Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google ends plans for smart city in Toronto

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 383 posts

Re: Google ends plans for smart city in Toronto

#191

Post by triceratops »

asdff wrote: post #171
triceratops wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 s…

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.

Re: Google ends plans for smart city in Toronto

#192

Post by ocdtrekkie »

zaidf wrote: post #186
save_ferris wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 e…

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...

Re: Google ends plans for smart city in Toronto

#193

Post by sudosysgen »

alexashka wrote: post #117
sudosysgen wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 st…

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 ow…

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.

Re: Google ends plans for smart city in Toronto

#194

Post by CPLX »

zaidf wrote: post #186
save_ferris wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 e…

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?

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.

Re: Google ends plans for smart city in Toronto

#195

Post by AlanYx »

cal5k wrote: post #71
na85 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

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.

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.

Re: Google ends plans for smart city in Toronto

#196

Post by gabbo »

52-6F-62 wrote: post #70
cactus2093 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pr…

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 path…

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.

Re: Google ends plans for smart city in Toronto

#197

Post by rkagerer »

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.

Re: Google ends plans for smart city in Toronto

#198

Post by true_religion »

CPLX wrote: post #194
zaidf wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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.

Democratic governments exist to make their territories a better place, often at the expense of anyone who isn’t a resident of their territory.

Re: Google ends plans for smart city in Toronto

#199

Post by colinmhayes »

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)?

Whether an arbitrary program will end.
Post reply on HN