Google ends plans for smart city in Toronto • Hacker News Board

Re: Google ends plans for smart city in Toronto

#151

Post by WalterBright » Thu, May 07, 2020, 6:39 PM UTC

sudosysgen wrote: post #83

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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.

If demand increases faster than supply increases, then prices go up. It does not mean supply&demand theory is invalid.

Re: Google ends plans for smart city in Toronto

#152

Post by verelo » Thu, May 07, 2020, 6:39 PM UTC

na85 wrote: post #140

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.…

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.

Re: Google ends plans for smart city in Toronto

#153

Post by ocdtrekkie » Thu, May 07, 2020, 6:39 PM UTC

ehsankia wrote: post #145

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-ann…

> 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 t…

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.

Re: Google ends plans for smart city in Toronto

#154

Post by pdkl95 » Thu, May 07, 2020, 6:40 PM UTC

drusepth wrote: post #124

reaperducer wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 compu…

Curious: what problem could be solved by a human (or group of humans) but not a computer (or group of computers)?

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.

Re: Google ends plans for smart city in Toronto

#155

Post by WalterBright » Thu, May 07, 2020, 6:40 PM UTC

vkou wrote: post #95

aljg wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 .

> 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 s…

All that means is demand is increasing faster than supply.

Re: Google ends plans for smart city in Toronto

#156

Post by triceratops » Thu, May 07, 2020, 6:41 PM UTC

asdff wrote: post #72

supernova87a wrote: post #57

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…

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 c…

> 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.

Re: Google ends plans for smart city in Toronto

#157

Post by [deleted] » Thu, May 07, 2020, 6:42 PM UTC

verelo wrote: post #152

na85 wrote: post #140

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.…

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 disg…

[deleted]

Re: Google ends plans for smart city in Toronto

#158

Post by sandworm101 » Thu, May 07, 2020, 6:42 PM UTC

ehsankia wrote: post #107

sandworm101 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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, no…

Just tax empty places, isn't that what Vancouver does? Leaving a place empty/inhabited should be very expensive.

>> 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.

Re: Google ends plans for smart city in Toronto

#159

Post by [deleted] » Thu, May 07, 2020, 6:42 PM UTC

drusepth wrote: post #124

reaperducer wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 compu…

Curious: what problem could be solved by a human (or group of humans) but not a computer (or group of computers)?

[deleted]

Re: Google ends plans for smart city in Toronto

#160

Post by koheripbal » Thu, May 07, 2020, 6:42 PM UTC

na85 wrote: post #140

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.…

"surveillance capitalism". Sounds like the latest meaningless activism buzzword that tries to engender anti-surveillance support from anti-capitalists.

What's next, Communist Vegans?