Some great ideas in smart urban design have failed because of local politics. You see great ideas killed by poor leadership or corrupt bidding processes.
As more technology rolls out this problem will only exasperate as people with limited technical skills make decisions based on sales pitches and sign contracts that are based on dream implementations and not real expertise on the topic.
Discussion on:
Top
Rated
Rated
Thank you very much
Edited by yarinsiz
Updated - 26th Aug 2011
Just
In
In
ignoring the fact
Edited by onur26
Updated - 13th Oct 2011
Show:
+1
Vote
A combination of a lack of leadership and corruption.
Posted by Hates Idiots
29th Jul 2011
+1
Vote
Need to specify types of approaches
I agree with much of the thrust of the article but it is important to clarify what types of smart cities and approaches when comparing cities from other countries ( e.g. China and South Korea). There are greenfield smart cities ( which tend to be in developing nations and start at a new master planned level often ) and brownfield cities ( which really are focused on precinct scale development within existing cities or smart initiatives within certain industry sectors ). It is therefore a little misleading to simply compare a transport initiative in New York for example to a massive new smart city development in China as they are fundamentally different. Thus, a like with like comparative approach, when explaining smart city issues worldwide, in my opinion, is required and will help to ensure better understanding within this topical area of debate.
Posted by Gordon Falconer
2nd Aug 2011
+1
Vote
Thank you very much
Well done! Thank you very much for professional templates and community edition
sesli chat sesli sohbet
sesli chat sesli sohbet
Posted by yarinsiz
Updated - 26th Aug 2011
+1
Vote
ignoring the fact
while ignoring the fact that these
projects are intended to work to lower the expense of sprawl:
fewer greenhouse gases, fewer miles traveled, less gasoline use,
smaller carbon footprint, fewer roads to maintain, etc. Spending
the money collectively in order to preserve the "commons," i.e.,
the air we all breath, the environment we all live in, lessen our
dependence on foreign oil, and make government more efficient
by lessening the need to build and maintain wider and wider
rings of infrastructure that feed the sprawl, should be both the
right thing to do as well as a conservative fiscal issue. In the long
run, these programs will save us all a lot of money to say nothing
of environmental degradation kral oyun kanal d oyun
projects are intended to work to lower the expense of sprawl:
fewer greenhouse gases, fewer miles traveled, less gasoline use,
smaller carbon footprint, fewer roads to maintain, etc. Spending
the money collectively in order to preserve the "commons," i.e.,
the air we all breath, the environment we all live in, lessen our
dependence on foreign oil, and make government more efficient
by lessening the need to build and maintain wider and wider
rings of infrastructure that feed the sprawl, should be both the
right thing to do as well as a conservative fiscal issue. In the long
run, these programs will save us all a lot of money to say nothing
of environmental degradation kral oyun kanal d oyun
Posted by onur26
Updated - 13th Oct 2011