc. etc.
All of those can bring any change to its knees. And they have, repeatedly. There are good parts of this process and people shouldn't not have input, but I might not oppose a dictator coming in for two years and just having at it.
Starting "fresh" with a single leading implementer is really how it needs to be done.
Take San Francisco. There's the planning board, the planning department, environmental lawsuits, HOAs, abusing "historic landmarks" designations, political showmanship, developers, affordable housing, community meetings, unions, community groups (the cycling people are borderline militant) etc. etc.
All of those can bring any change to its knees. And they have, repeatedly. There are good parts of this process and people shouldn't not have input, but I might not oppose a dictator coming in for two years and just having at it.
San Francisco has changed immensely in just the last decade.
It may not be noticeable if you live there because you only see the incremental day by day changes, but as someone who only sporadically visits the Bay Area: it's nothing like it was in 2010. It's significantly more built up (and out), more skyscrapers, more apartments, more condos, more everything.
It may not be noticeable if you live there because you only see the incremental day by day changes, but as someone who only sporadically visits the Bay Area: it's nothing like it was in 2010. It's significantly more built up (and out), more skyscrapers, more apartments, more condos, more everything.
Housing prices would tell you there is actually less of everything, relatively. Demand has surged, sufficient supply has yet to be constructed, queue housing crisis. Not enough housing is being built in California's cities.
Less of everything on a relative basis, but more of everything on an absolute basis.
It's a game of moving goal posts.
It's a game of moving goal posts.
14 new residential high rises were built in SoMA in the past 5 years. 3 more are going up as we speak and opening in the next few months. That's a LOT of residential construction in a very short amount of time.
(Mind you that's just a 15 block area in East Cut/SoMA - I'm not even talking about ALL of Mission Bay which didn't exist 10 years ago or the Van Ness corridor or Mid-Market.)
The problem here is we only started building about 10 years ago (with One Rincon being the first major new building in a long time) and the rest of the Bay Area (for example, Brisbane notoriously) is nowhere near doing its fair share of building.
(Mind you that's just a 15 block area in East Cut/SoMA - I'm not even talking about ALL of Mission Bay which didn't exist 10 years ago or the Van Ness corridor or Mid-Market.)
The problem here is we only started building about 10 years ago (with One Rincon being the first major new building in a long time) and the rest of the Bay Area (for example, Brisbane notoriously) is nowhere near doing its fair share of building.
How does the number of new units stack up to what was being built in the 60s, 50s, 40s, 30s, etc.?
It's still managed by Waterfront Toronto, the goal is still for it to be pre-planned in a smart way.
However, I didn't see much in Sidewalk Labs that was so innovative. You talk of "without prioritizing road" but there was still zero dollar allocated for any kind of transit project, 2.5 years into it. Not that it's all Google's fault, but really for me lack of concrete plans for transit in development showed me it wasn't serious.
This type of mentality is exactly what led to "urban renewal" in the 1960s and the complete destruction of American inner cities to be replaced with 18-lane freeways and grimy concrete housing projects that concentrated poverty and sent crime rates skyrocketing.
Because planners' hubris, similar to the insane technocratic Silicon Valley hubris these days, led to them making terrible decisions with zero community input and a team of yes-men around them.
> I might not oppose a dictator coming in for two years and just having at it.
Ironic a culture that fetishizes free markets and an open marketplace of ideas favors totalitarianism because they find the idea of being part of a larger human community with all its flaws icky. Step away from the keyboard some more and maybe, I dunno, go outside and talk to people? Problems like these are never solved with Docker.
Because planners' hubris, similar to the insane technocratic Silicon Valley hubris these days, led to them making terrible decisions with zero community input and a team of yes-men around them.
> I might not oppose a dictator coming in for two years and just having at it.
Ironic a culture that fetishizes free markets and an open marketplace of ideas favors totalitarianism because they find the idea of being part of a larger human community with all its flaws icky. Step away from the keyboard some more and maybe, I dunno, go outside and talk to people? Problems like these are never solved with Docker.
You can, but its difficult without an 800-pound gorilla on your team.
you can, but big tech had big tech money.
Unless you've got a few billion to throw away you're going to have a hard time convincing any developers to build something other than the most economically productive building. and for that location, that's a big glass condo building that looks like every other big glass condo building and doesn't benefit anybody other than the people who can afford to live in big glass condo buildings.
Unless you've got a few billion to throw away you're going to have a hard time convincing any developers to build something other than the most economically productive building. and for that location, that's a big glass condo building that looks like every other big glass condo building and doesn't benefit anybody other than the people who can afford to live in big glass condo buildings.
I was intrigued until they started getting into wanting legal jurisdiction over the region. Even beyond the assumed privacy implications that was the real hard line for me. They did back down off of that as far as I'm aware.
I hope we can see the experimentation with wooden skyscrapers, etc, though.
I hope we can see the experimentation with wooden skyscrapers, etc, though.
> that's now going to be portioned off to more giant, glass condo buildings
I hope it's something a bit different. Looks like Waterfront Toronto will turn back to the community for new ideas for Quayside.
https://waterfrontoronto.ca/nbe/portal/waterfront/Home/water...
I hope it's something a bit different. Looks like Waterfront Toronto will turn back to the community for new ideas for Quayside.
https://waterfrontoronto.ca/nbe/portal/waterfront/Home/water...
> Sidewalk really pushed the technology angle way too hard, and it was a clear overstep– most of it wasn't necessary for any sort of quality of life improvements, but many of the ideas like wooden 'skyscrapers' and de-prioritizing roads were exciting, now lost.
These ideas are not lost.
The City of Toronto has already approved several wooden “skyscrapers”. This idea wasn’t unique to Google by any stretch of the imagination.
De-prioritizing roads also was not unique to this Google development. In fact, just walking distance from Google’s smart-city proposal are two significantly larger developments (Portland’s and Unilever) that lean heavily on the shared streets/woonerf concept.
These ideas are not lost.
The City of Toronto has already approved several wooden “skyscrapers”. This idea wasn’t unique to Google by any stretch of the imagination.
De-prioritizing roads also was not unique to this Google development. In fact, just walking distance from Google’s smart-city proposal are two significantly larger developments (Portland’s and Unilever) that lean heavily on the shared streets/woonerf concept.
Sidewalk labs has a LOT of good ideas but, even putting aside privacy concerns related to Google ownership, the simple fact is that these good ideas are nearly intractable even when planned by trusted organizations with the best of intentions. Western cities just don't move very fast nowadays, for better and for worse.
Maybe this would work better in a country where cities develop faster and with less protest from citizens, but a lot of sidewalk labs best ideas boil down to "more affordable housing and less cars" which are mainly Western problems that derive from a lack of good urban development in the first place.
Maybe this would work better in a country where cities develop faster and with less protest from citizens, but a lot of sidewalk labs best ideas boil down to "more affordable housing and less cars" which are mainly Western problems that derive from a lack of good urban development in the first place.
Works best if you can just steamroll through with the project from the start. PoC small scale (though much larger than 12 acres, which is about 2 Manhattan city blocks), then large scale.
Requires feds to be totally on board, have the power to green light everything quickly, and have tons of capital to deploy. Unfortunately for SWL, it's not possible for an Alphabet company to build in Saudi Arabia or China.
Requires feds to be totally on board, have the power to green light everything quickly, and have tons of capital to deploy. Unfortunately for SWL, it's not possible for an Alphabet company to build in Saudi Arabia or China.
They could try in Jakarta, or Singapore, or Japan, or Korea, or hundreds of other places around the world. There are plenty of places with a dearth of capital and labor coupled with a willingness to build modern cities that aren't Saudi Arabia or China.
Shame, some genuinely descent ideas in terms of building science and urban design. 11/10 chance the technology elements would have gone the way of the Google Grave yard after 10years, but at least it will leave a set of interesting buildings to draw lessons from. Now nothing. Lots will stay empty or be filled with generic condo developments with questionable longevity. The Google branding and Silicon Valley outreach style didn't help. Simultaneously, the inability for western societies to at least entertain rapid urban experiments is going to backfire. I'm not a big fan of Google, but they have fuck you resources and at least tried to direct it in prosocial designs with the expected cost of privacy. If they can't succeed in Toronto then it doesn't bode well for anyone else.
The backlash against this is pretty ridiculous. Despite the dystopian rhetoric, in reality it was a small project of 12 acres that would have held a few condos. By comparison CityPlace is 44 acres and was also done by one company.
So shat do people imagine will happen now? Instead of trying something new and interesting on a small scale, that same land will be given to another generic developer (Concord/Tridel/whatever) and they'll just do more of same. It's not bad, just meh. But honestly, Toronto is a fairly conservative place, so it makes sense.
So shat do people imagine will happen now? Instead of trying something new and interesting on a small scale, that same land will be given to another generic developer (Concord/Tridel/whatever) and they'll just do more of same. It's not bad, just meh. But honestly, Toronto is a fairly conservative place, so it makes sense.
I think most people were bothered by the technology integration, and not the urban planning.
For most of its lifecycle it was a 190 acre project, not 12 acres.
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2019/06/21/google-sister-co...
"By comparison CityPlace is 44 acres and was also done by one company"
That company owned the land, and via the normal development process they ended up dedicating 8 acres to parks, etc.
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2019/06/21/google-sister-co...
"By comparison CityPlace is 44 acres and was also done by one company"
That company owned the land, and via the normal development process they ended up dedicating 8 acres to parks, etc.
>that same land will be given to another generic developer (Concord/Tridel/whatever) and they'll just do more of same
Pre-COVID I'd likely agree with you, however due the new realities of COVID I believe the future of cities has drastically changed.
I personally don't believe Toronto will recover from COVID to anywhere near the state it held at the end of 2019 and therefore further expansion/housing/real estate development will likely look drastically different.
>Toronto is a fairly conservative place, so it makes sense.
Compared with where? And why would you believe that to be the case?
My own interpretation, having lived there for years, is that the appetite for further infrastructure development has been strangled from Torontonians via very high costs of living, low wages compared to similar cities and high direct & indirect taxes.
Pre-COVID I'd likely agree with you, however due the new realities of COVID I believe the future of cities has drastically changed.
I personally don't believe Toronto will recover from COVID to anywhere near the state it held at the end of 2019 and therefore further expansion/housing/real estate development will likely look drastically different.
>Toronto is a fairly conservative place, so it makes sense.
Compared with where? And why would you believe that to be the case?
My own interpretation, having lived there for years, is that the appetite for further infrastructure development has been strangled from Torontonians via very high costs of living, low wages compared to similar cities and high direct & indirect taxes.
If it really were nothing more than mundane construction work, then why was Google involved in it?
TO dodged a bullet.
It's Google's nature to lose interest and abandon their products. You think it's bad with software, imagine them building part of your city.
It's Google's nature to lose interest and abandon their products. You think it's bad with software, imagine them building part of your city.
Yeah. Tech companies almost by definition have (and should have) a very short attention span. I wouldn’t trust them with building anything that impacts people’s lives for decades and longer. It’s pretty much guaranteed that they will “pivot” away and jump on something shinier soon.
The cynicism here boggles the mind. You can talk blue in the face about all the products they haven't killed that power the world and people will just shake their heads in dismay and walk away muttering about Google Reader.
Categorize Google's products into two buckets - "home grown" and "bought the company". Then it starts to make a lot more sense.
Hmm, I think I lack the insight to know what this means.
Knowing that YouTube and Android were acquisitions, suggests that acquisitions may have more lasting potential, but I don't know enough about gmail, docs, maps, etc to know if any of them were home grown.
And looking at the list of acquisitions don't really clarify anything, all of their successful products seem to have some amount of acquisitions involved, but it's unclear to me if they were all sourced from the company, or if they bought companies to bring in talent into an ongoing home grown environment.
Knowing that YouTube and Android were acquisitions, suggests that acquisitions may have more lasting potential, but I don't know enough about gmail, docs, maps, etc to know if any of them were home grown.
And looking at the list of acquisitions don't really clarify anything, all of their successful products seem to have some amount of acquisitions involved, but it's unclear to me if they were all sourced from the company, or if they bought companies to bring in talent into an ongoing home grown environment.
The problem is that they have killed or mismanaged (Talk/Hangouts/Duo/Allo/Meet, Nest) enough products without any executive suffering consequences that it’s not unreasonable to ask how committed they are to anything which doesn’t sell ads. It’d be different if there was new management but absent a correction the same pattern seems likely to repeat for anything which isn’t a cure product.
For anything involving infrastructure, you need a much longer attention span than has been on display.
For anything involving infrastructure, you need a much longer attention span than has been on display.
It would be absurd if they killed everything, that wouldn't be a very long lived company. But it is clear that they readily walk away from products if the profit isn't there. It's fine when it's some dumb piece of software, but absolutely not OK when it means a section of a city imo. And here we are in the comments section of an article describing Google doing just that.
The scope-limiting to 12 acres announced on October 31 was perceived as a win for the regulators, giving them more control over the project over time. At that point the project timeline became untenable for SWL's plans but couldn't back out due to PR concerns for Alphabet. The pandemic is a convenient excuse for the company to abandon the Quayside project.
For the last three years SWL has bent over backwards to be transparent about its plans and address community concerns. Plans have repeatedly been scaled down to the point where it makes absolutely no financial sense to move forward.
The calculation to bet the company on Toronto was made before this recent backlash against Big Tech. I suspect it would have been made differently had the company started a year later.
For the last three years SWL has bent over backwards to be transparent about its plans and address community concerns. Plans have repeatedly been scaled down to the point where it makes absolutely no financial sense to move forward.
The calculation to bet the company on Toronto was made before this recent backlash against Big Tech. I suspect it would have been made differently had the company started a year later.
Bent over backwards? I don't think we were attending the same public hearings about Sidewalk Labs. I went to three of them, and do not - at all - share that view. In fact, they deliberately obfuscated many key points around their continued goal-posting moving of public-private terms, which has been well documented[1].
https://medium.com/@biancawylie/debrief-on-sidewalk-toronto-...
https://medium.com/@biancawylie/debrief-on-sidewalk-toronto-...
The 12-acres (just Quayside) was what Toronto's RFP asked for in the first place and Sidewalk Labs won out for (https://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2017/10/17/google-fir...), which now turns out to have not been financially viable for them given the high cost of their R&D (including those mass-timber buildings which aren't even in Ontario's building code yet). Sidewalk Lab's wider plans were really an unsolicited proposal that no one asked for, so it's unfair to blame "regulators" or the tech backlash.
Agreed that the responsibility was 100% on SWL to build consensus among the community and decision makers in Waterfront Toronto and Toronto's government entities. I'm just saying that this became a lot tougher due to the change in public opinion on big tech.
I followed the Google Sidewalk Labs/Toronto development for a while from a place of confusion more than anything else. Never really figured out what problem Sidewalk Labs was trying to solve or how technology was going to make a positive impact on peoples' urban lives.
The dominant problems that cities face are really the ancient ones of class conflict, racism and land use, with the core issue being that of the rich making life worse for the poor through politics and exclusionary zoning.
You could make cities dramatically better with only 19th century levels of technology (ie. the bicycle). Of course you'd need to have a political culture willing to share land and remove it from exclusive car use. Apparently a tall order.
The core things holding NA cities back are entirely political in nature.
The dominant problems that cities face are really the ancient ones of class conflict, racism and land use, with the core issue being that of the rich making life worse for the poor through politics and exclusionary zoning.
You could make cities dramatically better with only 19th century levels of technology (ie. the bicycle). Of course you'd need to have a political culture willing to share land and remove it from exclusive car use. Apparently a tall order.
The core things holding NA cities back are entirely political in nature.
What a colossal waste of time and money that confirms the obvious to anyone who actually lives in the city — they never really were about improving the downtown core neighbourhood of Quayside, which is ripe for development, and instead wanted to use public land and money for R&D. Good riddance and I hope people who are serious about aiding the public take note in the missteps Sidewalk made time and again, to fail to win the trust of the very city they were trying to become a community member of.
Discussion at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23103610 as well
Good. Toronto doesn't need condo neighbourhoods with gimmicky smart-phone integrations. It needs re-zoning of low density neighbourhoods to allow medium density to be built, thus more uniformly distributing the large and growing population.
But... condo neighborhoods are exactly that medium density housing. Every city does need more condos in their existing neighborhoods if populations are able to grow. (Unless Covid-19 will reshape the trajectory of urbanization, and major cities will mostly shrink for the next several decades. That actually seems somewhat plausible).
But writing off all the sidewalk labs ideas as gimmicky smartphone integrations is pretty disingenuous. There were ideas for greener construction methods using more timber and less concrete, more space optimized for walking and biking instead of cars, interesting communal space arrangements to make spaces that can be heated in winter and converted to outdoor space when the weather is nice. There will always be some haters, but IMO all of these things would be amazing quality of life improvements in the majority of North American cities.
But writing off all the sidewalk labs ideas as gimmicky smartphone integrations is pretty disingenuous. There were ideas for greener construction methods using more timber and less concrete, more space optimized for walking and biking instead of cars, interesting communal space arrangements to make spaces that can be heated in winter and converted to outdoor space when the weather is nice. There will always be some haters, but IMO all of these things would be amazing quality of life improvements in the majority of North American cities.
Condos are too expensive in general to fulfill the needs of most cities. In general construction of new condos is focused on the luxury kind of condos Google was undoubtedly looking at, which are absolutely not what cities need right now. We need affordable housing.
Condos are too expensive in general to fulfill the needs of most cities.
What the alternative? It's either single family home or condominiums (apartments).
What the alternative? It's either single family home or condominiums (apartments).
Not necessarily, no. First, condominiums are not apartments, because they are supposed to be sold, and in general cannot be rented. This means that they are built for and priced for people that can afford a 450000$ mortgage plus large condominium fees every month. Which are not the people that need housing right now.
There are also duplexes and triplexes, and apartments, as well as housing co-ops and subsidized or state-built housing. These are much better, imo, than condos.
There are also duplexes and triplexes, and apartments, as well as housing co-ops and subsidized or state-built housing. These are much better, imo, than condos.
Units within condos are rented all the time.
Your argument seems to be that there is a sizeable chunk of the population that cannot afford to own their own home. Yes, and?
We live in a global market and as a result, citizens of successful cities have to compete with people not just from that city, but from people outside, who are willing to bring in some cash. Oops, that means a bunch of people now can't afford to own a home.
That's the world we're living in. If you want to cancel inflow of capital into big cities, that's a political decision that has nothing to do with building or not building housing. If you want to 'just build affordable housing', you're really saying let's give permanent government assistance to a slice of the population. Are you qualified and knowledgable of all the side-effects of doing so? I'm not, so I don't even bother pretending I have a solution.
People need to become 1% smarter, to realize how complex human societies are and quit wishful thinking of 'just give/build more stuff for people who don't have enough'. You're a software developer, you know what a ball of mud most codebases are and how hard they are to refactor. Human societies are a worse version of that and it's a thankless job because by re-factoring one bit, you potentially break a dozen other places and boy will you hear from them.
Your argument seems to be that there is a sizeable chunk of the population that cannot afford to own their own home. Yes, and?
We live in a global market and as a result, citizens of successful cities have to compete with people not just from that city, but from people outside, who are willing to bring in some cash. Oops, that means a bunch of people now can't afford to own a home.
That's the world we're living in. If you want to cancel inflow of capital into big cities, that's a political decision that has nothing to do with building or not building housing. If you want to 'just build affordable housing', you're really saying let's give permanent government assistance to a slice of the population. Are you qualified and knowledgable of all the side-effects of doing so? I'm not, so I don't even bother pretending I have a solution.
People need to become 1% smarter, to realize how complex human societies are and quit wishful thinking of 'just give/build more stuff for people who don't have enough'. You're a software developer, you know what a ball of mud most codebases are and how hard they are to refactor. Human societies are a worse version of that and it's a thankless job because by re-factoring one bit, you potentially break a dozen other places and boy will you hear from them.
If your idea is that the current system is so broken that there is nothing we can do to avoid 40% of the population in major production hubs to have to spend ridiculous fractions of their income on housing, with other that simply can't, then maybe indeed a refactor isn't enough, and we should start thinking about a complete rewrite.
This isn't even a question of competition. Prices are increasing purely because the market can bear more expensive housing. The net effect is that real wages after rent are decreasing year after year since the 80s. At this rate, the day will come where the real wages of the average citizen of the US after rent will be lower than in the disaster that was the Soviet Union.
The problem is actually even more complex that simply capital inflow into big cities. Because capital is already centralized around big cities, and has been for a while, which leads to the question, where is that capital coming from? And the answer is that it doesn't actually have to do with capital moving, as that mostly cancels out, but instead with growing inequality.
Also, if your end statement is that it's ok that most people aren't able to own their home anymore, aren't able to own their cars, aren't able to own their furniture, aren't able to own their phones and so on, which is the direction in which things are happening, you shouldn't be surprised when heads start to roll in the next economic crisis. Literally. This is not a small issue, it is a massive issue. The incentive, historically, for the average person to continue participating in capitalism is the promise that eventually they will be able to have their own property, and maybe pass on some capital to their children. If you take away this incentive, the system will likely not survive for much longer. There is a reason why the first people that the population turned against in the Chinese revolution were the landlords. I don't want to see this happen again.
So yes, if fixing this issue will break a few other places, I don't care, we can see what we will do later. This is one of the most important economic issues full stop.
This isn't even a question of competition. Prices are increasing purely because the market can bear more expensive housing. The net effect is that real wages after rent are decreasing year after year since the 80s. At this rate, the day will come where the real wages of the average citizen of the US after rent will be lower than in the disaster that was the Soviet Union.
The problem is actually even more complex that simply capital inflow into big cities. Because capital is already centralized around big cities, and has been for a while, which leads to the question, where is that capital coming from? And the answer is that it doesn't actually have to do with capital moving, as that mostly cancels out, but instead with growing inequality.
Also, if your end statement is that it's ok that most people aren't able to own their home anymore, aren't able to own their cars, aren't able to own their furniture, aren't able to own their phones and so on, which is the direction in which things are happening, you shouldn't be surprised when heads start to roll in the next economic crisis. Literally. This is not a small issue, it is a massive issue. The incentive, historically, for the average person to continue participating in capitalism is the promise that eventually they will be able to have their own property, and maybe pass on some capital to their children. If you take away this incentive, the system will likely not survive for much longer. There is a reason why the first people that the population turned against in the Chinese revolution were the landlords. I don't want to see this happen again.
So yes, if fixing this issue will break a few other places, I don't care, we can see what we will do later. This is one of the most important economic issues full stop.
[deleted]
I am all for a complete re-write, but not on the level of society, but on the level of you and me.
If you could see into the future and know for a fact that you couldn't change a thing about it, would your concerns cease to have meaning?
If the answer is yes, then it is a matter of determining what in your short lifetime, you can realistically change and what you cannot.
For me, I've determined that the things I cannot change are human nature, including my own. What I can do is modify my lifestyle to be exposed to more of the human traits I cherish and fewer of the ones I resent.
That's the conclusion I've come to. Housing prices and inequality simply don't make the list of things I can do anything about and even if I could, I believe I'd be playing human sin whack-a-mole. I whack one sin, another one pops up. At some point, I just had to accept that there are traits human possess that upset me, and find lifestyle solutions to mitigate them, that's all :)
If you could see into the future and know for a fact that you couldn't change a thing about it, would your concerns cease to have meaning?
If the answer is yes, then it is a matter of determining what in your short lifetime, you can realistically change and what you cannot.
For me, I've determined that the things I cannot change are human nature, including my own. What I can do is modify my lifestyle to be exposed to more of the human traits I cherish and fewer of the ones I resent.
That's the conclusion I've come to. Housing prices and inequality simply don't make the list of things I can do anything about and even if I could, I believe I'd be playing human sin whack-a-mole. I whack one sin, another one pops up. At some point, I just had to accept that there are traits human possess that upset me, and find lifestyle solutions to mitigate them, that's all :)
> I've determined that the things I cannot change are human nature
This line of argument scares me, because we are so unaware of how human made our problems are.
"Money is like an iron ring we've put through our noses. We've forgotten that we designed it, and it's now leading us around. I think it's time to figure out where we want to go - in my opinion toward sustainability and community - and then design a money system that gets us there."
http://archive.is/nxKTO
This line of argument scares me, because we are so unaware of how human made our problems are.
"Money is like an iron ring we've put through our noses. We've forgotten that we designed it, and it's now leading us around. I think it's time to figure out where we want to go - in my opinion toward sustainability and community - and then design a money system that gets us there."
http://archive.is/nxKTO
geddy(1)
> construction of new condos is focused on the luxury kind
Supply is supply. Harlem is largely former luxury units.
Anecdotally, the luxury building opening down the street let me negotiate down my rent. It sucked the highest earners out of my building (and renter pool), which reduced my landlord's leverage. And it let me compare perks (e.g. included gym offsetting a membership), which increased mine. End result was a modest rent reduction.
Supply is supply. Harlem is largely former luxury units.
Anecdotally, the luxury building opening down the street let me negotiate down my rent. It sucked the highest earners out of my building (and renter pool), which reduced my landlord's leverage. And it let me compare perks (e.g. included gym offsetting a membership), which increased mine. End result was a modest rent reduction.
Sure, and in most cities incredible amounts of condos have been built and prices of rent for low-income individuals have increased massively.
It does not work in the real world. Supply is not supply. For one, these condos being built can essentially not be rented, and that means that they are not supply for low and middle income individuals.
It does not work in the real world. Supply is not supply. For one, these condos being built can essentially not be rented, and that means that they are not supply for low and middle income individuals.
If demand increases faster than supply increases, then prices go up. It does not mean supply&demand theory is invalid.
So, demand and supply has increased dramatically in almost every single city in the world, and in almost no cities has supply outpaced demand? The world is not an economics 101 textbook.
In Canada for example, the only province with functional and affordable housing is the one that enacted serious rent control and public housing, and they didn't have to build a lot. Seems to me that supply and demand isn't the whole thing if your goal is to have affordable housing.
In Canada for example, the only province with functional and affordable housing is the one that enacted serious rent control and public housing, and they didn't have to build a lot. Seems to me that supply and demand isn't the whole thing if your goal is to have affordable housing.
> in almost no cities has supply outpaced demand?
Detroit. Rural communities.
In real estate, it takes a while (years) for supply to catch up with demand. What you're seeing is simply city populations are rising quickly.
Detroit. Rural communities.
In real estate, it takes a while (years) for supply to catch up with demand. What you're seeing is simply city populations are rising quickly.
Detroit has some of the greatest increases in rent in the US[0]. Despite its population decreasing [1].
As for rural communities, they are not comparable in the slightest to cities.
[0] : https://detroit.curbed.com/2020/3/4/21164568/detroit-rent-ra...
[1] : https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/detroit-populati...
As for rural communities, they are not comparable in the slightest to cities.
[0] : https://detroit.curbed.com/2020/3/4/21164568/detroit-rent-ra...
[1] : https://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/detroit-populati...
> As for rural communities, they are not comparable in the slightest to cities.
Anything can be proven by discarding data that doesn't fit. Rural population is in decline, and prices drop with it. You can even buy entire towns in Appalachia for a song.
> Detroit
Your own cite says: “New housing construction has barely kept pace with the growth in housing demand over the past decade.”
Anything can be proven by discarding data that doesn't fit. Rural population is in decline, and prices drop with it. You can even buy entire towns in Appalachia for a song.
> Detroit
Your own cite says: “New housing construction has barely kept pace with the growth in housing demand over the past decade.”
>Your own cite says: “New housing construction has barely kept pace with the growth in housing demand over the past decade.”
This is an empty statement the article writer wrote to attempt to justify it. Housing demand in Detroit cannot have increased, because the population of Detroit was and is decreasing. If you can explain to me how a decreasing population can mean an increase in demand, I'd be all ears.
This is an empty statement the article writer wrote to attempt to justify it. Housing demand in Detroit cannot have increased, because the population of Detroit was and is decreasing. If you can explain to me how a decreasing population can mean an increase in demand, I'd be all ears.
What groups of people are moving in and out of Detroit? One explanation could be that people who previously could afford rents in Detroit can no longer do so, and the ones moving in are the ones who can afford these rents and mortgages. A lot of these low income neighborhoods in inner city Detroit have been raised and left to nature over the years, historic supply in the city center has been destroyed and what is left or is currently being constructed might be pricier housing comparatively. The working class greatly outnumbers the capital class everywhere. Take it with a grain of salt as I don't have any data in front of me, I'm merely postulating, but this would explain this trend.
> empty statement
Sorry, it's your cite.
> explain
Simple. People sharing living arrangements deciding to not share anymore. Fewer families with children, more single professionals. Confusing Detroit the city with Detroit the metropolitan area.
Sorry, it's your cite.
> explain
Simple. People sharing living arrangements deciding to not share anymore. Fewer families with children, more single professionals. Confusing Detroit the city with Detroit the metropolitan area.
Toronto (as a region) is getting about 100 000 new residents every year. It's hard to say that supply and demand isn't working because really, there is SO MUCH DEMAND, supply can hardly catchup.
Montreal still has a decent cost of living for housing and guess what, that's because their demand is lower (harder for non-French speaking people to establish themselves there)
That is true, but it is not the whole answer, as rent increases even in cities where population is stagnant or decreasing.
But yes, Toronto needs more affordable high density rental housing, as well as much better transit.
But yes, Toronto needs more affordable high density rental housing, as well as much better transit.
California is short by millions of units. This number can be calculated. A cheap city example is Cleveland. The reason why it's so cheap? In 1960, 900,000 people lived there. Today, 400,000 people live there. The population of LA in 1960 was 2.4 million. Today, its over 4 million in the city proper. Units in LA are on the market for a weekend, you sign your lease on monday, and move in by thursday. In Cleveland, listings stay up for months. The result is that 600k buys you two bedrooms and a bath in LA, and six bedrooms and seven baths in Cleveland. It's a very basic supply and demand problem.
> A cheap city example is Cleveland. The reason why it's so cheap? In 1960, 900,000 people lived there. Today, 400,000 people live there.
Cleveland is not actually that cheap (it just looks dirt cheap to people earning Californian dollars). And Cleveland would instantly be as expensive as California, if Silicon Valley headquartered there instead of California -- the fact that 900k people once lived there would not help in any way.
The prices of places is largely not determined by supply or demand. It's determined by the value of the property around it, and that property in aggregate is determined by the wealth of the jobs congregated there, and the concentration of capital located there. Only by redefining "demand" to not mean "persons needing homes" but instead to mean "anything that impacts the price" can you make a supply vs demand model work for housing.
> The population of LA in 1960 was 2.4 million. Today, its over 4 million in the city proper. Units in LA are on the market for a weekend, you sign your lease on monday, and move in by thursday.
The population of Grand Rapids, Michigan was ~198k in 1970. Today, it's still ~198k in 2020 -- same population, almost exactly. Despite this, units in Grand Rapids are on the market for a weekend, you sign your lease on Monday, and move in by Thursday. Despite this, units cost has increased by about 700% during that time.
Because, again, supply and demand are not the primary factors in housing costs in the US. They haven't been for over 50+ years now.
Cleveland is not actually that cheap (it just looks dirt cheap to people earning Californian dollars). And Cleveland would instantly be as expensive as California, if Silicon Valley headquartered there instead of California -- the fact that 900k people once lived there would not help in any way.
The prices of places is largely not determined by supply or demand. It's determined by the value of the property around it, and that property in aggregate is determined by the wealth of the jobs congregated there, and the concentration of capital located there. Only by redefining "demand" to not mean "persons needing homes" but instead to mean "anything that impacts the price" can you make a supply vs demand model work for housing.
> The population of LA in 1960 was 2.4 million. Today, its over 4 million in the city proper. Units in LA are on the market for a weekend, you sign your lease on monday, and move in by thursday.
The population of Grand Rapids, Michigan was ~198k in 1970. Today, it's still ~198k in 2020 -- same population, almost exactly. Despite this, units in Grand Rapids are on the market for a weekend, you sign your lease on Monday, and move in by Thursday. Despite this, units cost has increased by about 700% during that time.
Because, again, supply and demand are not the primary factors in housing costs in the US. They haven't been for over 50+ years now.
> It's determined by the value of the property around it, and that property in aggregate is determined by the wealth of the jobs congregated there, and the concentration of capital located there.
The value of something is set by what people are willing to pay for it. I.e. supply and demand.
> Despite this, units cost has increased by about 700% during that time.
Average inflation since 1970 is 565%. 700% is within that, as inflation measurements are inexact and there are regional differences as well.
The value of something is set by what people are willing to pay for it. I.e. supply and demand.
> Despite this, units cost has increased by about 700% during that time.
Average inflation since 1970 is 565%. 700% is within that, as inflation measurements are inexact and there are regional differences as well.
And yet in Detroit, the price of rent has increased while occupancy rates, incomes and population have decreased. This leads me to believe that the rising prices of rent on average in all cities in the first world is not actually a supply and demand issue. When the price for a mortgage is far above what the average person can afford, land prices start having little bearing on rent, and the reverse happens: rent prices start having a bearing on land prices.
Taking Cleveland for example, despite there being a massive surplus of housing units as you say, the average price of rent is 1123$, while the average household income is of only 26179$. This means that the average household pays 51% (!!) of their income into housing in recent years, while there is a surplus of housing.
I don't understand how this can be stated as supply and demand. It seems to me that rent simply increases so as to saturate the budget of the lower class, regardless of supply.
I would also observe that in most cities the average price of housing as a share of average income is steadily rising. This leads me to believe that what is actually happening is that prices of rent are increasing synchronously,
Taking Cleveland for example, despite there being a massive surplus of housing units as you say, the average price of rent is 1123$, while the average household income is of only 26179$. This means that the average household pays 51% (!!) of their income into housing in recent years, while there is a surplus of housing.
I don't understand how this can be stated as supply and demand. It seems to me that rent simply increases so as to saturate the budget of the lower class, regardless of supply.
I would also observe that in most cities the average price of housing as a share of average income is steadily rising. This leads me to believe that what is actually happening is that prices of rent are increasing synchronously,
> For one, these condos being built can essentially not be rented,
Non-occupancy tax. Vancouver has one.[1]
1. https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/empty-homes-t...
Non-occupancy tax. Vancouver has one.[1]
1. https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/empty-homes-t...
A non-occupancy tax is orthogonal to this particular issue, a lot of high rise condos cannot be rented, reasonably. And so they are only accessible to people that can afford to buy them, occupied or not.
Why can't they be rented?
Exorbitant HOA/Condo Association fees and regulations that make renting out a condo unfeasible, or outright banned.
Cool. So then people who buy condos for investment will have to choose between paying the non-occupancy tax or putting their money in property that isn't encumbered by those regulations. Accordingly the price of condos in buildings with such regulations should fall.
Alternatively, if a city council has the votes to implement a non-occupancy tax, they may have the votes to nullify HOA clauses that forbid renting. Or levy additional taxes on such HOAs. Since it's the HOA that's forbidding renting, the HOA should foot the bill for the non-occupancy tax, not the owner of the unit.
It's fairly common to include HOA dues and fees in the rent when renting out a condo.
Alternatively, if a city council has the votes to implement a non-occupancy tax, they may have the votes to nullify HOA clauses that forbid renting. Or levy additional taxes on such HOAs. Since it's the HOA that's forbidding renting, the HOA should foot the bill for the non-occupancy tax, not the owner of the unit.
It's fairly common to include HOA dues and fees in the rent when renting out a condo.
I would like to see that happen then. It might work.
However, even in Vancouver the occupancy tax is not being enforced nearly rigorously enough for such an effect, and the occupancy tax is still too little.
However, even in Vancouver the occupancy tax is not being enforced nearly rigorously enough for such an effect, and the occupancy tax is still too little.
This is incorrect. Those homes are expensive because the land beneath them is expensive. The finishes are largely irrelevant.
And the land is expensive because there are not enough places like them.
And the land is expensive because there are not enough places like them.
It all comes down to job growth driving demand on housing supply. The better the local economy, the more hiring is going on, the more people are recruited and look for housing convenient to work. Hardly anyone uproots themselves and moves to a new city without having a job lined up first. The value of the underlying land is speculative based on demand induced by job growth.
I'm not sure if either are you Canadian/Toronto residents, but Toronto has been developing a metric fuckton of condos over the last decade. In my neighbourhood alone (a 3x4 block area) there's been 15 30+ story condos built in that timeframe. We have no problems with condo development, imo.
I live in Montreal. Incredible amounts of condos have been getting built left and right, and they are inaccessible to people that need housing. The end result is that the price of housing for those that need it the most has increased dramatically. Now the city, after spending years focusing on getting more condos built, realized it's not going to fix the issues and will start building at least a few thousand units of state housing.
It's irrelevant if that amount of condo is still not enough compared to the demand caused by 100 000 new residents moving into the region every year. Tech jobs are up. Airbnbs are up (as of before COVID). Supply is low. There are people lining up for renting apartments. It's a lack of supply.
Even in places where population is decreasing, rent finds a way to increase.
I believe the above posters point is that, though a tremendous number of housing units are being developed, the demand for housing is increasing faster than this development.
I don't have a stake in this matter but there appears to be some evidence to support this idea.
> Between 2016 and 2019, the GTA added more than 325,000 jobs, but only 102,000 new homes. [1]
[1] https://www.thestar.com/business/opinion/2020/02/15/toronto-...
I don't have a stake in this matter but there appears to be some evidence to support this idea.
> Between 2016 and 2019, the GTA added more than 325,000 jobs, but only 102,000 new homes. [1]
[1] https://www.thestar.com/business/opinion/2020/02/15/toronto-...
Building Luxury condos does create affordable housing. Where do you think those people move from? interesting thought from this link: If you destroy 10,000 luxury condo's in Toronto tomorrow, will your prices go down?
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/8/1/how-luxury-hous...
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/8/1/how-luxury-hous...
Of course, destroying luxury condos and not replacing them with anything will not help. But the housing market is more complicated that straightforward supply and demand, with a lot of second and third order effects, and in the end building incredible amounts of luxury condos has done nothing for rent prices and housing availability in Toronto, or in Montreal where I live.
How is supply and demand not the major factor here?
Because the housing market has mechanisms (such as leveraged landlords) that mean that the price of land tends to inflate up until a situation of equilibrium such that the price of rent is always relatively high in any city where land is somewhat constrained, because zoning is a thing, because most people cannot get mortgages and are as such not able to participate in the condo market, because the price of land is wildly variable for reasons of zoning, because real estate investors do not always operate rationally (for example, empty rental homes held purely as stores of value), because the type of housing affects the type of transportation used which affects which kinds of land is suitable for use as housing, because not all housing is created equal in function or in value, and so on.
Simply supply and demand is not a sufficient mechanism to explain the housing markets in cities such as Toronto.
Simply supply and demand is not a sufficient mechanism to explain the housing markets in cities such as Toronto.
This is a naive take. Building luxury condos has definitely caused prices to drop, it's just that the effect of increased demand increased prices by more. Without the supply increase housing would be even more expensive.
I honestly don't believe this is the case. There is no empirical reason to believe it is the case, and there is research that suggests that it isn't the case [0]
[0] : http://econ.geo.uu.nl/peeg/peeg1914.pdf
[0] : http://econ.geo.uu.nl/peeg/peeg1914.pdf
>>> "no empirical reason to believe it is the case."
It takes chutzpah to assert a negative. But I appreciate that you honestly don't believe it. Perhaps this will cause you to update your priors?
[0]: https://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1325...
It takes chutzpah to assert a negative. But I appreciate that you honestly don't believe it. Perhaps this will cause you to update your priors?
[0]: https://research.upjohn.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1325...
...or international investors buy them up as an asset store or to launder money, leaving them mostly vacant. We unfortunately live in the real world, not an economist’s toy box, and have the example of Vancouver to prove it.
Isn't that a separate problem which Vancouver is already trying to fix by occupancy rules?
Vancouver is fixing the problem that the parent said is the solution - build a bunch of luxury stock to solve your housing crisis. It doesn’t work out that way in reality, which is what they’re now addressing.
People who buy luxury condos are probably not vacating affordable housing to do so.
Why would you think that to be the case?
The Strong Towns link you provided gives two examples of apartments build approximately a century ago.
Trickle-down economics at its best.
Build luxury apartments, fine. Probably not exclusively though, as in many cities the need is more pressing than that.
Why would you think that to be the case?
The Strong Towns link you provided gives two examples of apartments build approximately a century ago.
Trickle-down economics at its best.
Build luxury apartments, fine. Probably not exclusively though, as in many cities the need is more pressing than that.
No, that would be patently absurd. Of course they're vacating (the upper end of) mid-priced housing.
It's almost as if an equivalent amount of mid-priced housing would suddenly become available. I wonder who you think would move into that?
Build up.
It's almost as if an equivalent amount of mid-priced housing would suddenly become available. I wonder who you think would move into that?
Build up.
> I wonder who you think would move into that?
Typically, migrant tech workers who came from somewhere else.
In the rest of the world that is not San Francisco, there is, in fact, an unprecedented rate of construction of new properties. Seattle has more active cranes building than anywhere else in North America. The Vancouver skyline changes year-over-year as 30-story condos spring up like mushrooms around SkyTrain stations. Toronto is building and densifying at breakneck speed.
And yet, rent in each of these locations is sky-high, squeezing the lower classes.
Could construction be faster? Sure. Would the problem be worse if there was no construction? Probably. Is construction fixing the issue? Hell, no, it's not. Not even close.
Typically, migrant tech workers who came from somewhere else.
In the rest of the world that is not San Francisco, there is, in fact, an unprecedented rate of construction of new properties. Seattle has more active cranes building than anywhere else in North America. The Vancouver skyline changes year-over-year as 30-story condos spring up like mushrooms around SkyTrain stations. Toronto is building and densifying at breakneck speed.
And yet, rent in each of these locations is sky-high, squeezing the lower classes.
Could construction be faster? Sure. Would the problem be worse if there was no construction? Probably. Is construction fixing the issue? Hell, no, it's not. Not even close.
All that means is demand is increasing faster than supply.
That’s a super simplistic perspective.
Property developers are probably going to preferentially build high-margin housing, right?
And they’re going to preferentially build those at a rate that doesn’t meet demand, in order to keep prices high.
So what’s missing?
Property developers are probably going to preferentially build high-margin housing, right?
And they’re going to preferentially build those at a rate that doesn’t meet demand, in order to keep prices high.
So what’s missing?
> super simplistic
The law of gravity is super simple, but it produces all kinds of complex results.
Underlying the complex behavior of the real estate market is supply&demand driving it.
The law of gravity is super simple, but it produces all kinds of complex results.
Underlying the complex behavior of the real estate market is supply&demand driving it.
The law of gravity is actually not super simple. Relativistic gravity is an incredibly difficult and complex concept to understand, and the Newtonian law of gravity is simply wrong, enough that it has big impacts on the real world.
Whereas the law of supply and demand is not only preceded by a lot of assumptions that never are true in practice, and even with all those assumptions still has serious exceptions that apply to more and more and more goods as you move from theory to practice.
The laws of supply and demand are simply not useful for analyzing this market. Any attempt to use them will have to be accompanied by more classical incentive analysis and experiments that mean that ignoring it will give you better results than relying on it in this situation. Attempting to apply it gives you ridiculous conclusions, like that demand for housing is increasing everywhere in the world at the same time faster than supply, even when in practice supply is often greater than demand, leading to empty buildings, while prices still rise.
Whereas the law of supply and demand is not only preceded by a lot of assumptions that never are true in practice, and even with all those assumptions still has serious exceptions that apply to more and more and more goods as you move from theory to practice.
The laws of supply and demand are simply not useful for analyzing this market. Any attempt to use them will have to be accompanied by more classical incentive analysis and experiments that mean that ignoring it will give you better results than relying on it in this situation. Attempting to apply it gives you ridiculous conclusions, like that demand for housing is increasing everywhere in the world at the same time faster than supply, even when in practice supply is often greater than demand, leading to empty buildings, while prices still rise.
> Relativistic gravity is an incredibly difficult and complex concept to understand
You're right, but the underlying rules are simple.
> leading to empty buildings, while prices still rise
That's still supply & demand. In this case, it is likely that the demand is rising fast enough that delaying renting the building will result in higher rents in the future for that building.
It's a chaotic system, and I mean that in the mathematical sense, where simple rules lead to complex (and counter-intuitive) behaviors.
You're right, but the underlying rules are simple.
> leading to empty buildings, while prices still rise
That's still supply & demand. In this case, it is likely that the demand is rising fast enough that delaying renting the building will result in higher rents in the future for that building.
It's a chaotic system, and I mean that in the mathematical sense, where simple rules lead to complex (and counter-intuitive) behaviors.
You’re disregarding the site guidelines here.
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Are you interested in address the core of my argument, or only those two words in isolation?
Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Are you interested in address the core of my argument, or only those two words in isolation?
[deleted]
Seems off to call someone’s reply unsubstantial when their very argument is that a simple model is sufficient.
Of course developers are going to build high-margin housing. But why is it high margin? Because there is high demand and low supply. “Luxury” housing is only marginally more expensive to build than “affordable” housing. The expensive parts of development are the land, labor, and construction materials, not the light fixtures, appliances, and flooring. Shouldn’t we be celebrating that developers are building a much better product then they could be if they cut a few corners?
To the second point, developers are not in collusion to keep supply down, and the suggestion is absurd on the face of it. They are developers. They make money by increasing supply. The more they develop, the faster they develop, the more money they make. Developers generally sell properties once they finish them and move on, because they are not in the business of property management. Maybe there’s a non-absurd argument to be made that property management companies are in collusion to keep supply down, but they aren’t. Aside from the fact that it’s illegal, it would be impossible. There are too many of them and the market is too fragmented for a cartel to form, and defecting is too easy.
Of course developers are going to build high-margin housing. But why is it high margin? Because there is high demand and low supply. “Luxury” housing is only marginally more expensive to build than “affordable” housing. The expensive parts of development are the land, labor, and construction materials, not the light fixtures, appliances, and flooring. Shouldn’t we be celebrating that developers are building a much better product then they could be if they cut a few corners?
To the second point, developers are not in collusion to keep supply down, and the suggestion is absurd on the face of it. They are developers. They make money by increasing supply. The more they develop, the faster they develop, the more money they make. Developers generally sell properties once they finish them and move on, because they are not in the business of property management. Maybe there’s a non-absurd argument to be made that property management companies are in collusion to keep supply down, but they aren’t. Aside from the fact that it’s illegal, it would be impossible. There are too many of them and the market is too fragmented for a cartel to form, and defecting is too easy.
Or, just maybe, the situation is a bit more complex than that, and demand as well as supply are stratified as well as other ancillary effects affecting prices beyond that?
Or are we just going to pretend that the world works just like an economics 101 textbook and close our eyes to the real problems instead?
Or are we just going to pretend that the world works just like an economics 101 textbook and close our eyes to the real problems instead?
You don’t reckon landlords of those upper-end mid-priced dwellings are asking more for rent every time a lease ends and a new one starts?
Because that does seem to be what’s happened in many cities.
One issue here is ideological: is housing a universal right, or is housing a capital good to be accumulated and regulated to be artificially scarce?
Because that does seem to be what’s happened in many cities.
One issue here is ideological: is housing a universal right, or is housing a capital good to be accumulated and regulated to be artificially scarce?
Landlords charge more because people are still showing up to the open-house to rent. So of course they would increase rent. What you're describing is supply and demand. We lack supply. You can be sure the rent would go lower if nobody was at the door asking to rent their place. In fact, that's exactly what's happening right now with rent price in Toronto. Immigration is slowed, airbnbs visitors are gone and supply is up. Price are going down.
Of course it's a universal right. I don't think there's an idealogical gap between us on that front.
The other side of the "or" is a particularly egregious example of the excluded middle (separate from the missing middle housing shortage). The idealogical gap, if anything, seems to stem from willingness to believe that supply and demand affect housing affordability. I believe they do. The "regulations making housing artificially scarce" are exactly those inhibiting supply.
To that point and your question---of course landlords will always raise rent to the extent that the law allows it and the market will bear it.
The other side of the "or" is a particularly egregious example of the excluded middle (separate from the missing middle housing shortage). The idealogical gap, if anything, seems to stem from willingness to believe that supply and demand affect housing affordability. I believe they do. The "regulations making housing artificially scarce" are exactly those inhibiting supply.
To that point and your question---of course landlords will always raise rent to the extent that the law allows it and the market will bear it.
affordable housing is a pretty loaded phrase at this point. In fact it has come to just mean government-subsidized housing. So by that definition you are probably correct, people aren't often moving from housing projects to brand new condos. Nobody is saying that they do.
luxury condos is also a loaded phrase. In an expensive city, all housing is expensive, even if it is 50 years old and used to house working class people. So-called "luxury housing" is just regular-sized new apartments, with a few thousand dollars of added perks like sleek recessed lighting and upgraded appliances to help sell it.
If you take out those loaded phrases, people are absolutely moving from existing, mid-tier market rate housing into only slighty more expensive new construction market rate housing. The more new construction housing you build, the more supply you have, and the more prices come down. Which allows market-rate housing to become affordable to more of the population. That was the case 10-15 years ago, and could be true again in the future if we just let people build enough housing to match the incoming demand of new residents moving into cities.
luxury condos is also a loaded phrase. In an expensive city, all housing is expensive, even if it is 50 years old and used to house working class people. So-called "luxury housing" is just regular-sized new apartments, with a few thousand dollars of added perks like sleek recessed lighting and upgraded appliances to help sell it.
If you take out those loaded phrases, people are absolutely moving from existing, mid-tier market rate housing into only slighty more expensive new construction market rate housing. The more new construction housing you build, the more supply you have, and the more prices come down. Which allows market-rate housing to become affordable to more of the population. That was the case 10-15 years ago, and could be true again in the future if we just let people build enough housing to match the incoming demand of new residents moving into cities.
Yep, agreed, and all fair points.
The fit and finish of apartments and houses is largely irrelevant. The cost of the housing increase over the past 20 years is the cost of the land beneath it. Largely because we have not built transit and housing and jobs elsewhere.
Based on your logic we should ban all new market-rate construction and magically prices will come down. That is nonsense.
Based on your logic we should ban all new market-rate construction and magically prices will come down. That is nonsense.
Just take a look at the housing market in any city with high demand, you won't see very much delta for a given size unit. In LA, the shittiest 1 bedroom apartment with cigarette burns in the carpet and a view of the freeway is only maybe 10% cheaper than new construction. Engineers working for Google in playa del ray are directly competing for the same housing stock as low income custodians at Google who fit an entire family or three in a one bedroom in Palms.
However, if you build an apartment with pretty colors and a pool and grill and some artificial grass for your dog to poop on, that engineer working for google in that cigarette stained apartment in palms might just stomach the premium on rent for a better place, and that slumlord with the cigarette stained apartments might have a little bit more trouble finding tenants at top of market rent rates.
However, if you build an apartment with pretty colors and a pool and grill and some artificial grass for your dog to poop on, that engineer working for google in that cigarette stained apartment in palms might just stomach the premium on rent for a better place, and that slumlord with the cigarette stained apartments might have a little bit more trouble finding tenants at top of market rent rates.
Condos are actually not expensive, just in the USA where they are mostly luxury products. In many other countries, condos are normal (and are called apartments or something similar) and much more affordable than single family homes or town homes.
A Condo in the U.S. refers to a specific type of apartment that you can buy, and usually cannot rent out or modify. Typically they have all the trimmings out of the latest catalogues when they are built, so they fetch expensive single family home prices due to all that granite. They are popular for downsizing after your kids have moved out of your house, or find yourself widowed or divorced. Due to their illiquidity and lack of space, they are less popular for younger people who might want more bedrooms some day if they have children.
In most major cities in the U.S., any sort of property, even an empty dirt lot, is prohibitively expensive to the majority of the population. In LA in particular, the median home is unaffordable to 75% of the population. And the median home is a rotting bungalow precariously positioned on wooden posts built in 1947.
In most major cities in the U.S., any sort of property, even an empty dirt lot, is prohibitively expensive to the majority of the population. In LA in particular, the median home is unaffordable to 75% of the population. And the median home is a rotting bungalow precariously positioned on wooden posts built in 1947.
Well, in Toronto they are quite expensive, so it really doesn't help. And that is mostly by design. If Google wants to build cheap condos, then so be it, I don't think anyone will oppose them.
They would have to be really cheap though, because in NA condos can generally not be rented out.
They would have to be really cheap though, because in NA condos can generally not be rented out.
Almost everyone I know lives in a rented condo.
That's called an apartment, and is not what Google was building.
Condominium in Ontario (Toronto is in Ontario) is a form of ownership, it had nothing to do with the physical form of the home.
You can own a condominimum townhouse (a row of single family homes with front yard, driveways, garage attached by common walls) or a condominium apartment (in say a 30 storey building with 10 parents per floor)
And yes, you can rent out a condominium apartment. Approx 60 % of the rental units in the Greater Toronto Area are condominium apartments.
You can own a condominimum townhouse (a row of single family homes with front yard, driveways, garage attached by common walls) or a condominium apartment (in say a 30 storey building with 10 parents per floor)
And yes, you can rent out a condominium apartment. Approx 60 % of the rental units in the Greater Toronto Area are condominium apartments.
Most of Toronto's rental stock is privately owned condos, rented out. There is next to no Condo Corporations in Ontario that aren't senior specific that ban renting the unit to long term tenants (many ban short term AirBnb in their bylaws).
NA condos can be rented out, it depends on the HOA terms but renting someone else’s condo is like renting out someone else’s house. Many condos are designed as investment properties to be rented out by their owners (eg the 4 bedroom condo near a university....).
No thanks. Government subsidized units are a mess, and have been tried before.
Plop someone into an "affordable" unit and you are basically locking them there forever, as they cannot afford to move. That is a very bad situation to be in.
Plop someone into an "affordable" unit and you are basically locking them there forever, as they cannot afford to move. That is a very bad situation to be in.
I understand "high density" to mean condo neighbourhoods. I understand medium density to mean mid-rise, walk-ups, or town houses.
The situation in Toronto is (and has been for some time) a stark contrast between low-density neighbourhoods of houses & small duplexes/triplexes, and high-density pockets of high-rise condos. This is bad for all the usual reasons of neighbourhood segregation.
The situation in Toronto is (and has been for some time) a stark contrast between low-density neighbourhoods of houses & small duplexes/triplexes, and high-density pockets of high-rise condos. This is bad for all the usual reasons of neighbourhood segregation.
I absolutely agree. Toronto has either single family homes (low density) or high rise condos (high density), but the medium density part is absolutely missing and it has a pretty negative effect on Toronto, I feel.
That's the issue. I'm all for condos in Toronto but the issue is lack of medium density, you either own your home and your lawn in the middle of downtown (which is now a multi-million dollar home) or you live in a condo tower of 30 floors. No in-between.
mdkrkeo9(1)
>> Every city does need more condos in their existing neighborhoods if populations are able to grow.
Except that is in cities like Toronto/Vancouver more condos doesn't mean more people living in those condos. These are investment vehicles. Many of these new condo biuldings in trendy neighbourhoods sit empty, having been purchased as an investment rather than as a living space. What is needed is more rental units, not more places for rich people to park money.
Except that is in cities like Toronto/Vancouver more condos doesn't mean more people living in those condos. These are investment vehicles. Many of these new condo biuldings in trendy neighbourhoods sit empty, having been purchased as an investment rather than as a living space. What is needed is more rental units, not more places for rich people to park money.
If you keep building them, they will become more available. You're increasing supply, without affecting demand (from potential investors or residents).
Just tax empty places, isn't that what Vancouver does? Leaving a place empty/inhabited should be very expensive.
There's already property tax
That's different from the Empty Home Tax: https://vancouver.ca/your-government/vacancy-tax-bylaw.aspx
Right. The point is that empty homes already pay in to the system. Taxing property owners for how they choose to use or not use their property is silly.
>> Leaving a place empty/inhabited should be very expensive.
Vancouver is finding that difficult to enforce. How do you tell if a unit is "occupied" or not? At the moment it is largely voluntary. The city cannot tell whether someone is living in a unit or it living overseas ten months out of the year. They aren't going to be sending inspectors to knock on doors.
I'm a good example of the difficulties. I was away on training (military) for six months. My apparment sat empty. Should I have been paying the tax? How would the government detect that I wasn't there?... Short of me or my landlord admitting to it and then paying the tax.
Vancouver is finding that difficult to enforce. How do you tell if a unit is "occupied" or not? At the moment it is largely voluntary. The city cannot tell whether someone is living in a unit or it living overseas ten months out of the year. They aren't going to be sending inspectors to knock on doors.
I'm a good example of the difficulties. I was away on training (military) for six months. My apparment sat empty. Should I have been paying the tax? How would the government detect that I wasn't there?... Short of me or my landlord admitting to it and then paying the tax.
There would probably be an exception for people in the military or government service. If on the other hand you spent 6 months in the US working for a private business like Google, then it would be fair to tax you.
Setting aside fairness, how would the government work out whether I am gone or not? Lots of people go away for several months. Policing the system becomes impossible, which is why I described vancouver's system as voluntary.
Say you own three properties in Vancouver, best case you can only occupy one at a time since you are not a quantum entity from another dimension. The city could ask for proof of a tenant renting the unit, and if you fail to prove it, you then need to pay empty unit tax on 2/3 of your properties.
Someone being gone for a stint and leaving a single apartment unoccupied for a while might not be a big issue in the grand scheme of things, if most of the problem is from people who can afford several properties. If the city wanted to go after these sort of units, maybe they could pull utility data and see a drop off in use. I'm no plumber, but with Vancouver winters, maybe you do want to have your water service shut off if you will be gone long term? No one likes coming home to a house completely encased in ice inside and out.
Someone being gone for a stint and leaving a single apartment unoccupied for a while might not be a big issue in the grand scheme of things, if most of the problem is from people who can afford several properties. If the city wanted to go after these sort of units, maybe they could pull utility data and see a drop off in use. I'm no plumber, but with Vancouver winters, maybe you do want to have your water service shut off if you will be gone long term? No one likes coming home to a house completely encased in ice inside and out.
Maybe you can have one residence which is excluded, but for people who own dozens of condos, anything past the first one can be checked more thoroughly?
> They aren't going to be sending inspectors to knock on doors.
Well, why not? Arguably they would pay for themselves in a short time if implemented correctly.
Combine that with criminal tax fraud charges for cheats.
Oh, They can't really get hold of Vlad Q Oligarch because he's sailing his 100M yacht somewhere in the carribeans?
Expropriate the property.
Drastic? Maybe. I don't think unreasonable, however, for people gaming the system and cheating on their tax obligations.
Edited to add: Of course there should be exceptions for inhabitants with a good reason not to live in their home for a certain amount of time. I.e military, guest professorships, etc
Well, why not? Arguably they would pay for themselves in a short time if implemented correctly.
Combine that with criminal tax fraud charges for cheats.
Oh, They can't really get hold of Vlad Q Oligarch because he's sailing his 100M yacht somewhere in the carribeans?
Expropriate the property.
Drastic? Maybe. I don't think unreasonable, however, for people gaming the system and cheating on their tax obligations.
Edited to add: Of course there should be exceptions for inhabitants with a good reason not to live in their home for a certain amount of time. I.e military, guest professorships, etc
And increasing supply is a great way to make them bad investment vehicles
Funny enough the city is actually making some real changes due to the pandemic.
They're currently in the process of opening up certain roadways to pedestrian and cycle traffic and closing some of them off to cars save for local traffic. They've stated some of these changes are temporary, and some possibly permanent. This includes expanding the current bike paths and speeding up implementation of already approved paths.
The program is called ActiveTO. It was just announced.
https://www.toronto.ca/home/media-room/news-releases-media-a...
---
Edit: Adding the following quote as a decent summary of the intentions of the project:
> “Our streets are going to look different in many places in the post-COVID world. We will need more road space for walking. We will need quiet streets. We will need more bike infrastructure. We are going about this in a responsible, common sense way with Toronto Public Health, Transportation Services and local councillors all involved in making common sense, health-focused decisions which broaden out our transportation network."
- Mayor John Tory
They're currently in the process of opening up certain roadways to pedestrian and cycle traffic and closing some of them off to cars save for local traffic. They've stated some of these changes are temporary, and some possibly permanent. This includes expanding the current bike paths and speeding up implementation of already approved paths.
The program is called ActiveTO. It was just announced.
https://www.toronto.ca/home/media-room/news-releases-media-a...
---
Edit: Adding the following quote as a decent summary of the intentions of the project:
> “Our streets are going to look different in many places in the post-COVID world. We will need more road space for walking. We will need quiet streets. We will need more bike infrastructure. We are going about this in a responsible, common sense way with Toronto Public Health, Transportation Services and local councillors all involved in making common sense, health-focused decisions which broaden out our transportation network."
- Mayor John Tory
We'll see if it materializes into a truly bold and long-term improvement (out of character for Toronto), or fizzles out into marginally effective solutions sandboxed into very limited time/space constraints (very much in character for Toronto).
We will indeed.
I'm hopeful, though. For all that can be said about Tory he has proven to react in the peoples' favour when he actual has to face the consequences of not acting. I'm referring to the case of our subways A/C breaking in the middle of summer heat waves. When he actually rode it end-to-end with someone who raised the issue with him and he stepped off at the end of the line drenched in sweat he actually acted and it tangibly improved.
I'm hoping this may be a similar situation and prove to be a silver lining.
I'm hopeful, though. For all that can be said about Tory he has proven to react in the peoples' favour when he actual has to face the consequences of not acting. I'm referring to the case of our subways A/C breaking in the middle of summer heat waves. When he actually rode it end-to-end with someone who raised the issue with him and he stepped off at the end of the line drenched in sweat he actually acted and it tangibly improved.
I'm hoping this may be a similar situation and prove to be a silver lining.
That's a very low bar though, isn't it? I'd be happy with that kind of responsiveness from a mayor of a mid-sized Russian city appointed by Putin. Like ooh, we got lucky this time, the tsar sent us someone not entirely incompetent. I expect more from my Canadian elected officials. It's all about who the voters elect though, and what kind of feedback they give politicians, that's definitely true.
It's no hard defense of John Tory. It's just an observed behaviour that I hope works in our favour (as it did with the subway line).
If you've been following Toronto politics for long, you'll realize this move from Tory is just another in his (and Toronto's) long history of poorly-delivered half-measures which come well after other major cities have already turned the corner.
I would not laud the city for "making some real changes" as much as I would criticize the mayor for being a stale, retrograde leader who is clearly in the business of delivering the barest possible minimum solution only after made to look like a fool.
Wake me up when he applies any pressure whatsoever to Toronto Police over their alarming lack of traffic enforcement and takes less than a year to support like the Bloor bike lane.
I would not laud the city for "making some real changes" as much as I would criticize the mayor for being a stale, retrograde leader who is clearly in the business of delivering the barest possible minimum solution only after made to look like a fool.
Wake me up when he applies any pressure whatsoever to Toronto Police over their alarming lack of traffic enforcement and takes less than a year to support like the Bloor bike lane.
I wasn't singing the man's praises, I'm just hopeful that something will actually happen.
They did point to SF, Portland, and other cities as the inspiration for actually making the step—even though citizens and newspapers have basically been crying out for this very thing for weeks.
I'm just glad they're finally moving to do it. I was glad with how they stood strong on the King St traffic project. Hopefully many of these items will persist.
I've enjoyed the sweeter air due to the lessened traffic so, so much.
They did point to SF, Portland, and other cities as the inspiration for actually making the step—even though citizens and newspapers have basically been crying out for this very thing for weeks.
I'm just glad they're finally moving to do it. I was glad with how they stood strong on the King St traffic project. Hopefully many of these items will persist.
I've enjoyed the sweeter air due to the lessened traffic so, so much.
There were ideas for greener construction methods using more timber and less concrete, more space optimized for walking and biking instead of cars, interesting communal space arrangements to make spaces that can be heated in winter and converted to outdoor space when the weather is nice.
None of those were innovative, or Google-first. They're all things that have been in the works by cities for decades.
The problem is that people who don't watch or attend city meetings don't know it because change at that scale is slow. Unlike computer code, you can't just delete a section of a city you don't like and rebuild it. A city is a living thing, and living things take time to change.
None of those were innovative, or Google-first. They're all things that have been in the works by cities for decades.
The problem is that people who don't watch or attend city meetings don't know it because change at that scale is slow. Unlike computer code, you can't just delete a section of a city you don't like and rebuild it. A city is a living thing, and living things take time to change.
What do you consider low density? I really don't like the idea of stamping out all single family homes and nice green areas in proximity to cities. Mixing high density in with commercial areas seems fine though.
Personally, I'd leave the truly suburban areas where you can't even walk to the gas station without it taking 30 minutes alone. However, there are plenty of neighborhoods in the US and Canada that were designed around walking to the streetcar. I think those neighborhoods are already laid out well for medium density apartments and improved transit.
Why don't you like stamping out single family homes?
What is the benefit/cost ratio of 2-3 story houses vs 10 story housing vs 20 vs 30 vs 40?
Houses are for families with kids right? What do kids want? Kids want other kids to play with. Kids want to attend classes and learn stuff. The more options a kid has, the better.
Which area has more kids and therefore classes: low, medium or high density areas?
I understand that there is a trade-off where we don't want 100-story skyscrapers but to me, single family homes are an infrastructure luxury that hasn't been thought through and something we'd benefit from re-considering and re-educating people about.
What is the benefit/cost ratio of 2-3 story houses vs 10 story housing vs 20 vs 30 vs 40?
Houses are for families with kids right? What do kids want? Kids want other kids to play with. Kids want to attend classes and learn stuff. The more options a kid has, the better.
Which area has more kids and therefore classes: low, medium or high density areas?
I understand that there is a trade-off where we don't want 100-story skyscrapers but to me, single family homes are an infrastructure luxury that hasn't been thought through and something we'd benefit from re-considering and re-educating people about.
some benefits off the top of my head:
-More natural settings shown to improve mental health
-"neighborliness" scales inversely with density to a point - less neighbors means you're more likely to get to know them, while with more people there are too many so the crowd of people gets depersonalized to a degree, because 50 neighbors are too many to keep track of.
-you don't have to go to some crowded city park full of garbage when friends have yards with their own stuff like sandboxes where they can have some privacy from for example sheltered city people or park cops freaking out over the kids having nerf guns
-other activities become more feasible like bike riding (I wouldn't feel good letting a kod bike around NYC), ATV's, fishing
-more outdoors setting prevents aesthma
-safer setting for the kids overall
Your concerns just don't work oout that way in my experience. I was in single-home-only towns as a kid and there was no problem playing with neighbors or anything. Even when houses are a mile apart it's really not a big deal just being driven to them.
And since when do kids want to attend classes?
-More natural settings shown to improve mental health
-"neighborliness" scales inversely with density to a point - less neighbors means you're more likely to get to know them, while with more people there are too many so the crowd of people gets depersonalized to a degree, because 50 neighbors are too many to keep track of.
-you don't have to go to some crowded city park full of garbage when friends have yards with their own stuff like sandboxes where they can have some privacy from for example sheltered city people or park cops freaking out over the kids having nerf guns
-other activities become more feasible like bike riding (I wouldn't feel good letting a kod bike around NYC), ATV's, fishing
-more outdoors setting prevents aesthma
-safer setting for the kids overall
Your concerns just don't work oout that way in my experience. I was in single-home-only towns as a kid and there was no problem playing with neighbors or anything. Even when houses are a mile apart it's really not a big deal just being driven to them.
And since when do kids want to attend classes?
You've provided anecdotal benefits. You've neglected to mention the costs.
The benefit/cost ratio is what makes this conversation worth having.
The benefit/cost ratio is what makes this conversation worth having.
Imagine: if half the single family homes were replaced by duplexes half the neighborhood could be green space ("natural settings")!
From an environmental perspective there is no contest between single family suburban development (aka sprawl) and dense urban living with plenty of parks.
Also, you won't find bigger bike/transit activists than the people advocating for the abolishment of single family zoning.
From an environmental perspective there is no contest between single family suburban development (aka sprawl) and dense urban living with plenty of parks.
Also, you won't find bigger bike/transit activists than the people advocating for the abolishment of single family zoning.
>I really don't like the idea of stamping out all single family homes and nice green areas in proximity to cities.
I don't think anyone seriously wants to replace every single family home with something more dense (even if the rhetoric indicates so). It's harmful and unnecessary. E.g.:
* There is an estimated 3-4 million housing unit deficit in CA, on 14 million total units (US Census). We'll take 4 million units to err on the extreme case.
* CA currently has 7 million single-family homes (US Census)
* Assuming 100% of that deficit is made from replacing a single family home with a quadplex, it would take 1.3 million single homes -> quadplexes to make up the 4 million unit deficit.
Even in that most extreme case, I can't imagine one quadplex per block would affect green areas or the totally legitimate choice to live a single family home.
In reality, I think most YIMBY advocates want mixed-use medium density, which requires an order of magnitude fewer buildings.
I don't think anyone seriously wants to replace every single family home with something more dense (even if the rhetoric indicates so). It's harmful and unnecessary. E.g.:
* There is an estimated 3-4 million housing unit deficit in CA, on 14 million total units (US Census). We'll take 4 million units to err on the extreme case.
* CA currently has 7 million single-family homes (US Census)
* Assuming 100% of that deficit is made from replacing a single family home with a quadplex, it would take 1.3 million single homes -> quadplexes to make up the 4 million unit deficit.
Even in that most extreme case, I can't imagine one quadplex per block would affect green areas or the totally legitimate choice to live a single family home.
In reality, I think most YIMBY advocates want mixed-use medium density, which requires an order of magnitude fewer buildings.
More productive (i.e. higher density) use of developed areas actually better protects undeveloped green space in and around cities. Low-density sprawl is anathema to "nice green areas" near cities.
> An independent panel was set up to scrutinise its plans and released a report suggesting some of its ideas were "tech for tech's sake", and potentially unnecessary.
I wonder what could have given them that idea.
> In his blog, Dan Doctoroff said the firm continued to invest in start-ups "working on everything from robotic furniture to digital electricity".
Oh, right.
I wonder what could have given them that idea.
> In his blog, Dan Doctoroff said the firm continued to invest in start-ups "working on everything from robotic furniture to digital electricity".
Oh, right.
> digital electricity
This marketing term piqued my interest. Turns out it is basically PoE. Ok.
This marketing term piqued my interest. Turns out it is basically PoE. Ok.
> hundreds of sensors collecting data on air quality and the movements of people
> It was also told [by the independent panel] that any data it collected from its sensors would have to become a public asset.
Wonder if that influenced their decision to end this project.
> It was also told [by the independent panel] that any data it collected from its sensors would have to become a public asset.
Wonder if that influenced their decision to end this project.
Enjoy the HN cynicism from July 2018: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17487838
Such nonsense! Everyone loves the idea of pie-in-the-sky dreams.
For those of us that live in Toronto and have experienced Palmerston and City Place; Kensington Market and Metro groceries it's so obvious that another set of condos built by a giant corporation are not what we need. You can call me cynical all you like, I'd rather have my city move in the direction of Europe (Vilnius or Paris) than Manhattan or Tokyo.
Count me as one of the many happy people that this fell through, even though I'm generally positive about Google's other enterprises.
Count me as one of the many happy people that this fell through, even though I'm generally positive about Google's other enterprises.
What is the difference between the four cities you mention? At least three of them have been restricting density, resulting in steadily increasing prices.
I would guess skyscrapers vs. 4 stories. West/East Village in Manhattan are generally considered the most pleasant and they are skyscraper-free.
What is the source on Sidewalk Labs planning to build skyscrapers? The definition of a skyscraper is over 40 floors, the most I see in any of the mock designs are at most a dozen floors. Sure it's not 4-floor either, but Quayside is fairly small so if they put 4-floor apartments, you'd maybe fit 100 people total.
Some of those comments were prophetic.
Does this count for the Google Graveyard? I'm still waiting for that miraculous Google Fiber to come rolling in here.
I am wondering precisely how projects get the green light at Google. This kind of thing is just ... it's like someone read some shiny-eyed sci-fi story from the 1950s and decided to Brave New World it into being with metrics without asking if anyone would find it objectionable or even desirable.
I am wondering precisely how projects get the green light at Google. This kind of thing is just ... it's like someone read some shiny-eyed sci-fi story from the 1950s and decided to Brave New World it into being with metrics without asking if anyone would find it objectionable or even desirable.
Google Fiber was a major success that got ousted by the incumbents with never ending lawsuits and resistance. Take your anger out on the monopoly ISPs across the country.
This is untrue. Talk to Louisville, where Google put trenches in the roadways, loosely covered them up with foam, letting the average snowplow rip up their network.
Fiber used real cities as experiment grounds, and ended up with at least one solution so bad they left the city rather than fix it, and had to settle with the city for all the damages to their roadways.
Pictures: https://www.wdrb.com/news/google-fiber-announces-plan-to-fix... (Ignore the title, Google decided not to repair anything.)
Fiber used real cities as experiment grounds, and ended up with at least one solution so bad they left the city rather than fix it, and had to settle with the city for all the damages to their roadways.
Pictures: https://www.wdrb.com/news/google-fiber-announces-plan-to-fix... (Ignore the title, Google decided not to repair anything.)
> Talk to Louisville, where Google put trenches in the roadways
Yes, Louisville was indeed a failure. They tried something different to help speed up laying out lines, and it didn't work. All that is not really relevant to the comment above, which still is true regardless of the issue in Louisville.
> Ignore the title, Google decided not to repair anything
That's misleading, they decided to instead pay the city for the repairs instead of doing it themselves.
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/04/googl...
Yes, Louisville was indeed a failure. They tried something different to help speed up laying out lines, and it didn't work. All that is not really relevant to the comment above, which still is true regardless of the issue in Louisville.
> Ignore the title, Google decided not to repair anything
That's misleading, they decided to instead pay the city for the repairs instead of doing it themselves.
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/04/googl...
Originally they intended to repair the fiber lines and keep the network in Louisville, they decided to give the city money when they backed out so that the city could clean up the damage: Presumably by ripping up the fiber network entirely.
Most of their other ideas were similarly discount. They bought fiber in places it was already run, and their issue with ISPs revolved around a push to demand the right to move AT&T's equipment around on AT&T's poles to make room for their own without supervision.
ISPs have their problems but Google wasn't in it to build a long-term, quality infrastructure. They were trying to make a splash on the cheap, but the costs would be bound to go up anywhere they couldn't employ cheap hacks.
Most of their other ideas were similarly discount. They bought fiber in places it was already run, and their issue with ISPs revolved around a push to demand the right to move AT&T's equipment around on AT&T's poles to make room for their own without supervision.
ISPs have their problems but Google wasn't in it to build a long-term, quality infrastructure. They were trying to make a splash on the cheap, but the costs would be bound to go up anywhere they couldn't employ cheap hacks.
>ISPs have their problems but Google wasn't in it to build a long-term, quality infrastructure. They were trying to make a splash on the cheap, but the costs would be bound to go up anywhere they couldn't employ cheap hacks.
There is a disingenuous take. ISPs were provided $100Bs of taxpayer money to build out infrastructure in the last few decades. It is not theirs to control or monopolize. Everywhere Google Fiber was introduced, the incumbents' prices dropped and speeds increased. If they're able to operate at the reduced prices, why are they siphoning off additional profits after they were paid the aforementioned infrastructure money to provide these services? Google Fiber disrupting ISPs was exactly what people are clamoring to happen to other giants like Amazon and yet here you are bashing the initiative.
For the record, Google Fiber is still well loved everywhere it has been rolled out. I had Comcast and Verizon for decades and hated every moment of it -- constant battle for reliability, price increases, and hidden fees. Ever since I got WebPass (owned by Google Fiber), it has been nothing but bliss for a fraction of the price and 0% of the bullshit. You should be deeply upset by the fact that Google Fiber is no longer expanding. It is a hit against progress and we are all worse off for it.
There is a disingenuous take. ISPs were provided $100Bs of taxpayer money to build out infrastructure in the last few decades. It is not theirs to control or monopolize. Everywhere Google Fiber was introduced, the incumbents' prices dropped and speeds increased. If they're able to operate at the reduced prices, why are they siphoning off additional profits after they were paid the aforementioned infrastructure money to provide these services? Google Fiber disrupting ISPs was exactly what people are clamoring to happen to other giants like Amazon and yet here you are bashing the initiative.
For the record, Google Fiber is still well loved everywhere it has been rolled out. I had Comcast and Verizon for decades and hated every moment of it -- constant battle for reliability, price increases, and hidden fees. Ever since I got WebPass (owned by Google Fiber), it has been nothing but bliss for a fraction of the price and 0% of the bullshit. You should be deeply upset by the fact that Google Fiber is no longer expanding. It is a hit against progress and we are all worse off for it.
> the right to move AT&T's equipment around on AT&T's poles to make room for their own without supervision.
That makes it sound like Google was being pushy here, but in reality, ISPs were being intentionally as slow and obtrusive as possible to cripple Google's expansion, which is exactly why Fiber failed. If they were given X days to do something, they would do it on the (x-1)th day on purpose to waste Google's time and delay them as much as possible.
That makes it sound like Google was being pushy here, but in reality, ISPs were being intentionally as slow and obtrusive as possible to cripple Google's expansion, which is exactly why Fiber failed. If they were given X days to do something, they would do it on the (x-1)th day on purpose to waste Google's time and delay them as much as possible.
It makes sense to be very careful with this sort of thing. Comcast is infamous for "accidentally" severing other ISP's lines whilst running their own.
Also, given that Google has been playing the (x-1)th day game with the EU for nearly a decade, and asking for every possible extension in order to respond to even the most basic requests... let's not act like ISPs are bad and Google is good. Google is a bad actor that was trying to edge in on another market of bad actors.
Also, given that Google has been playing the (x-1)th day game with the EU for nearly a decade, and asking for every possible extension in order to respond to even the most basic requests... let's not act like ISPs are bad and Google is good. Google is a bad actor that was trying to edge in on another market of bad actors.
I am not angry about Google Fiber, I'm disappointed.
This project reminds me of Google Fiber in that it had a kind of optimism backed by a tremendous amount of capital, both in cash and in goodwill. For fiber, of course I knew about the incumbents. The 1990s were an enormous giveaway to the telecommunications industry in terms of tax breaks in exchange for a nebulous set of promises and, as far as I can tell, no teeth -- what penalties for failure to deliver? They took the money and devoted it to lobbying and eventually as much regulatory capture as they could manage.
We knew going in that it would be tough. And of course infrastructure, physical infrastructure, is tough. You have legal requirements, like permits and easements. You have the "merely" physical task of digging all of these trenches, mile upon mile. You have an huge outlay of equipment, from ordering to configuration and maintenance. You have the relentless horror of the last mile. Most importantly, the competition wouldn't like it. Not one bit. They even spoke of it. I don't think anyone didn't know this going in, but the promise was that Google could and would deliver results because they knew all of this beforehand.
Somehow, despite all of that, it didn't work out, but they were very certain at the time it would. They even managed to convince me and I come with a fairly dour outlook on these kinds of pitches.
This has much the same smell as did Google Fiber. This I can be a little annoyed at because it sounds as if lessons were not learned.
This project reminds me of Google Fiber in that it had a kind of optimism backed by a tremendous amount of capital, both in cash and in goodwill. For fiber, of course I knew about the incumbents. The 1990s were an enormous giveaway to the telecommunications industry in terms of tax breaks in exchange for a nebulous set of promises and, as far as I can tell, no teeth -- what penalties for failure to deliver? They took the money and devoted it to lobbying and eventually as much regulatory capture as they could manage.
We knew going in that it would be tough. And of course infrastructure, physical infrastructure, is tough. You have legal requirements, like permits and easements. You have the "merely" physical task of digging all of these trenches, mile upon mile. You have an huge outlay of equipment, from ordering to configuration and maintenance. You have the relentless horror of the last mile. Most importantly, the competition wouldn't like it. Not one bit. They even spoke of it. I don't think anyone didn't know this going in, but the promise was that Google could and would deliver results because they knew all of this beforehand.
Somehow, despite all of that, it didn't work out, but they were very certain at the time it would. They even managed to convince me and I come with a fairly dour outlook on these kinds of pitches.
This has much the same smell as did Google Fiber. This I can be a little annoyed at because it sounds as if lessons were not learned.
Your comment resonates well with me but I'm still confused. Google Fiber wants to provide you service. They can't for reasons outside of their control (some of which you very accurately described). It is not Google Fiber you should be disappointed with. Fighting against the telecommunications industry that is actively hostile towards consumers is really tough. They took the cash and used it to better defend themselves against disruption rather than building out the infrastructure for all to benefit from. Google has money but it doesn't have infinite money to throw at this particular initiative. I too am disappointed by the situation. Thankfully I am someplace where I do reap the benefits of it but I really wish the whole country had what is available to me because it is wonderful.
I guess I will say it again in a different way: they promised big, they promised they knew how to do it in spite of the challenges (which they laid out beforehand), they made a lot of noise, and then they just ... wandered off when it wasn't an instant success.
Another rephrasing: it's the big shot in the bar running his mouth, someone says "What about X, Y, Z?" and he goes "Yeah yeah, got it covered." Waves his wallet around. Makes some boasts and some promises. Then it turns out that X, Y, and Z were not so easy as boasted.
And it's a pattern with them.
Another rephrasing: it's the big shot in the bar running his mouth, someone says "What about X, Y, Z?" and he goes "Yeah yeah, got it covered." Waves his wallet around. Makes some boasts and some promises. Then it turns out that X, Y, and Z were not so easy as boasted.
And it's a pattern with them.
People are cheering, but as a broader statement this is a small sample of how difficult it is to do business in Canada.
>how difficult it is to do business in Canada.
Or, put differently, how difficult it is to exploit the public's privacy for financial gain in Canada?
I'm Canadian, and I'm glad that Google didn't get carte blanche to come in and build their surveillance dystopia.
Or, put differently, how difficult it is to exploit the public's privacy for financial gain in Canada?
I'm Canadian, and I'm glad that Google didn't get carte blanche to come in and build their surveillance dystopia.
I'm not even a fan of that project in particular, but this is a common problem in Canada - the goalpost constantly shifts, the process becomes a political hot potato, and the foreign investor eventually just says "fuck this" and pulls out of the market. It's happened in oil & gas, banking, telecommunications, retail, and a whole host of other sectors.
Outside of retail, all of the rest of those have real national security implications.
And if by retail you're referring to burger joints or Target, I'm afraid that's just market effect.
And if by retail you're referring to burger joints or Target, I'm afraid that's just market effect.
Plus Target shot themselves in the foot with poor SAP integration among other blunders.
There's a big difference between considering national security issues and bungling foreign direct investment completely (except for real estate). It's also no excuse for the protection of oligopolies that don't act in the best interests of Canadians.
In that case I'll take the likely unpopular opinion that: it's better our assholes than someone else's.
And foreign direct investment in energy, food supplies, telecommunications absolutely has national security implications. I would be loathe to have a foreign entity become the major stateholder in our telecommunications infrastructure. I don't harbour any deep love of the Rogers family, but they are solidly Canadian at least.
And foreign direct investment in energy, food supplies, telecommunications absolutely has national security implications. I would be loathe to have a foreign entity become the major stateholder in our telecommunications infrastructure. I don't harbour any deep love of the Rogers family, but they are solidly Canadian at least.
We already have foreign investors taking a lease of the section hwy 407 in Toronto and wrestling ministry of transportation to not extend license plates of people who did not pay fee. The reason included not sending bills, false billings, denying plates after official bankruptcy etc. And those ever increasing tolls. Thank you very much for your business and corruption.
I'm not going to disagree that our governments tend to play political hot potato. You can downvote all you like but I don't feel any sympathy for abusive "investors" like Big Tech or Big Oil who all too often socialize the risks but privatize the profits. See for example Amazon trying to get billions in tax breaks for HQ2. See also the Keystone XL or Northern Gateway projects. The oil companies have excellent propaganda machines operating tirelessly to convince Albertans that the rest of the country is being unreasonable when they demand environmental controls and assurances.
Not all investment is beneficial to the citizenry. I'd much rather my government err towards overcautious than overpermissive.
Not all investment is beneficial to the citizenry. I'd much rather my government err towards overcautious than overpermissive.
There's probably a lot more merit to your comment than most people realize.
Absent from most of the media reports I've read today is that Sidewalk Labs was facing yet another approval decision on the project from Waterfront Toronto in less than two weeks (May 20, extended from an earlier March 31 deadline). My guess is that they heard through the grapevine that the decision was going to be highly conditional, and that the project was going to be saddled with yet another set of hoops to jump through, so Sidewalk Labs just decided to bail.
It's basically exactly the same pattern we saw in late February with the Teck Resources decision. The company bailed literally days before the deadline for approval.
Absent from most of the media reports I've read today is that Sidewalk Labs was facing yet another approval decision on the project from Waterfront Toronto in less than two weeks (May 20, extended from an earlier March 31 deadline). My guess is that they heard through the grapevine that the decision was going to be highly conditional, and that the project was going to be saddled with yet another set of hoops to jump through, so Sidewalk Labs just decided to bail.
It's basically exactly the same pattern we saw in late February with the Teck Resources decision. The company bailed literally days before the deadline for approval.
Indeed. Everyone is spouting populist talking points (yeah! screw foreign money!) without explaining how Canada is going to fix its anemic productivity growth and compete globally, particularly as we're actively destroying our own resource industries.
Depends on what kind of business. "We the people" do not exist to feed corporations (at least in theory). As a business it is your own private headache.
The article says the issue is Corona not Canada?
It's not, CNBC says "Toronto was expected to make its final decision on whether or not to let the project move forward on May 20."
COVID has nothing to do with it.
COVID has nothing to do with it.
Whether the final blow was due to COVID-19 or if it was just an excuse, it doesn't change the fact that it's been an uphill battle for over 3 years with very little progress.
Not all business is good business.
True, it's difficult to slash and burn through the political process with half-baked techie ideas and opaque data collection practices. Not to mention ones requiring huge taxpayer commitments for a project that is way beyond the bleeding edge (at best) or a priori only partially achievable "but let's try it and see" (at worst).
Bureaucracy and elaborate processes slow things down. Every so often, that's a great thing.
Bureaucracy and elaborate processes slow things down. Every so often, that's a great thing.
Google doesn't need to invest in the gadgets and electronics in the walls that appear to make cities smarter.
That money would be better spent on enabling city governments, elected policymakers, and especially their constituents to be smarter and able to make better choices and designs about city planning, building permits, incentives, taxation, traffic, etc better.
The rest will follow. What we need is for people to understand how to choose better for themselves. Not a technology patch.
That money would be better spent on enabling city governments, elected policymakers, and especially their constituents to be smarter and able to make better choices and designs about city planning, building permits, incentives, taxation, traffic, etc better.
The rest will follow. What we need is for people to understand how to choose better for themselves. Not a technology patch.
And that's what I thought the original mission of Sidewalk Labs was. They seemed to do more research and less city-building.
What do you do when city council members profit off of the status quo? It's not that they are poorly informed, they are well aware of what they are doing and choose to ignore expert advice on city planning decisions. This is the frustration I have with my local government in LA. Most people who live in my city are renters, but most voters in local elections are homeowners so their voice is heard above all else, and council members are landlords or have multiple investment properties. When plans come up for building more density around transit, they overtly say 'this disrupts my view' but really mean 'this will limit the tax-free exponential growth I've enjoyed on my property values.' It's so frustrating, and I'm not sure how it can possibly be changed.
So you give the tools to watchdog groups, and eventually the council has to adopt them in order to reason about how they're being measured.
Then the endless game theory rounds begin...
Then the endless game theory rounds begin...
My belief, from personal experience, is that those who say "this disrupts my view" actually mean it. They've moved early into a place that suits them, and the place itself is changing.
My neighborhood is slowly being transformed by increased density -- it is less and less the neighborhood into which we moved. It isn't the change in property value, it is the change in quality of life that matters.
Different people measure quality differently. It is that difference that gives rise to friction. The effect spans income brackets -- there are people who mourn the loss of community in impoverished neighborhoods as density increases at the same time that there are those who mourn the loss of trees and single-family dwellings in wealthier neighborhoods.
Change is hard.
My neighborhood is slowly being transformed by increased density -- it is less and less the neighborhood into which we moved. It isn't the change in property value, it is the change in quality of life that matters.
Different people measure quality differently. It is that difference that gives rise to friction. The effect spans income brackets -- there are people who mourn the loss of community in impoverished neighborhoods as density increases at the same time that there are those who mourn the loss of trees and single-family dwellings in wealthier neighborhoods.
Change is hard.
The cognitive dissonance among NIMBYs is astounding. 80 years ago, many neighborhoods in LA were just oil derricks and orange groves, which were sold and cleared (or hidden behind facades in the case of the derricks, which still pump today) for housing to meet surging demand after WWII, which never went away. Decade after decade the demand has only grown, yet the people living in these first batches of housing quickly built to meet demand they themselves created fail to see that their situation is no different. NIMBYs just happened to find work in LA a little bit sooner and fail to see that they were once a changing force to the landscape as well.
If you want to preserve your neighborhood, you are free to buy as many parcels as you like and leave them be. If you can't afford the fair market price to dictate what gets built on the land, then you have no ground to stand on imo, but there are also plenty of options for you. There are planned communities you can move to with tight HOA regulations if you insist on limiting what others can and can't do with their belongings. To move to a city like LA, which experiences double digit percent growth decade after decade since its inception, and to expect nothing to change at all the minute after you sign your mortgage, is baffling to me. It isn't grounded in reality. Move to Cleveland if you want stasis, the greater metro population there is virtually unchanged over the past 50 years.
If you want to preserve your neighborhood, you are free to buy as many parcels as you like and leave them be. If you can't afford the fair market price to dictate what gets built on the land, then you have no ground to stand on imo, but there are also plenty of options for you. There are planned communities you can move to with tight HOA regulations if you insist on limiting what others can and can't do with their belongings. To move to a city like LA, which experiences double digit percent growth decade after decade since its inception, and to expect nothing to change at all the minute after you sign your mortgage, is baffling to me. It isn't grounded in reality. Move to Cleveland if you want stasis, the greater metro population there is virtually unchanged over the past 50 years.
> Most people who live in my city are renters, but most voters in local elections are homeowners
Sounds like renters should start voting. Why would city council members do anything for the interests of people that don't vote? Not only is it against their own self-interest, it's anti-democratic. Elected representatives have to do what their voters want - it's the bedrock of democracy.
That reps are profiting off the system is a side-effect, not the root cause.
Sounds like renters should start voting. Why would city council members do anything for the interests of people that don't vote? Not only is it against their own self-interest, it's anti-democratic. Elected representatives have to do what their voters want - it's the bedrock of democracy.
That reps are profiting off the system is a side-effect, not the root cause.
I rent, I vote. Plenty of people do vote. But, a typical homeowner in LA is more well off and therefore has more free time to wait in line to vote, so that is who is most likely to vote. There are people here who need to work 60-80 hour weeks to survive.
> has more free time to wait in line to vote
Lobby for vote-by-mail, early voting, and holidays on election day. I'm sorry, but that's the only way. Hard problems don't have easy solutions. You can't expect any council member to go against their voters' wishes on any issue. Local elections are personal and people who vote in them follow the issues closely. A council member who listens to "expert advice" rather their voters will be voted out or recalled, and the next person would simply vote to put things back the way they were.
If you want lasting change, you have to broaden the electorate and educate them on the issues.
Lobby for vote-by-mail, early voting, and holidays on election day. I'm sorry, but that's the only way. Hard problems don't have easy solutions. You can't expect any council member to go against their voters' wishes on any issue. Local elections are personal and people who vote in them follow the issues closely. A council member who listens to "expert advice" rather their voters will be voted out or recalled, and the next person would simply vote to put things back the way they were.
If you want lasting change, you have to broaden the electorate and educate them on the issues.
Fundamentally, its a cultural issue we have in this country that is somewhat disgusting. Politicians should not be just listening to their voters, or their backers, they should be listening to all their constituents, everyone who lives in the areas they represent, with particular focus to the most vulnerable and not the other way around as what frequently happens. The incentives are completely backward. The interests of those that play the politick game well are prioritized at the cost of the people who need the most assistance from public government.
I'm very supportive of expanded voting and recently LA has made election day into an entire week that you can stroll in and cast your vote (Of course, everyone waited until the last minute and polls wrapped around the block at the very last day you could cast your ballot, but that is beside the point).
Even with vote by mail or other initiatives to get out the vote, this leaves a lot of people without representation in LA. There is the requirement that you have the time to study the issues and become an informed voter, which is a privilege not enjoyed by everyone. There are also a lot of undocumented people paying rent and working jobs in LA. I think these people who are contributing to the local economy should also be represented by the people in charge of the area in which they live their life. They have just as much right to be here as I or any other citizen does.
I think the best way to overcome petty politicking would be to limit the control elected officials have over what should be logical and factually rooted decision making. In LA, council members are more powerful in their district than the mayor or any other elected official, they have absolute control over what gets built be it on parcels of land or even paint on the roads. Just look at the patchyness of the bike lane network to see this effect in action; metro has money earmarked and is ready to build but local council members just refuse to allow it to happen in their district. They operate as little feudal lords who award contracts to friends and deny contracts if some who holds their ear takes issue for whatever reason at all.
Urban planning decisions should not be controlled by politicians, they should be controlled by urban planners who are highly trained civil engineers from the best engineering schools hired to do an apolitical job. They understand these issues better than anyone else in government, and their decisionmaking is rooted in the cutting edge theories and ideas present in their field, profit and personal preference be damned.
This is how public government should be run, deferring decision making to informed experts rather than the wills and wishes of those who command the most influence over their representative.
I'm very supportive of expanded voting and recently LA has made election day into an entire week that you can stroll in and cast your vote (Of course, everyone waited until the last minute and polls wrapped around the block at the very last day you could cast your ballot, but that is beside the point).
Even with vote by mail or other initiatives to get out the vote, this leaves a lot of people without representation in LA. There is the requirement that you have the time to study the issues and become an informed voter, which is a privilege not enjoyed by everyone. There are also a lot of undocumented people paying rent and working jobs in LA. I think these people who are contributing to the local economy should also be represented by the people in charge of the area in which they live their life. They have just as much right to be here as I or any other citizen does.
I think the best way to overcome petty politicking would be to limit the control elected officials have over what should be logical and factually rooted decision making. In LA, council members are more powerful in their district than the mayor or any other elected official, they have absolute control over what gets built be it on parcels of land or even paint on the roads. Just look at the patchyness of the bike lane network to see this effect in action; metro has money earmarked and is ready to build but local council members just refuse to allow it to happen in their district. They operate as little feudal lords who award contracts to friends and deny contracts if some who holds their ear takes issue for whatever reason at all.
Urban planning decisions should not be controlled by politicians, they should be controlled by urban planners who are highly trained civil engineers from the best engineering schools hired to do an apolitical job. They understand these issues better than anyone else in government, and their decisionmaking is rooted in the cutting edge theories and ideas present in their field, profit and personal preference be damned.
This is how public government should be run, deferring decision making to informed experts rather than the wills and wishes of those who command the most influence over their representative.
We have very easy mail in voting in LA.
We do. We also had over a week to show up to the polls during the primary. I strolled in and cast my ballot and strolled out without waiting in line at all, it took me five minutes to vote. However, that's because I'm an informed voter who has ample free time to read about these things.
On the last day of polling, lines that were nonexistant the previous days suddenly appeared wrapping around the block at my polling station. A lot of people were still waiting to cast their ballot after polls closed, and local media ripped the board of elections a new one for having less locations (ignoring that you now had over a week to vote).
All of this could have been avoided if people had been paying attention to the multiple mailers sent to every registered voter on file, the banners put in front of polling stations ahead of time, the advertisements on TV and radio and the internet, the billboards, and the full vinyl wraps on trains and busses that advertised voting being over a week. None of this ended up mattering, because most people don't have the time to pay attention. And if you are ambivalent about the issues on a ballot and approach your polling place and see a line that wraps around two blocks, you will probably just turn back home.
This is why it's critical that decision making based on sound logic and establish facts should not be at the mercy of the ballot box, because that will never be where you find a carefully thought out thesis, but rather a popularity contest based on who has been shouting the loudest in the months leading up to the election.
On the last day of polling, lines that were nonexistant the previous days suddenly appeared wrapping around the block at my polling station. A lot of people were still waiting to cast their ballot after polls closed, and local media ripped the board of elections a new one for having less locations (ignoring that you now had over a week to vote).
All of this could have been avoided if people had been paying attention to the multiple mailers sent to every registered voter on file, the banners put in front of polling stations ahead of time, the advertisements on TV and radio and the internet, the billboards, and the full vinyl wraps on trains and busses that advertised voting being over a week. None of this ended up mattering, because most people don't have the time to pay attention. And if you are ambivalent about the issues on a ballot and approach your polling place and see a line that wraps around two blocks, you will probably just turn back home.
This is why it's critical that decision making based on sound logic and establish facts should not be at the mercy of the ballot box, because that will never be where you find a carefully thought out thesis, but rather a popularity contest based on who has been shouting the loudest in the months leading up to the election.
Just look at a typical city council video in the United States. Everyone who is there is old (because they have nothing better to do than spending 4 hours in a city council meeting), 60+, and they're against anything new.
> city planning, building permits, incentives, taxation, traffic
If I were a Toronto resident I would not want a foreign, powerful, rapacious and often exploitative private company involved in those things, as they are better handled by democratic institutions.
If I were a Toronto resident I would not want a foreign, powerful, rapacious and often exploitative private company involved in those things, as they are better handled by democratic institutions.
What we need is for people to understand how to choose better for themselves. Not a technology patch.
Google only has one hammer: the algorithm. It just comes in different colors.
Traffic? Waymo algorithm.
Municipal planning? Smart Cities algorithm.
Advertising? AdSense algorithm.
Journalism? Google News algorithm.
Google, and certain other tech companies, need to learn that not every problem can be solved by a computer.
Google only has one hammer: the algorithm. It just comes in different colors.
Traffic? Waymo algorithm.
Municipal planning? Smart Cities algorithm.
Advertising? AdSense algorithm.
Journalism? Google News algorithm.
Google, and certain other tech companies, need to learn that not every problem can be solved by a computer.
Curious: what problem could be solved by a human (or group of humans) but not a computer (or group of computers)?
My half-serious reply: Figuring out what the problem is :)
“Computers are useless, they can only give you answers”
“Computers are useless, they can only give you answers”
Any problem where the solution requires persuading people to adopt it or comply with it.
All those projects google shuts down? Those were problems they tried to solve but failed to.
All those projects google shuts down? Those were problems they tried to solve but failed to.
Inequity, education, sustainability, public policy, governance - few examples where techno-solutionism isn't the right approach.
Actually it would be, at least for sustainability, inequality and parts of public policy/governance. Simulations of "what-if-when" scenarios or analysis of data (which is what public policy of any kind should be based upon anyway) are precisely what computers excel at.
What humans (or rather: our governments) don't excel at: accurately using the data that technology gives us. We know that climate change is real, man-made and will fuck up entire continents, but still there are world leaders actively rejecting science.
What humans (or rather: our governments) don't excel at: accurately using the data that technology gives us. We know that climate change is real, man-made and will fuck up entire continents, but still there are world leaders actively rejecting science.
All problems are solved by humans; sometimes problem solving humans may use tools such as computers. Algorithms are just an automation that a human decided to use to solve a problem.
[deleted]
Any problem where the inputs are ambiguous. Like when YouTube's ContentID takes down your video of you playing your original composition because someone else decided to claim it. Like when your Gmail account is closed because of a "Terms of Service" violation, but they won't tell you which one or show you what you did wrong. Basically most problems people have with Google could be solved by having a human spend 5 seconds looking into the issue and realizing, "Oh yeah, this is an edge case with an answer that's pretty obvious to a human, but not an algorithm."
Anything that involves interpretation of ambiguous scenarios (most famous: Twitter, YT and Facebook deleting legal content that falls under freedom of speech based upon abusive mass reports but refusing to account for patterns of trolling behavior), and much that requires creative input (i.e. photo/video composition, shooting and editing).
Security. Security cannot realistically be automated or scaled. Because any automated system at scale can be understood and gamed. And because humans interact with secure systems, and humans can be tricked. Even when you built a system that's say, cryptographically secure, you manipulate the humans to work around it, because humans aren't good at identifying cryptographic keys, and all automated systems serve human clients or masters.
This is why the Play Store and Chrome Web Store are full of malware, and why human-curated app markets have effectively zero.
This is why the Play Store and Chrome Web Store are full of malware, and why human-curated app markets have effectively zero.
Whether an arbitrary program will end.
Haha I know this wasn't intended as a joke, but this answer made me burst out laughing. Very true!
On the other hand, that's not such an easy problem for humans to solve either
On the other hand, that's not such an easy problem for humans to solve either
Scalability? Data center algorithm!
Security? The fuzzing algorithm!
Healthcare? The medical algorithm!
Mobile? The Android algorithm!
Gaming? The Stadia algorithm!
No that's utterly absurd. What Google builds are platforms, markets and generally scalable systems. They involve algorithms and algorithms may more often than not be their competitive edge but an algorithm does not a system make.
No that's utterly absurd. What Google builds are platforms, markets and generally scalable systems. They involve algorithms and algorithms may more often than not be their competitive edge but an algorithm does not a system make.
I suggest giving up on computers and "solve" everything with emotions, narratives, and dynamic morality. Who is with me?
How would that allow Google to collect personal data in order to better sell advertisements?
Yes, though it depends on your goal. Alphabet's goal was probably not to actually make the city better to live in, but to find more ways to collect personal information for their own profit.
Anyway, Cory Doctorow wrote recently that cities full of sensors need not be used to spy on citizens, and could just be helpful instead.
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2020/jan/17/the-case-for-...
Anyway, Cory Doctorow wrote recently that cities full of sensors need not be used to spy on citizens, and could just be helpful instead.
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2020/jan/17/the-case-for-...
Why not both?
First of all, it's not either/or.
Second of all, better democratic decisionmaking has nothing to do with Google's expertise. There are plenty of political scientists and think tanks working on better decisionmaking processes. Spending Sidewalk Labs' money on them makes as much sense as asking for Kraft Foods or ExxonMobil to do so.
But third, good democratic governance requires data and provides services. If Google can help generate real-time data to improve services (and inform better decisions), how is that not a win?
First of all, it's not either/or.
Second of all, better democratic decisionmaking has nothing to do with Google's expertise. There are plenty of political scientists and think tanks working on better decisionmaking processes. Spending Sidewalk Labs' money on them makes as much sense as asking for Kraft Foods or ExxonMobil to do so.
But third, good democratic governance requires data and provides services. If Google can help generate real-time data to improve services (and inform better decisions), how is that not a win?
One way it's not a win is because all things Google involve them collecting the data in a way that can be monetized. That collection is generally problematic to a lot of people.
>That money would be better spent on enabling city governments, elected policymakers, and especially their constituents to be smarter and able to make better choices and designs about city planning, building permits, incentives, taxation, traffic, etc better.
You're not wrong but this is kind of a naive way of looking at the problem. Making city employees more efficient means less jobs politicians can write the deadbeat nephew of a local construction mogul a recommendation for, a direct reduction in their power and influence. Even if you discount politicians government itself is often a bunch of competing fiefdoms where anyone who becomes more efficient can expect less resources thrown their way as a result. While there are many bureaucrats who do want to make things better and more efficient the incentives that the politicians and appointed department heads who ultimately call the shots have to work under cannot be discounted.
You're not wrong but this is kind of a naive way of looking at the problem. Making city employees more efficient means less jobs politicians can write the deadbeat nephew of a local construction mogul a recommendation for, a direct reduction in their power and influence. Even if you discount politicians government itself is often a bunch of competing fiefdoms where anyone who becomes more efficient can expect less resources thrown their way as a result. While there are many bureaucrats who do want to make things better and more efficient the incentives that the politicians and appointed department heads who ultimately call the shots have to work under cannot be discounted.
Have you ever tried to convince a politician to do something?
It's disappointing. It is easier to get a contract and just do it you way.
It's disappointing. It is easier to get a contract and just do it you way.
We tried to sell to Planning Department of SF. They literally told us: we are not going to buy anything that shows our weaknesses.
The idea of “smart cities” seems great, and a lot of prominent people in tech/VC seem to be on board.
Yet at the same time, I just don’t see a realistic way to make this happen (zoning, NIMBYism) unless we’re talking about desolate places that still have cheap real estate, but where nobody wants to live anyways e.g. Montana and the Dakotas.
Yet at the same time, I just don’t see a realistic way to make this happen (zoning, NIMBYism) unless we’re talking about desolate places that still have cheap real estate, but where nobody wants to live anyways e.g. Montana and the Dakotas.
History repeats itself. I'm willing to bet none of these people are aware of the failure of Epcot, the first smart city effort, when they take their families to Disneyworld. There are just too many people in this world who would prefer to say no to change.
annoyingnoob(2)
Seems like they are using COVID-19 as an excuse to dump a sinking ship while trying to save face. Real estate value isn't going up, interest rates are going way down. But since people found out what Google was trying to do with Quayside, they've had nothing but opposition.
EDIT: Update from CNBC: "Toronto was expected to make its final decision on whether or not to let the project move forward on May 20."
EDIT: Update from CNBC: "Toronto was expected to make its final decision on whether or not to let the project move forward on May 20."
The last thing we need is super rich foreign corporation building spyware company towns and buying our government.
4 years ago I co-founded a smart cities business. Basically a wysiwyg schema/api generator for non-technical municipal users. Idea being if you're procuring data generative "stuff" - municipal workers can define an integration point. In the first few months of starting the company, I met with sidewalk labs at their request. We talked about working together and I said that wouldn't be possible because we wanted to give a data tool to cities that was vendor agnostic. They asked me what would happen if we met in a city, I told them they would probably integrate with our platform so the city could have cross correlation of data with other vendors, they told me it was more likely they would make sure we wouldn't exist.
Do you still exist?!
You beat Google!
Nice! Ever ran summary stats on which geographies have the most amount of data and possibly check for a correlation with developmental indices like HDI or GINI?
Nice! How did you get your data?
Very cool :)
This is a slick website!!
I wanted to filter the waze data and ran into a problem. I was trying to filter anything that wasn't a weather hazard and wasn't before 2020. Any combination of filters and orders I tried brought up some results from those exclusions.
I wanted to filter the waze data and ran into a problem. I was trying to filter anything that wasn't a weather hazard and wasn't before 2020. Any combination of filters and orders I tried brought up some results from those exclusions.
FYI your website completely fails to render with cookies (and thus localStorage) off. Detailed explanation: https://sneak.berlin/20200211/your-website/
> If you’re not testing your website in a browser with cookies disabled, you’re not testing your website. This is one of the bare minimum of tests you should be performing.
As much as I think that webpages should work with cookies and localstorage turned off, this claim seems ridiculous.
How can testing a site for when cookies are disabled be considered the "bare minimum" of testing when it's a configuration that a very small minority of users will have?
As much as I think that webpages should work with cookies and localstorage turned off, this claim seems ridiculous.
How can testing a site for when cookies are disabled be considered the "bare minimum" of testing when it's a configuration that a very small minority of users will have?
If you're not using cookies or localstorage on a per session basis you are not doing the "bare minimum' to be qualified as an HTTP client.
The hubris of Google is just incredible. Half-baked commitments and then to tell someone who is actually dedicated to the mission that they will run them into the ground. It's really nasty. I've seen the same behavior from the first CEO of 'Spotlife', exactly the same tone of voice, exactly the same ending.
I think it's important to remember that Google is made up of people, as are their sub-companies. I would argue that you get any large group and at some point you get people making stupid, hateful, & hurtful comments. It is equally important to look at whether the organization as a whole is to blame or just pieces of it, and can pieces of it be addressed.
I think it is equally important to remember that those people were hired by other people who ultimately were hired by the people at the very top who set an example for the corporate culture they want to create. Companies being made up of people is no excuse for them doing these incredibly dumb, stupid and toxic things. That's what policies, mission statements and guidelines are for.
> Companies being made up of people is no excuse for them doing these incredibly dumb, stupid and toxic things.
I never said it was -- I didn't defend anything about the actions themselves, but a lot of people were blaming "Google" as being awful, which is generalizing a local problem.
> That's what policies, mission statements and guidelines are for. Yes... but these obviously don't apply everywhere. That's like saying "that's what laws are for" then being confused that criminals exist.
> people were hired by other people who ultimately were hired by the people at the very top who set an example for the corporate culture they want to create Yes... and again, Google is rated by most agencies and people as having one of the best cultures out-there. This is not the end-all be-all predictive measure. Taking a hyperbolic example, one could imagine a world where Gandhi ended up recruiting someone who incited violence. You know, the whole Christian-crusades thing might be another example.
While you start off the sentence with an implicit agreement with mine ("I think it's equally important") you then go on to directly oppose it with views. It's not "equally important", you can't hold both side by side (not saying one or the other is more correct).
It's not hard to make an argument that Google has done _the best_ at keeping their "do no evil" culture at scale than any other company of their size (or even half their size). My point is the opposite of yours, which is you cannot control at a certain point, just as cells in your body do not replicate perfectly and produce mutations -- studies have shown that you only get around 13% of an accurate look at someone in the normal interview process, mistakes are bound to happen. People change for other reasons too, their are external pressures. No matter how perfect your values are, you will end up with people doing stupid shit.
* Not condoning any of the actions of Sidewalk Labs.
> That's what policies, mission statements and guidelines are for. Yes... but these obviously don't apply everywhere. That's like saying "that's what laws are for" then being confused that criminals exist.
> people were hired by other people who ultimately were hired by the people at the very top who set an example for the corporate culture they want to create Yes... and again, Google is rated by most agencies and people as having one of the best cultures out-there. This is not the end-all be-all predictive measure. Taking a hyperbolic example, one could imagine a world where Gandhi ended up recruiting someone who incited violence. You know, the whole Christian-crusades thing might be another example.
While you start off the sentence with an implicit agreement with mine ("I think it's equally important") you then go on to directly oppose it with views. It's not "equally important", you can't hold both side by side (not saying one or the other is more correct).
It's not hard to make an argument that Google has done _the best_ at keeping their "do no evil" culture at scale than any other company of their size (or even half their size). My point is the opposite of yours, which is you cannot control at a certain point, just as cells in your body do not replicate perfectly and produce mutations -- studies have shown that you only get around 13% of an accurate look at someone in the normal interview process, mistakes are bound to happen. People change for other reasons too, their are external pressures. No matter how perfect your values are, you will end up with people doing stupid shit.
* Not condoning any of the actions of Sidewalk Labs.
I think the point of the GP, using your metaphor, is that a company's leaders have to identify and excise cancer early and often, lest it metastasize across the organization.
I run r/CitizenPlanners which is a forum for folks who are doing community development work without being full-time paid government workers, basically. I'm looking over your site a bit and I'm wondering if this is anything potentially useful to part-time people of that sort, who may be low-level volunteers or who may run a small, local non-profit or be a part-time elected official.
Any thoughts? Suggestions? Blog posts or points of entry you could point me to that might help me package this as useful info for my audience?
Any thoughts? Suggestions? Blog posts or points of entry you could point me to that might help me package this as useful info for my audience?
> they told me it was more likely they would make sure we wouldn't exist
How? Is it possible for a smaller company to defend against such hostility?
How? Is it possible for a smaller company to defend against such hostility?
LOL .... man, google is a joke.
I'm half expecting an announcement that they're sunsetting their search business.
I'm half expecting an announcement that they're sunsetting their search business.
I know there's gonna be a lot of people here that are happy about this for various reasons (anti-Google, anti-"smart cities", etc), but this is really disappointing for me.
It's true that the concept of "cities" (or even just "gatherings of people") predates the Internet by thousands of years, and that cities themselves haven't adapted much to the Internet and what it enables in the 40ish years it's been around. This project was inspiring because it embraced what's possible in a new way and enabled many new possibilities that wouldn't otherwise be possible in the typical piecemeal upgrades a city typically sees over time (especially in terms of construction guidelines and sustainability). People hated on Sidewalk Labs since its very inception, but I guess they bit off too much area and got shut down by the locals (and, I guess, covid-19 made a handy exit strategy).
Hopefully the next EPCOT equivalent will either be a new city that attracts the kind of people who would want to live there, or at least find a city that would be happy to host their "experiments".
FWIW I previously worked at a "smart cities" company that I won't besmirch, but I will say I would rather see a more well-known (and IMO trustworthy) company that has more experience managing and securing data at scale than them. In experimental projects like these, it just takes one "city's data leaks" headline and the whole market chills.
It's true that the concept of "cities" (or even just "gatherings of people") predates the Internet by thousands of years, and that cities themselves haven't adapted much to the Internet and what it enables in the 40ish years it's been around. This project was inspiring because it embraced what's possible in a new way and enabled many new possibilities that wouldn't otherwise be possible in the typical piecemeal upgrades a city typically sees over time (especially in terms of construction guidelines and sustainability). People hated on Sidewalk Labs since its very inception, but I guess they bit off too much area and got shut down by the locals (and, I guess, covid-19 made a handy exit strategy).
Hopefully the next EPCOT equivalent will either be a new city that attracts the kind of people who would want to live there, or at least find a city that would be happy to host their "experiments".
FWIW I previously worked at a "smart cities" company that I won't besmirch, but I will say I would rather see a more well-known (and IMO trustworthy) company that has more experience managing and securing data at scale than them. In experimental projects like these, it just takes one "city's data leaks" headline and the whole market chills.
There's a YC startup called Culdesac I've been following that's doing something interesting around city design.
I'm not sure 'smart city' would be the right phrase for it, but they seem pretty cool.
https://culdesac.com/
I'm not sure 'smart city' would be the right phrase for it, but they seem pretty cool.
https://culdesac.com/
I'm confused what they're going for here. All the benefits seem to be exactly what you'd get living in many neighborhoods in many cities across the world. Most large, mixed-use apartment complexes have all these "amenities".
How much have you read on the exploitative history of company towns[0]? There are some really good reasons why people are skeptical of a private company coming in and trying to reshape the foundation of a community, particularly when that company happens to be Google.
Sure, there's something idyllic about the vision of a community driven by technology as a first-class citizen, but let's be real here: Google doesn't exist to make the world a better place, it exists to make money. Full stop. Some of what Google does may happen to improve quality of life for some, but they're also happy to do things like permanently lock people out of their accounts for TOS violations with no recourse, causing major disruptions some of for their users.
And then when they've decided that a project is no longer worth pursuing, they just kill it. How would you resolve the scenario where Google builds this smart city and then decides to bail on it? What happens to the people living there? Does the city of Toronto pick up the tab to keep it going? Google's mentality is fundamentally inconsistent with projects that require long-term stability, because not everything makes the kind of money that search ads do.
You really want that company dictating how the community should operate? I'll pass.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town#History
edit: a word
Sure, there's something idyllic about the vision of a community driven by technology as a first-class citizen, but let's be real here: Google doesn't exist to make the world a better place, it exists to make money. Full stop. Some of what Google does may happen to improve quality of life for some, but they're also happy to do things like permanently lock people out of their accounts for TOS violations with no recourse, causing major disruptions some of for their users.
And then when they've decided that a project is no longer worth pursuing, they just kill it. How would you resolve the scenario where Google builds this smart city and then decides to bail on it? What happens to the people living there? Does the city of Toronto pick up the tab to keep it going? Google's mentality is fundamentally inconsistent with projects that require long-term stability, because not everything makes the kind of money that search ads do.
You really want that company dictating how the community should operate? I'll pass.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_town#History
edit: a word
Your questions are valid. But you could pick holes about any party trying to bring about change, right? For example, you say "let's be real here: Google doesn't exist to make the world a better place"...my question to you is, which org does exist purely to make the world a better place? And moreover, how are those orgs doing in terms of impact and scale?
Plenty of orgs exists purely to make the world a better place: They're nonprofits. And many nonprofits work at a wide, international scale.
Have you looked at how Disney built Disney World, and the way they... govern... Disney World? There's a lot of similarities in Google's plan and their requests with what Disney built with the Reedy Creek Improvement District[0]. Essentially a company territory with government, policing, and regulation all managed by the company.
And did EPCOT actually create a world of tomorrow? No. But Disney World has made Disney a lot of money.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reedy_Creek_Improvement_Distri...
Have you looked at how Disney built Disney World, and the way they... govern... Disney World? There's a lot of similarities in Google's plan and their requests with what Disney built with the Reedy Creek Improvement District[0]. Essentially a company territory with government, policing, and regulation all managed by the company.
And did EPCOT actually create a world of tomorrow? No. But Disney World has made Disney a lot of money.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reedy_Creek_Improvement_Distri...
Nonprofits are bogus in a lot of cases. They make tons of profit and make their founders/ceos rich.
Non profit CEOs make a fraction of what they’d make at a comparably sized for profit company.
that may be true, but it doesnt mean they cant be corrupt or inept (just look at mother teresa for example)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Mother_Teresa
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Mother_Teresa
Democratically elected governments exist to make the world a better place, at least in the views of those who vote in their leaders. Businesses exist to make money.
That's the distinction being drawn. Pretending there's not a fundamental distinction between the two types of entities is disingenuous.
That's the distinction being drawn. Pretending there's not a fundamental distinction between the two types of entities is disingenuous.
Democratic governments exist to make their territories a better place, often at the expense of anyone who isn’t a resident of their territory.
If you start from "democratically elected governments exist to make the world a better place," then you're going to end up somewhere wrong. Even in the best of times, democratically elected governments exist to give the majority power over the minority. This is considered an improvement over other forms of government, where often a minority had power over a majority and treated them poorly.
There are actually some "fundamental distinctions" between government and business. For example, most governments (democratic or not) are slow, monolithic, and effectively immortal. Since governments have tax and police authority, they can survive bad periods, including those caused by their own errors, for longer periods of time. Most businesses do not have tax and police authority and must face the market test on a daily basis. The businesses that fail the test typically die and new businesses replace them.
There are actually some "fundamental distinctions" between government and business. For example, most governments (democratic or not) are slow, monolithic, and effectively immortal. Since governments have tax and police authority, they can survive bad periods, including those caused by their own errors, for longer periods of time. Most businesses do not have tax and police authority and must face the market test on a daily basis. The businesses that fail the test typically die and new businesses replace them.
> Most businesses do not have tax and police authority and must face the market test on a daily basis.
they would if they could...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company
they would if they could...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company
> Most businesses do not have tax and police authority and must face the market test on a daily basis.
The only thing that keeps businesses from claiming tax and police authority is the government monopoly on violence; they'd happily take if they could. Same goes for having to face the "market test": businesses certainly don't want to that and would happily get rid of it if governments allowed them to (or did not exist).
The only thing that keeps businesses from claiming tax and police authority is the government monopoly on violence; they'd happily take if they could. Same goes for having to face the "market test": businesses certainly don't want to that and would happily get rid of it if governments allowed them to (or did not exist).
Wouldn’t governments also do all sorts of bad things if they were allowed to? History is full of examples and there are far more examples of rogue governments doing bad at scale than private businesses.
If there was something that inherently made governments to be “good” actors more than a person or a business, we wouldn’t need checks and balances.
If there was something that inherently made governments to be “good” actors more than a person or a business, we wouldn’t need checks and balances.
I didn’t say they were good. I said they were democratic, and that the lead to better outcomes in the view of those who control those outcomes, which is a tautology, purposefully so.
That can lead to good or bad outcomes in your judgment depending on your values. But it’s fundamentally a different dynamic than a for profit entity.
That can lead to good or bad outcomes in your judgment depending on your values. But it’s fundamentally a different dynamic than a for profit entity.
monadic2(1)
> which org does exist purely to make the world a better place?
I think the idea that one organization existing to make the entire world a better place is utopian, but governments are much better equipped to bring positive change than private companies are because citizens are the direct beneficiaries of government resources. For example, a municipal government’s purpose is to administer public services, and a municipal government answers to its citizens. A private company, on the other hand, has a fiscal duty to its shareholders.
I’m not arguing that any organization is perfect because such an organization does not exist, and that’s true for companies and governments.
> how are those orgs doing in terms of impact and scale?
Let’s use various governments response to the coronavirus outbreak as an example. The US government opted to defer much of it’s responsibility to private companies and state governments, which has resulted in less testing, less access to PPE, and more reported deaths than any other country. Testing hasn’t scaled, and there have been numerous reports of corruption and interference in the medical community, some of which was alleged to have come directly from the White House.
Contrast that response with countries like Taiwan, who moved quickly to provide necessary resources and communicate effectively to mitigate the transmission of the virus.
The US has operated one of the most private-industry focused responses to this outbreak, and we’re likely to see 3k deaths per day by June. That’s a 9/11 death toll every single day.
I think the idea that one organization existing to make the entire world a better place is utopian, but governments are much better equipped to bring positive change than private companies are because citizens are the direct beneficiaries of government resources. For example, a municipal government’s purpose is to administer public services, and a municipal government answers to its citizens. A private company, on the other hand, has a fiscal duty to its shareholders.
I’m not arguing that any organization is perfect because such an organization does not exist, and that’s true for companies and governments.
> how are those orgs doing in terms of impact and scale?
Let’s use various governments response to the coronavirus outbreak as an example. The US government opted to defer much of it’s responsibility to private companies and state governments, which has resulted in less testing, less access to PPE, and more reported deaths than any other country. Testing hasn’t scaled, and there have been numerous reports of corruption and interference in the medical community, some of which was alleged to have come directly from the White House.
Contrast that response with countries like Taiwan, who moved quickly to provide necessary resources and communicate effectively to mitigate the transmission of the virus.
The US has operated one of the most private-industry focused responses to this outbreak, and we’re likely to see 3k deaths per day by June. That’s a 9/11 death toll every single day.
I could not disagree with you more. Are you in the Bay Area? The Bay Area avoided a calamity primarily because of private companies taking action long before the city and state.
I'd counter that if private companies were completely left in charge, the response may have been better (I would not have said this in January).
Private companies were called in because our public efforts failed. If private companies were leading the charge from day 1, I struggle to see how our response could have been worse than it is today. And I completely disagree that our poor response can be attributed to involvement of private companies.
I'd counter that if private companies were completely left in charge, the response may have been better (I would not have said this in January).
Private companies were called in because our public efforts failed. If private companies were leading the charge from day 1, I struggle to see how our response could have been worse than it is today. And I completely disagree that our poor response can be attributed to involvement of private companies.
[deleted]
> Private companies were called in because our public efforts failed.
in the u.s, how about other countries?
it seems like, uniquely among first-world countries, the u.s the govt (local or otherwise) is pretty inept at a lot of things (especially now)...
in the u.s, how about other countries?
it seems like, uniquely among first-world countries, the u.s the govt (local or otherwise) is pretty inept at a lot of things (especially now)...
> got shut down by the locals
That's not what happened though. Google was free to continue the project but decided not too, using Covid-19 as a fig leaf.
I agree with the thrust of your comment (we need more experimentation with cities, not less) but this is Google doing what Google does: changing it's mind and abandoning projects.
That's not what happened though. Google was free to continue the project but decided not too, using Covid-19 as a fig leaf.
I agree with the thrust of your comment (we need more experimentation with cities, not less) but this is Google doing what Google does: changing it's mind and abandoning projects.
And let's be thankful that it abandoned it now, instead of in 15 years when it would have created a horrible slum.
Hard to say that wasn't a factor in shutting it down. After several missed deadlines, major controversies around trust and privacy, scope creep such as attempts by Sidewalk Labs to alter to the project scope, for example, redevelopment of 350 acres in the Port Lands area which was nearly 30 times the original proposal, withdrawal of key advisors, and proposals that were simply political explosive, etc. It seemed almost inevitable that the project was destined to fail or largely be a shadow it's lofty original goals.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/15/alphabets-sidewalk-labs-want...
https://betakit.com/ann-cavoukian-still-has-problems-with-si...
https://betakit.com/sidewalk-labs-announces-it-will-no-longe...
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/15/alphabets-sidewalk-labs-want...
https://betakit.com/ann-cavoukian-still-has-problems-with-si...
https://betakit.com/sidewalk-labs-announces-it-will-no-longe...
How can you say it was going to be a shadow of its original goals if was unable to scope creep.
As an observer, Sidewalk initially proposed grand plans which were supposed to cost $ millions, and overtime on one hand, they would get pushback on some parts of the proposal, on the other hand, they would get approval for some part and need to alter the proposal to assuage the opponents. These alterations usually featured some additional proposals ballooning to an estimated cost in the $ billions (scope creep), that seemed even more controversial... The whole process seemed like a tug-of-war, a game of cat and mouse, or whack-a-mole.
They would cede a part of proposal, propose another, only to have some sort of new outcry.
From Ars' article published today https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/05/alphabets-sidewalk-l...
> But Sidewalk Labs’ vision was in trouble long before the pandemic. Since its inception, the project had been criticized by progressive activists concerned about how the Alphabet company would collect and protect data, and who would own that data
> The partnership took a bigger hit last summer, when Sidewalk Labs released a splashy and even more ambitious 1,524-page master plan for the lot that went well beyond what the government had anticipated, and for which the company pledged to spend up to $1.3 billion to complete. The redevelopment group wondered whether some of Sidewalk Labs’ proposals related to data collection and governance were even “in compliance with applicable laws.” It balked at a suggestion that the government commit millions to extend public transit into the area, a commitment, the group reminded the company, that it could not make on its own.
They would cede a part of proposal, propose another, only to have some sort of new outcry.
From Ars' article published today https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/05/alphabets-sidewalk-l...
> But Sidewalk Labs’ vision was in trouble long before the pandemic. Since its inception, the project had been criticized by progressive activists concerned about how the Alphabet company would collect and protect data, and who would own that data
> The partnership took a bigger hit last summer, when Sidewalk Labs released a splashy and even more ambitious 1,524-page master plan for the lot that went well beyond what the government had anticipated, and for which the company pledged to spend up to $1.3 billion to complete. The redevelopment group wondered whether some of Sidewalk Labs’ proposals related to data collection and governance were even “in compliance with applicable laws.” It balked at a suggestion that the government commit millions to extend public transit into the area, a commitment, the group reminded the company, that it could not make on its own.
Google abandons projects when they don't make business sense. Or perhaps you think Google is a charity that just keeps randoms apps running on servers? Maybe it should be funded with tax-dollars then.
> Maybe it should be funded with tax-dollars then.
That's kinda what they were going after.
That's kinda what they were going after.
Unless they abandon an infrastructure project after ruining miles of city streets....
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/02/googl...
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/02/googl...
It’s impossible to take seriously that some 2-inch deep trenches and some stray cables are “ruining” streets.
https://www.wdrb.com/news/belknap-neighborhood-residents-con...
https://www.wdrb.com/in-depth/google-fiber-to-pay-nearly-4-m...
Google Fiber prepares to pull the plug on Louisville customers tonight, the tech company has agreed to pay Metro government $3.84 million to fix damage to city streets, Mayor Greg Fischer’s said Monday.
The payments, to be made over 20 months, will cover removing fiber cables and sealant from roads, milling and paving streets “where needed” and removing Google’s above-ground infrastructure, according to a news release from Fischer's office.
https://www.wdrb.com/in-depth/google-fiber-to-pay-nearly-4-m...
Google Fiber prepares to pull the plug on Louisville customers tonight, the tech company has agreed to pay Metro government $3.84 million to fix damage to city streets, Mayor Greg Fischer’s said Monday.
The payments, to be made over 20 months, will cover removing fiber cables and sealant from roads, milling and paving streets “where needed” and removing Google’s above-ground infrastructure, according to a news release from Fischer's office.
This makes your original complaint that they were ruining streets look even sillier. They've agreed to reverse all the damage they've done. I'm not sure how you're angry about this.
That was after getting pressured by the local government.
Was it? It sounds like the franchise agreement that they signed was fairly straight forward and was never really in contention, based on what little I’ve read about this story the last couple of years. Are there any references or news stories that support your claim that google had to be “pressured”?
> Maybe it should be funded with tax-dollars then.
this presumes in some sense that they are not already.
this presumes in some sense that they are not already.
You should read this - https://smartenoughcity.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/8dthlkrx/releas...
I'd like us to be more forward looking, ambitious and experimental with our cities as well, especially in the west.
But... I think there's an institutional aspect here that needs resolution before we can. The internet is worryingly centralised. A small number of extremely profitable companies monopolise huge markets. Google tends to do this with data.
I think the reticence was justified: "Who owns the data? What kind of monopoly are google eventually going to have?" These are fair. A financial success case for google is some sort of data-centric monopoly. They don't really do business another way. It's fair to be dubious of their endgame.
But... I think there's an institutional aspect here that needs resolution before we can. The internet is worryingly centralised. A small number of extremely profitable companies monopolise huge markets. Google tends to do this with data.
I think the reticence was justified: "Who owns the data? What kind of monopoly are google eventually going to have?" These are fair. A financial success case for google is some sort of data-centric monopoly. They don't really do business another way. It's fair to be dubious of their endgame.
I, for one, would like us to stop experimenting with re-inventing the wheel. We had functional cities for centuries now. We can make adjustments to match the century, but I do not think it is helpful to revamp the way we have lived until now to satisfy this odd new personality that pervades the web that needs to change UI every so often to feel relevant.
Geez. I feel old now.
Geez. I feel old now.
Progress is inevitable, even necessary, especially when systemic problems like climate change are consequences of the current paradigm. This seems to happen throughout history, ie industrialization, abolishment of slavery, new forms of government, etc.
We need deep changes now to get ahead of the looming consequences of the patterns we've held as a society up until now.
We need deep changes now to get ahead of the looming consequences of the patterns we've held as a society up until now.
If you think Toronto is a functioning city, I suggest you do some traveling.
>> A financial success case for google is some sort of data-centric monopoly. They don't really do business another way. It's fair to be dubious of their endgame.
Reminds me of a board game called Risk that I like playing where you have to capture territories by attacking owners of other territories. The moment any one player looks like they are gaining a good lead over others, the rest of the players gang up against that player to prevent him from getting too powerful.
The goal is to be the single largest player in the game and everyone is trying to do that. But the moment anyone is too ahead of the curve in doing that we don't like it. I guess we as a society are wired to hate a single large player. Maybe the last couple of centuries left a bad taste in our mouth.
Reminds me of a board game called Risk that I like playing where you have to capture territories by attacking owners of other territories. The moment any one player looks like they are gaining a good lead over others, the rest of the players gang up against that player to prevent him from getting too powerful.
The goal is to be the single largest player in the game and everyone is trying to do that. But the moment anyone is too ahead of the curve in doing that we don't like it. I guess we as a society are wired to hate a single large player. Maybe the last couple of centuries left a bad taste in our mouth.
If the whole thing is designed to be transparent from the get go you wouldn't have to worry about data leaks.
I don't think a "smart city" is our answer; I think actually looking to the past is a better plan for a good city, such as what Strong Towns advocates. https://www.strongtowns.org/
(I have no affiliation with the organization)
(I have no affiliation with the organization)
Absolutely. We know perfectly well what works in cities and it's got nothing to do with smart tech.
i don't think a "smart city" is the answer either, but it's worth pointing out that the quayside project was not a smart city by any definition of the word city, it was a 4.9ha parcel (~7 standard city blocks) in a much larger city - possibly the perfect canvas for some experimentation.
That land was up for grabs since Toronto's bid for 2008 Olympics. The only serious project that materialized was Sidewalks one. Kind of sad.
Sad for who? It’s not as if Toronto needed this development by any stretch of the imagination.
For me. It is sad to ser 12 acres of wasteland siting on top of most premium location for 20 years. It is a sign of deep disfunction
The entire idea of a "smart city" is pure anathema to how vibrant cities function. It's a technocratic wet dream, the digital version of Robert Moses and Corbusier making a comeback. The people preoccupied with this should read some Alain Bertaud and learn how markets work and then go do more productive things with their time than trying to micromanage cities.
[deleted]
Jane Jacobs is required reading as well.
I don't see how, I would say most of the decisions that were made in the US are. Cities in the US are not "vibrant" compared to Europe.
I think cars are mostly to blame, roads are so large, no pedestrian-only streets, parkings take so much space, etc.
I think cars are mostly to blame, roads are so large, no pedestrian-only streets, parkings take so much space, etc.
That's all Robert Moses' doing. He was the great champion of bulldozing neighborhoods and downtowns to replace them with highways, and eliminating trains, busses, streetcars, and bike lanes to fill the sides of every road with free street parking. He had governments of all parties convinced of his utopian vision of soaring highways and personal rapid transit as depicted on automobile ads and sci fi comics.
I actually prefer the vastness of space in the US. Just go out in the American country side and there is so much beauty. I would love to see a world where the idea of a city is obsolete, distributed local communities of 2000 people spread across the span of American wilderness. Basic services such as electricity, sewage and internet are all maintained by standards set by the state authorities, but run by locals. It all sounds too hipster, but it is not. This COVID-19 pandemic has taught us a lot about how we can survive as a distributed species as compared to dense city life.
Europe has no such luxury due to the density of people cramped in tight corridors and old (but beautiful) architecture. There it makes sense to have a well organized city life.
IMO city life is overrated but that's just my opinion/perspective of society.
Europe has no such luxury due to the density of people cramped in tight corridors and old (but beautiful) architecture. There it makes sense to have a well organized city life.
IMO city life is overrated but that's just my opinion/perspective of society.
You've invented small towns. What prevents you from moving to one post-pandemic?
> Just go out in the American country side and there is so much beauty
did you think the rest of the world didn't have that?
> Europe has no such luxury due to the density of people cramped in tight corridors and old (but beautiful) architecture. There it makes sense to have a well organized city life.
Come visit the countryside in Europe.
Bonus: if you don't want to live in the city (due to work) you can work outside of it and use public transport!
did you think the rest of the world didn't have that?
> Europe has no such luxury due to the density of people cramped in tight corridors and old (but beautiful) architecture. There it makes sense to have a well organized city life.
Come visit the countryside in Europe.
Bonus: if you don't want to live in the city (due to work) you can work outside of it and use public transport!
Anathema: "someone or something intensely disliked or loathed", I don't think this word means what you think it means? Perhaps antithesis?
Also, I don't know much about the smart-city idea, though I do know that you can design spaces, homes, blocks, etc. in a way that creates natural interaction -- which is something that Google has excelled at (possibly more than any other company). This is also discussed heavily in facilitator-culture (and can be seen with Zappos).
Also, I don't know much about the smart-city idea, though I do know that you can design spaces, homes, blocks, etc. in a way that creates natural interaction -- which is something that Google has excelled at (possibly more than any other company). This is also discussed heavily in facilitator-culture (and can be seen with Zappos).
Anathema is Greek for damnation, or accused/accursed from Latin (shortening the etymology I read on it)[1]. Makes more sense as damnation in modern usage, so I think it stands.
[1] https://www.etymonline.com/word/anathema
[1] https://www.etymonline.com/word/anathema
Mmm, you might be able to argue with poetic license that it stands, but I would argue that's not what it means in English, and it's derivation is not its current meaning, and even with "damnation" as a definition it still doesn't read very well.
I agree that top-down solutions / edicts rarely work, unless the grassroots organic growth is already there.
When I see the word "smart" applied to anything I just think of the big junket of smart conferences and and smart workshops that all these middle-management types go to, that's the real industry here: middle sized fish eating all the investment dollars before the little fish, innovative startups, can get a taste.
The bad news is that next few buzzwords are already starting to build their own money pit conference circuit if "smart" things become passé. I know this because my wife presents at one such, in the pre-CoV world we got to fly around and eat fancy food once or twice a year presenting buzzword laden solutions to other middle-management types.
Maybe all this will junketing will go away now, will the world be any poorer because of it?
When I see the word "smart" applied to anything I just think of the big junket of smart conferences and and smart workshops that all these middle-management types go to, that's the real industry here: middle sized fish eating all the investment dollars before the little fish, innovative startups, can get a taste.
The bad news is that next few buzzwords are already starting to build their own money pit conference circuit if "smart" things become passé. I know this because my wife presents at one such, in the pre-CoV world we got to fly around and eat fancy food once or twice a year presenting buzzword laden solutions to other middle-management types.
Maybe all this will junketing will go away now, will the world be any poorer because of it?
Have you read Bertaud? His central thesis is how urban economics, as measured by data collection, must inform urban planning. Sidewalk Lab’s plans were very congruent with his ideas.
The internet is at least as much dangerous as it is useful. Technology changes social power dynamics, often the people that enable it will design it in a way that benefits their own power dynamic.
Think of it this way, let's say a fascist genocidal group become rulers of that city/country, or let's say Google's intentions change and Google becomes many times more evil than it is now. Will this technology preserve the power of the people to nit just freely express their opinions but to take action based on their beliefs. Who controls access,surveillance and information? Even if the majority approve, will this preserve the liberties of the minority?
It's too late to ask these questions after the fact. I think it will work really well at first, my fear is actually that it won't stop at Toronto, and it will in the short term make a lot of people happy.
Technology has changed a lot but human nature has remained consistent. It would be foolish to fail to take into account hisorical lessons about humanity and social power dynamics when considering such drastic changes. Unfortunately, those who should make such considerations often lack technical knowledge and those with technical knowledge are blinded by immediate benefits and possibilities. I think this is the curse of living in relatively free socieites, you lack the perspective of seeing how fragile the ground you stand on really is.
Think of it this way, let's say a fascist genocidal group become rulers of that city/country, or let's say Google's intentions change and Google becomes many times more evil than it is now. Will this technology preserve the power of the people to nit just freely express their opinions but to take action based on their beliefs. Who controls access,surveillance and information? Even if the majority approve, will this preserve the liberties of the minority?
It's too late to ask these questions after the fact. I think it will work really well at first, my fear is actually that it won't stop at Toronto, and it will in the short term make a lot of people happy.
Technology has changed a lot but human nature has remained consistent. It would be foolish to fail to take into account hisorical lessons about humanity and social power dynamics when considering such drastic changes. Unfortunately, those who should make such considerations often lack technical knowledge and those with technical knowledge are blinded by immediate benefits and possibilities. I think this is the curse of living in relatively free socieites, you lack the perspective of seeing how fragile the ground you stand on really is.
My issue with Sidewalk Labs was the incredibly obvious facade they put up: pretending to care about making cities better when it really was just a thin veneer over finding new ways to expand surveillance capitalism. In fact their "Head of Urban Systems" was quoted[0] as saying that public discussions over data ownership and privacy were "irresponsible". The true agenda is plainly obvious to anyone who cares to look.
I'm heartened to see that there is a slow but growing opposition to parasitic business practices such as Sidewalk Labs' proposal and surveillance capitalism in general. Despite Zuckerberg's attempts to convince us that privacy is dead[1], I think people still realize on some base level that privacy, especially offline, is still valuable.
[0] https://www.citylab.com/design/2018/09/how-smart-should-a-ci...
[1] https://youtu.be/LoWKGBloMsU
I'm heartened to see that there is a slow but growing opposition to parasitic business practices such as Sidewalk Labs' proposal and surveillance capitalism in general. Despite Zuckerberg's attempts to convince us that privacy is dead[1], I think people still realize on some base level that privacy, especially offline, is still valuable.
[0] https://www.citylab.com/design/2018/09/how-smart-should-a-ci...
[1] https://youtu.be/LoWKGBloMsU
So this comment is being downvoted a lot, but i've got to say there was a lot of concern from local residents. The largest concern everyone raised with me was that "Google will ditch this as soon as it suits them, leaving us with a mess of 'smart tech' to deal with for decades to come".
Well, i hate to say it, maybe they were right? Turns out they ditched it before it even got moving, this might be a blessing in disguise.
Well, i hate to say it, maybe they were right? Turns out they ditched it before it even got moving, this might be a blessing in disguise.
[deleted]
Unfortunately, a lot of people in tech ascribe to a kind of utopian imperialism. It doesn’t matter what people themselves want, it’s about what engineered fantasies can be imposed upon them.
Yeah I dunno, I'm basically showering in downvotes right now but it seems to be just Silicon Valley types who are upset that Torontonians didn't welcome their dystopia with fanfare and adulation.
"surveillance capitalism". Sounds like the latest meaningless activism buzzword that tries to engender anti-surveillance support from anti-capitalists.
What's next, Communist Vegans?
What's next, Communist Vegans?
Surveillance Capitalism is a well established term that means exactly what it sounds like - capitalism based upon surveillance. This is exactly the business model that Facebook and Google operate upon, and exactly what Sidewalk Labs was attempting. They claim to be benevolent saviours but really they're just there to watch everyone and sell the data to advertisers, governments, and Palantir-alikes.
If you really haven't heard the term "surveillance capitalism" before, this[1] interview is a very good overview of the topic, including this explanation of the term:
>> So even early on in the theorizing of capitalism it was understood that capitalism takes on different market forms and different eras in the context of different technologies. We’ve had mercantile capitalism, and we’ve had factory capitalism, and mass-production capitalism, and managerial capitalism, financial capitalism. And typically what happens in these new concepts is that modifier, like “mass production,” or in my case “surveillance” capitalism, what that modifier is doing is pinpointing the pivot of value creation in this new market form.
> engender anti-surveillance support from anti-capitalists
Every anti-capitalist I know has already been anti-surveillance for a long time.
[1] https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/shoshana-zuboff-q-an...
>> So even early on in the theorizing of capitalism it was understood that capitalism takes on different market forms and different eras in the context of different technologies. We’ve had mercantile capitalism, and we’ve had factory capitalism, and mass-production capitalism, and managerial capitalism, financial capitalism. And typically what happens in these new concepts is that modifier, like “mass production,” or in my case “surveillance” capitalism, what that modifier is doing is pinpointing the pivot of value creation in this new market form.
> engender anti-surveillance support from anti-capitalists
Every anti-capitalist I know has already been anti-surveillance for a long time.
[1] https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/02/shoshana-zuboff-q-an...
I‘m not defending massive tech companies. But in this case it might be a bit different. Back when Larry Page still did interviews he mentioned a couple of times that the concept of cities needs to be rethought. Talking out of my ass I‘m pretty sure that he more or less told Doctoroff to go wild and handed him 100 million.
Alphabet can kind of do this stuff because so far their still growing steadily and a majority of voting shares are with the founders.
So if there is any company I kind of buy, that they didn‘t necessarily have profit as the first priority, it would be Sidewalk Labs. They can always figure that out later.
Worst case they spend a couple hundred millions and nothing came of it. Except many theoretical ideas about city building would have been known to work or not.
Maybe I‘m naive. But imagine you had a gazillion dollars and owned one of the most powerful entities ever. Wouldn‘t you want to try crazy shit that you thought of as a kid. Well Page/Brin can I guess.
Alphabet can kind of do this stuff because so far their still growing steadily and a majority of voting shares are with the founders.
So if there is any company I kind of buy, that they didn‘t necessarily have profit as the first priority, it would be Sidewalk Labs. They can always figure that out later.
Worst case they spend a couple hundred millions and nothing came of it. Except many theoretical ideas about city building would have been known to work or not.
Maybe I‘m naive. But imagine you had a gazillion dollars and owned one of the most powerful entities ever. Wouldn‘t you want to try crazy shit that you thought of as a kid. Well Page/Brin can I guess.
>They can always figure that out later.
And therein lies the problem. If they don't have a business model for profitability then they'll just fall back on the corporate DNA, which is surveillance and tracking for profit.
And therein lies the problem. If they don't have a business model for profitability then they'll just fall back on the corporate DNA, which is surveillance and tracking for profit.
I'll add another perspective to this, beyond the privacy/data ownership debate.
The global building stock currently supplies roughly 40% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions; and we are in the midst of the largest growth of urbanism in human history concentrated in neighborhoods least equipped to deal with it. I've worked in the architecture/urban design sector for 6+ years (half as an architect, half as a researcher), and one of the most critical problems we have to address is the way we are attempting to optimize the building energy/embodied carbon use of buildings. It's a messy multivariable optimization problem, tied to time-consuming, complex simulation engines, that the industry is forced to try and solve as single-variable optimization with various hacks and rule of thumbs.
I am very biased on this topic since I work in this area, but I feel this is fundamentally a ML/AI problem and I had/have some hope that Sidewalk labs could add the resources and brainpower to move the needle further, faster with the existing SOTA. Personally, I felt this provided the project with a very straightforward, explicit ethical utility, so as a Torontonian I've never been against it. I also was excited about the prospect of building up a community of building science-focused ML/AI researchers tackling a currently underserved existential threat. I know this isn't the end of Sidewalk Labs, but I feel like this is a huge loss for us.
The global building stock currently supplies roughly 40% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions; and we are in the midst of the largest growth of urbanism in human history concentrated in neighborhoods least equipped to deal with it. I've worked in the architecture/urban design sector for 6+ years (half as an architect, half as a researcher), and one of the most critical problems we have to address is the way we are attempting to optimize the building energy/embodied carbon use of buildings. It's a messy multivariable optimization problem, tied to time-consuming, complex simulation engines, that the industry is forced to try and solve as single-variable optimization with various hacks and rule of thumbs.
I am very biased on this topic since I work in this area, but I feel this is fundamentally a ML/AI problem and I had/have some hope that Sidewalk labs could add the resources and brainpower to move the needle further, faster with the existing SOTA. Personally, I felt this provided the project with a very straightforward, explicit ethical utility, so as a Torontonian I've never been against it. I also was excited about the prospect of building up a community of building science-focused ML/AI researchers tackling a currently underserved existential threat. I know this isn't the end of Sidewalk Labs, but I feel like this is a huge loss for us.
Thats a shame. I always thought Google would do a double plus good job of it. Who wouldn't want a listening device in their toilet. Just skip the town, and make a better smarter toilet Google. Control the world, starting with the throne. Thats where many are already watching youtube from anyway now.
Take my temperature and test me for corona, update my social score and unlock the e-lock to leave my apartment. The Future.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcUAG6t5aN8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcUAG6t5aN8
As a former Toronto resident I'm glad about this. In my eyes, Google lacks the track record or level of trust appropriate to make them a good fit for the project. They fall short on basics like privacy, user experience and commitment.
Toronto has a thriving tech community; I'd love to see some of the less-controversial ideas pioneered on a smaller scale by local small businesses who will eat their own dogfood.
Toronto has a thriving tech community; I'd love to see some of the less-controversial ideas pioneered on a smaller scale by local small businesses who will eat their own dogfood.
Google has a pattern of pull out of high profile announcements. Its striking.
Google HQ never seemed to have to much to do with this. It was rather their subsidiary Sidewalk Labs that was going to make it happen. They always struck me as long on "vision" and short on execution.
I am a very optimistic individual, and have considered this project as vapourware since day one.
All vision and posturing, and no execution over years.
"Ann Cavoukian, former Ontario privacy commissioner, resigns from Sidewalk Labs", 2018-10-21. https://globalnews.ca/news/4579265/ann-cavoukian-resigns-sid...
"Google's 'Smart City of Surveillance' Faces New Resistance in Toronto", 2018-11-13. https://theintercept.com/2018/11/13/google-quayside-toronto-...
"Google's 'Smart City of Surveillance' Faces New Resistance in Toronto", 2018-11-13. https://theintercept.com/2018/11/13/google-quayside-toronto-...
Isn't it ironic to blame the coronavirus? I imagine an alternate timeline in which it's a success story for the already-built 'smart city', with the masses of data it offers aiding crisis management in <ways>.
The promised green-space would have been awesome. In all, I'm thrilled that Toronto won't be the first guinea pig testing out a privacy-flexible smart city. If it works well in other places and everyone's happy, we can get the new improved one with the quirks fixed.
I'm all for smart cities, just not ones built by advertising companies.
No doubt this was likely guided by some misguided desire to make everything look and function like one of their Google campuses. Google is one of the most dehumanizing companies in the entire history of civilization.
"The city of the future" has been a passion of mine for several years now. I even co-founded a company driven by the desire to create one eventually (the company then moved to a cool product to digitize titles, US only for now; and secured seed funding long after I left).
I always had a problem with this initiative by Google, and others in general. These things don't scale.
You want to build the city of the future? It should be 10x more affordable, 10x less polluting, and be built 10x faster than traditional cities. It should find inspiration from Jane Jacobs, Christopher Alexander, Leon Krier, etc.
Sometimes I still dream about doing something about it. This blog post somehow summarizes where this desire comes from: "unf*ck" [0]. It's such a massive problem though. I keep thinking that I don't have the chops to be able to do anything about it.
[0]: https://medium.com/the-naked-founder/unfuck-710afbaa4092
I always had a problem with this initiative by Google, and others in general. These things don't scale.
You want to build the city of the future? It should be 10x more affordable, 10x less polluting, and be built 10x faster than traditional cities. It should find inspiration from Jane Jacobs, Christopher Alexander, Leon Krier, etc.
Sometimes I still dream about doing something about it. This blog post somehow summarizes where this desire comes from: "unf*ck" [0]. It's such a massive problem though. I keep thinking that I don't have the chops to be able to do anything about it.
[0]: https://medium.com/the-naked-founder/unfuck-710afbaa4092
They will find a city for the next go-around that has more to gain and less nimby-ism. A Pittsburgh or a Detroit.
I consider it part of my neighbourhood. I am glad this is over. There are so many issues, but essentially the city is in over its head on this entire concept from the beginning. Further, I think Waterfront Toronto overstepped it's mandate. At the time, Google love was high, and politicians were enamoured with the attention and jumped into bed without even a thought.
In the end, Google is an ad tech company, so no thank you. The scorpion and the frog...
In the end, Google is an ad tech company, so no thank you. The scorpion and the frog...
Could have tried in India...
"Smart city" sound like a Orwellian dystopia
This should be next in the killedbygoogle.com entries