Around 2009, a slew of new “smart cities” emerged, and their mayors and city managers were eager to implement sensor technology. They finally have the ability to track environmental factors like pollution, traffic, and noise levels. The use of sensors would aid in the management of services, the enhancement of urban areas, and the modernization of such regions. Cities have been paying attention to the various smart city benefits, and one of the biggest draws has been the potential for savings. So, bids were solicited and successfully completed. Agreements were made, test runs and initial projects were initiated, and then reality hit. To know what Smart Cities 2.0: What Works Today follow the article through.
Sensor placement, over-the-air programming, dealing with mobile and moving networks to track trams and buses, and the ever-present trade-off between real-time data monitoring and power consumption were just a few of the earliest challenges posed by a lack of understanding of the limits of the technology. The greatest difficulties were not tech-related. One time, an elderly lady stopped to inquire about our engineers as to the purpose of the black boxes mounted to the streetlights and whether or not they were funded by the city. Another time, a city worker who felt frightened by our installation walked out to the street to physically block it. As it turns out, nobody had informed him about the situation. It took us, as engineers, a long to figure out that this wasn’t a discussion about technical details but rather about politics.
What is NIMBY?
The public has never been better informed, and new technologies are ubiquitous in cityscapes. Many are curious as to what other programs had to be cut in order to fund this gleaming new initiative. We discovered that if you don’t have a solid response, the ensuing social media backlash might have serious consequences for your political standing. We can attribute some of the pushback to “not in my backyard” (NIMBY) mentality. However, not just locals are concerned. Because of their increased knowledge, mayors tend to ask more questions. They worry about finances, their ability to generate genuine, valuable data, and even how to motivate their own employees to work together.
Frustration surfaced early on in projects when few solutions were available. The critics of “smart cities” then began their attacks. This was not a setback, but rather an integral part of the market’s education; it was simply a matter of setting reasonable expectations, which could be achieved through a deeper familiarity with the projects’ broader context.
What are the Findings From Smart City Version 1?
The primary focus of early smart cities was on proof-of-concept experiments, rather than on creating a viable commercial model. Though this is great in principle, there were certain instances where the intended meaning wasn’t conveyed. When we consider that citizens of major cities were shaken to their core by the new millennium’s worst economic crisis, we can see the immense strain placed on local governments, which in turn ushered in a period of “the more sensors, the better.” Politicians wanted to make a big show of deploying a large number of sensors but lacked the resources to do so. Reports with a negative slant, such as Jennifer Belissant’s “Smart City Santander: Proven Technology, Uncertain Business Models,” became more common (Forrester Research). The European Union supported the majority of the earliest programs; however, they did not establish a sustainable model. Upkeep costs typically account for 15% to 20% of a telecom project’s annual budget. This was not considered at all in the original smart city plans.
What we have Learned for Next Generation of Smart Cities?
The limitations of the technology, the need for more precise needs, and the importance of setting realistic expectations were all highlighted in the first generation of smart cities and this led to answering of question smart cities 2.0 what works today.
One, we have not yet reached the point of commoditization. It will be impossible to treat hardware as a commodity so long as most projects are still in the exploratory phase and have only produced a few dozen or a few hundred of them for pilot testing. Hardware in the age of the Internet of Things is nothing more than the tracks, in my opinion. The infrastructure (train tracks, utilities, etc.) comes later.
Two, it’s crucial to have systems that can communicate with one another. A city offers a plethora of service options. There isn’t just one supplier available. Interoperability is essential as new radio and cloud technologies compete to become the standard.
Thus, this is how smart city 2.0 will function and help in overcoming the challenges that are associated with earlier version of smarty city.