Status
Not open for further replies.
Christ, the "IDEA District?" Leave it to Silicon Valley to come up with such real estate gobbledygook. IDEA District beat out other names like "Synergy Land" and "Disruptionville."
 
source
www.thestar.com

Sidewalk Labs says it won’t pay upfront costs for new LRT critical to ‘smart city’ waterfront development

The company proposes up to $100 million in “credit support” to help finance a new line through its Port Lands development, but governments would have to come up with at least $700 million in additional funding.
www.thestar.com www.thestar.com
191567
191568
 
Interesting comments from the Star.

For all we know, a lot of their technology is unproven beyond some nice diagrams and pretty renderings, so there's no guarantee we won't end up with a dud at Quayside. Also, not tremendously enthused about Sidewalk pushing to be a single developer for this much land.

I would prefer if Sidewalk hold off of the demands for their River District, and instead push the city to develop a Portlands framework that allows Sidewalk to guide other developers in integrating their technologies into their buildings- that's actually the more important element, and I think that working with developers may allow Sidewalk's ideas to promulgate through the industry (which should be the point of innovation), while industry expertise weeds out some of their more wacky unworkable concepts.

Otherwise, this is a return to the Utopian/Heroic era of modern architecture (30s-70s), which is littered with many failed grand visions like this.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1143236764506710016
https://twitter.com/x/status/1143237961489801225
https://twitter.com/x/status/1143238723636797441

ProjectEnd said:
Response:
Click to expand...

Definitely some pointed statements regarding the 'audacity' of the proposal:

  1. Sidewalk Labs proposes the up-front creation of an IDEA District that covers a much larger area than the 12 acres of Quayside. Waterfront Toronto has told Sidewalk Labs that the concept of the IDEA District is premature and that Waterfront Toronto must first see its goals and objectives achieved at Quayside before deciding whether to work together in other areas. Even then, we would only move forward with the full collaboration and support of the City of Toronto, particularly where it pertains to City-owned lands.
  2. Sidewalk Labs proposes to be the lead developer of Quayside. This is not contemplated in the PDA. Should the MIDP go forward, it should be on the basis that Waterfront Toronto lead a competitive, public procurement process for a developer(s) to partner with Sidewalk Labs.
  3. Sidewalk Labs’ proposals require future commitments by our governments to realize project outcomes. This includes the extension of public transit to Quayside prior to development, new roles for public administrators, changes to regulations, and government investment.
  4. These proposals raise important implementation concerns. They are also not commitments that Waterfront Toronto can make. Sidewalk Labs has initial proposals relating to data collection, data use, and digital governance. We will require additional information to establish whether they are in compliance with applicable laws and respect Waterfront Toronto’s digital governance principles.
Click to expand...

Comment from Tory:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1143246913468325889
 
Last edited:
Here is the juicy planning stuff that was buried in the appendixes of the latest information dump.

I do find it quite comedic that they are proceeding with planning for the Portlands, lands that they don't own. However there isn't much negative to say about the consultant work on Quayside specifically, it's solid. Urban Strategies are well, doing their job. People who peruse through the report will be delighted at the visuals and bold ideas presented.

One notable thing to note is that it seems they have moved away from their idea of disconnecting Queen's Quay at Parliament Slip, it is now connected. I would call this a positive move.


The problem isn't so much the consultant work on justifying the master plan within the planning context, or the proposed building heights and densities. In this regard they can be any Toronto developer. It's governance that is the problem, not product.
 
Could someone enlighten me on how this would work? I'm a little naive to the mechanisms that a large city redevelopment would take.

  • There is a large swath of land in Toronto that is currently owned and used by a number of people.
  • Alphabet wants to redevelop this land and equip it with a bunch of monitoring and data systems that will give them data that can be monetized
  • As part of the development, Google (and maybe other parts of Alphabet) will have some buildings that they own and operate
Now I think I get lost a bit...
  • Alphabet wants to be in charge of street planning, zoning, etc.
  • But how is the land acquired from the current owners and who will make the money from selling it to the new occupants? Or does Alphabet intend to own all the land?
  • Alphabet is offering 10% of the income from the technology developed over the first 10 years there? How is there any way to monitor how this specific data is monetized and differentiated from the rest of the company?
  • How derelict will the infrastructure in the area be if Alphabet loses interest, or money, or is broken up by antitrust?
Overall it seems like a very exciting and ambitious project but one that has equal odds to be taught in textbooks as an example of overreach and poor planning.
 
Some general concerns over de-identification, how people can consent to data-collection, and tertiary ways data can be monetized/used to make decisions on people.

ANN CAVOUKIAN STILL HAS PROBLEMS WITH SIDEWALK LABS’ APPROACH TO DATA WITH QUAYSIDE
ISABELLE KIRKWOOD JUNE 26, 2019

Sidewalk Labs’s plan outlined hopes that this trust is transformed into a public-sector agency or a quasi-public agency in the long-term. However, Cavoukian told BetaKit that Sidewalk Labs’ vision of the Urban Data Trust as a collective asset or public trust would be a “nightmare” for privacy if personal information fell under that umbrella. She said what concerns her most about the trust is the potential for data to be re-identified by third parties, and linked back to the individual.

“What’s missing from [the trust], is the fact that it doesn’t come with a requirement that any parties that join the Urban Data Trust must de-identify data at the source, right at the time of collection,” she said. “That has to be an essential ingredient or this Urban Data Trust will have no value. In fact, it will have a negative value in terms of privacy.”
Click to expand...

Cavoukian said when strong de-identification protocols are used, companies can potentially minimize the risk of re-identification to less than 0.05 percent, less than the odds of being hit by lightning.

“Those are damn good odds,” Cavoukian said. “Personal information is a treasure trove. Everybody wants personal information in personally identifiable form, that’s the big win. The only way you can protect privacy is to anonymize the data right from the outset. Then you have very valuable data that you can use for a variety of purposes, but it’s not linked to personal identifiers. That’s what we have to promote. I didn’t see that coming out in this [plan].”
Click to expand...
Keerthana Rang, a communications associate at Sidewalk Labs, told BetaKit that the company believes the independent data trust would be in the best position to determine the appropriate guidelines for responsible data use.

“We have submitted an initial set of these guidelines in the MIDP, one of which includes data minimization, security, and de-identification by default,” Rang said. “All entities, including Sidewalk Labs, should collect the minimum amount of data needed and use the least invasive technology available to achieve [a] beneficial purpose.”
Click to expand...
The company also committed to not disclose personal information to third parties, including other Alphabet companies, without explicit consent. Cavoukian said she didn’t think the MDIP sufficiently laid out what data would be collected and how members of the public could consent or revoke consent to the collection of this data.

Cavoukian insisted upon collecting data through positive consent, meaning individuals would be able to opt into having their data collected by taking affirmative action. Opting out, or negative consent, is the process by which a user takes action to withdraw their consent.

Sidewalk Labs was not clear on whether it would consider an opt in or opt out approach to consent. Current privacy laws in Canada allow organizations to obtain “consent” for personal information collected in public spaces (think CCTV cameras) by placing notifications/signs by the camera. Rang told BetaKit, though, that the company will meet all existing Canadian privacy laws, including obligations under Canadian privacy law to obtain meaningful consent.
Click to expand...
Alex Ryan, vice president of systems innovation at MaRS Discovery District, who has previously written about smart city data trusts, stated that when it comes to the kind of collection that Sidewalk Labs would do with sensors, it depends on who is collecting that data.

“If it’s government, if the city is actually doing the pilot and collecting the data, then they don’t actually need to have meaningful consent to collect personal information,” he told BetaKit.

“If it’s a private company, like Sidewalk Labs that is doing the data collection, then they would need personal consent. And that is the real problem with collecting data off the street, because a cell phone has an off switch, you can just turn off when you download apps, or consent when you download the app, and you have a way of opting out. Where and how do you opt out of a public realm?”

Cavoukian stated that whichever route Sidewalk Labs chooses to take, obtaining consent is extremely difficult, particularly when 24-hour sensors are involved.
Click to expand...
Sidewalk Labs has also made three main commitments around data use: no selling personal information, no using personal information for advertising, and no disclosing personal information to third parties without explicit consent.

Cavoukian argued that the way companies can benefit from personally identifiable data could go well beyond the scope of advertising. She noted, for example, that insurance companies could gain access to data that has the potential to compromise the type of plan a patient will receive. She also gave the examples of employers potentially obtaining information on why their employees are late to work, as well as how collecting hoards of re-identifiable data could also put the public at risk of data breaches and identity theft. Ryan pointed to the idea that data could potentially be used to discriminate against members of minority groups.

“I’m not saying all these [scenarios] would arise, but they could,” she Cavoukian. “And the point is, why risk it? Why wouldn’t you just avoid all of these potential harms by de-identifying all the data at source? Otherwise, [Quayside] will be a smart city of surveillance, and that’s the antithesis of freedom.”
Click to expand...


betakit.com

Ann Cavoukian still has problems with Sidewalk Labs’ approach to data with Quayside | BetaKit

Privacy expert Ann Cavoukian gave BetaKit her thoughts on how Sidewalk Labs is tackling data in its recently released master plan.
betakit.com betakit.com
 
The Toronto Board of Trade and some other significant figures have thrown their support behind the project, probably to no one's surprise:

We are writing to encourage Torontonians and public officials to do just that — to welcome and evaluate this proposal for the many positives it can bring. From our collective perspective as leaders in the fields of urbanism, business, public policy, arts, education, social policy and environmental advocacy, we can each see aspects of this project which represent huge opportunities for our communities, and for Toronto. Where there are areas of disagreement or points worth debating in the proposal, we know that there is more than enough room for governments to respond, negotiate, or adjust plans with the company to address them.

Some issues and details must still be resolved, like data governance and a final path to rapid transit financing. However, we also believe there are many exciting ideas in this proposal that can help Toronto tackle some of the major challenges we face, whether it is a new approach to affordable housing construction (in partnership with local firms and companies), the proposed investments in a new urban innovation institute, standard-setting plans on green construction and utilities, or the proposed investments that would come with a new Canadian Google headquarters site.
Click to expand...
 
It's hilarious seeing Bay Street titans of industry quoting a granola cruncher like Jane Jacobs.

I stand by my thesis that the Sidewalk proposal will never see the light of day, and is being propelled by interests like the Board of Trade as a sort of make-work program for hundreds of lobbyists and comms people. Plus, it's still a worthwhile drop-in-the-bucket investment for Google to show a "softer" side as the global monolith tries to maneuver through an increasingly resistant public and regulatory regime.
 
Last edited:
Good. Whether or not anyone thinks Sidewalk should or should not get to do what they propose here or whether it would be theoretically good or not, at this point I think there's no reasonable way to move forward with Sidewalk that would be healthy for the city.

Allowing Sidewalk to do what they want here will face very legitimate criticism as a corporatization of the city, a deputization of control to a company — not just a company but a company who faces increasing scrutiny for their role in our general modern political, um, Situation, in a way many are uncomfortable with, without any real active consent of the city's residents.

It would be like injecting poison into this entire area of the city, building some kind of unsettling ~beautiful neighbourhood of the future~ that a lot of people feel kind of queasy about — Toronto's mini future corporate dystopia surveillance state zone. It's not going to feel good. Oh ya I live in the corporate mass surveillance zone haha lol what can you do we're all going to die nihilism will be the feeling of the place. And we're building this instead of just making a really good public version of the city for what reason? Fund some stuff we should just be properly funding as a city instead of allowing a company to grain unprecedented power further into city life and operations just because our political leaders are too cowardly to just be adults and responsibly raise the taxes a bit and invest in housing, transit and infrastructure? The only reason Torontonians are being offered this terrible bargain of compromises with Sidewalk is because of our political leadership's complete failure at all levels to be responsible city builders.

This deal came from the previous era that now feels so long ago, the infatuation with the tech industry, which many in Canada's extremely out of touch political class are still timewarped in. They're still catching up but unfortunately for them that floor has fallen out from under them in the meanwhile and people at large are now extremely hostile towards big tech as we see the chaotic and terrifying effects of its influence play out in our society. And at a time when progressive politics and in particularly young people are developing increased class consciousness and are being forced to very legitimately question capitalism's role in our society — since, you know, we're hurtling towards a climate crisis and authoritarianism, and seem to have no ability to deal with the situation partially due to the simultaneously stupefying and hyper-exaggerating effects of modern tech on the way we function as a species, etc.

"Welcome to Neighbourhood by Google, the year 2037, the temperature is 48 degrees today, the islands are completely underwater and down south the United States is becoming a failed state, if you accept the terms of the agreement of us running your city click 'I Accept' to continue."

This is not going to go over well. Giving this kind of special privilege and authority to Google at a time like this. There will be protests, as it's built, but also in the future as an emblematic site of animosity towards big tech, the intrusion of companies into public life, etc. — the ways our society work are in for a bumpy ride ahead as we face the inevitable world crisis. You may say well protestors would be wrong, Sidewalk is actually good for the city, but that ignores the reality of the political moment. It would be creating a custom-built emblematic hotzone, an icon of a corporatized approach towards public life.

Many Torontonians are not going to feel good about this place at the very least and it risks becoming an actively toxic space or site of conflict at worst and that just fundamentally doesn't make it a good idea to proceed in the interest of civic cohesion. We can find another way to build the city here in a more harmonious way for everyone that will not be burdened with all this.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top