[av_one_full first min_height=” vertical_alignment=” space=” custom_margin=” margin=’0px’ padding=’0px’ border=” border_color=” radius=’0px’ background_color=” src=” background_position=’top left’ background_repeat=’no-repeat’ animation=”]
[av_heading heading=’Intelligent cities’ tag=’h3′ style=’blockquote modern-quote’ size=” subheading_active=’subheading_below’ subheading_size=’15’ padding=’10’ color=” custom_font=”]
BY IKE SEÑERES
[/av_heading]
[av_textblock size=” font_color=’custom’ color=’#0a0a0a’]
Wednesday, February 1, 2017
[/av_textblock]
[av_textblock size=” font_color=’custom’ color=’#0a0a0a’]
I HAVE ALWAYS argued that cities could not be considered smart not unless they are green. The fact is, among other criteria, it is also the “greenness” of buildings that would make them smart. It goes without saying that if a city is green, it should also be considered as smart, because it is really the smart thing to do.
As if that is not confusing enough, there is now a new goal to make cities safe. Putting together these three characteristics, we could actually say now that even if a city is said to be smart, it is probably dumb if it is not safe.
Conversely, it is probably not safe as well if it is not green, because not being green would make a city more vulnerable to dangers. In the midst of this confusion, we should better say that a city that is smart, green and safe is in effect an intelligent city.
In a manner of speaking, it could be said that the term “city” could just be considered as a figure of speech, because it could now refer to any relatively large area of land that has some amount of development, even if it has no charter as a city.
If that interpretation is acceptable, then residential villages, real estate developments, industrial parks, company towns and even university campuses could be considered as “cities”, at least in a manner of speaking. Some examples of this interpretation are existing areas and developments like “Bonifacio Global City”, “Eastwood City” and “Eton City”. As it is now, there is even a hospital complex that bills itself as “Medical City.”
I have always said with some fondness that BF Paranaque is actually bigger than Singapore, and that it could actually be considered as “a city within a city”. That would seem closer to the truth, except for the fact that that giant subdivision has been Balkanized into smaller villages, with their own homeowner’s associations.
Regardless of their size, each of these smaller units could actually be considered as “a village within a village.” Basically, there seems to be nothing wrong with that, except for the fact that the fractionalization now makes it difficult to manage the whole area as one broader and bigger intelligent city, so to speak.
Broadly speaking, the term “smart” would refer to the use of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) in general, and the use of the “Internet of Things” (IOT) in particular. In reality, IOT is actually part of ICT, but I am just singling it out in particular because in my opinion, it is going to be the next biggest trend in the computing world.
Just to put the term IOT in the right perspective, it is supposedly what comes next to the “Internet of People” (IOP), a phenomenon that is said to be already saturated or completed, depending on who is saying it or why. Important as IOT is supposed to be, there are other complementary or related technologies that would contribute to making a city “smart” or smarter.
As I see it, IOT is an integrative technology that would or should combine or converge Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP), Building Management Systems (BMS), Programmable Logic Controllers (PLCs), Remote Telemetry Units (RTUs) and Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) software programs. Except for ERP, the common denominator in all these systems are the sensors or chips that would interconnect or communicate with each other.
That is perhaps the reason why IOT is often referred to as “Machine to Machine” (M2M) technology, because these sensors would actually function like little robots that would “talk” to each other.
Also broadly speaking, the term “green” would refer to anything that is recyclable and sustainable, or anything that would reduce pollution in general or carbon production or emissions in particular. Among other technologies, these would include rainwater collection, emissions control, renewable energy, biogas and gas saving devices.
One way or the other, green technology would refer to the reduction of carbon footprints and the reduction of fuel usage, thus resulting in clean air and fuel efficiency. It goes without saying that a city could be considered “green” if it is able to recycle solid wastes on one hand, or produce environment friendly outcomes on the other hand. One way or the other, the achievement of these goals would involve ICT or IOT or both.
Again broadly speaking, the term “safe” would refer to anything that could reduce or control the risks or dangers that could threaten the public safety of a city, either natural or manmade. Although being “green” is actually a separate goal than being “safe”, it goes without saying that Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) and Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) Are two sides of the same coin that would ultimately result in the parallel outcomes of being “safe” and being “green.”
Just the same, both CCA and DRR would or should involve the use of ICT or IOT or both. If all of these “smart”, “green” and “safe” standards could be met, we would have “intelligent cities” that could last for as long as the planet Earth is around./PN
[/av_textblock]
[/av_one_full]
