<story><title>Google ends plans for smart city in Toronto</title><url>https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52572362</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>toomuchtodo</author><text>You can still advocate for such urban redevelopment and community planning without Big Tech behind it.</text></item><item><author>owenwil</author><text>I know the average Torontonian wasn&amp;#x27;t into this, but I live nearby and was really excited about what it could have been, even though it was fraught with missteps.&lt;p&gt;This area is a concrete wasteland–just car-parks and abandoned lots–that&amp;#x27;s now going to be portioned off to more giant, glass condo buildings, and while Sidewalk&amp;#x27;s proposal had problems, it was focused on building something very different, community-oriented, without prioritizing roads.&lt;p&gt;Sidewalk really pushed the technology angle way too hard, and it was a clear overstep– most of it wasn&amp;#x27;t necessary for any sort of quality of life improvements, but many of the ideas like wooden &amp;#x27;skyscrapers&amp;#x27; and de-prioritizing roads were exciting, now lost.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>tyre</author><text>You can but change is measured in decades and even then often doesn&amp;#x27;t happen.&lt;p&gt;Starting &amp;quot;fresh&amp;quot; with a single leading implementer is really how it needs to be done.&lt;p&gt;Take San Francisco. There&amp;#x27;s the planning board, the planning department, environmental lawsuits, HOAs, abusing &amp;quot;historic landmarks&amp;quot; designations, political showmanship, developers, affordable housing, community meetings, unions, community groups (the cycling people are borderline militant) etc. etc.&lt;p&gt;All of those can bring any change to its knees. And they have, repeatedly. There are good parts of this process and people shouldn&amp;#x27;t not have input, but I might not oppose a dictator coming in for two years and just having at it.</text></comment>
<story><title>Google ends plans for smart city in Toronto</title><url>https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52572362</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>toomuchtodo</author><text>You can still advocate for such urban redevelopment and community planning without Big Tech behind it.</text></item><item><author>owenwil</author><text>I know the average Torontonian wasn&amp;#x27;t into this, but I live nearby and was really excited about what it could have been, even though it was fraught with missteps.&lt;p&gt;This area is a concrete wasteland–just car-parks and abandoned lots–that&amp;#x27;s now going to be portioned off to more giant, glass condo buildings, and while Sidewalk&amp;#x27;s proposal had problems, it was focused on building something very different, community-oriented, without prioritizing roads.&lt;p&gt;Sidewalk really pushed the technology angle way too hard, and it was a clear overstep– most of it wasn&amp;#x27;t necessary for any sort of quality of life improvements, but many of the ideas like wooden &amp;#x27;skyscrapers&amp;#x27; and de-prioritizing roads were exciting, now lost.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>leoh</author><text>Sure, but it would have been really interesting to see what Sidewalk could have done here, especially given that it was a blighted area.</text></comment>