Monthly Archives: November 2017

NEOM or the glow of a Saoudi-Arabian spring?

During a recent meeting of the Future Investment Initiative conference in Riyad the 32 year old crown prince of Saoudi-Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman, announced the building of a 25.000 km2 smart city from scatch, 30 times the size of New York. The required investment – $500 billion – will be financed by selling 5% of the shares of the national oil company Aramco. Klaus Kleinfeld, former chief executive of Siemens AG and Alcoa Inc. will lead the project. I will discuss the plans first, after which I will comment on them.

The rational behind the plan is to decrease Saoudi-Arabian dependency on oil. In addition, the volume of money leaking out of the country will be diminished by expanding local investment options. At the same time the plan hints at fundamental changes in the Saoudi-Arabian society.

Boost for the economy

new city wil become the trigger of the diversification of the economy. It will be powered by renewable energy, applying advanced energy storage and produce its own water supply. The core industries will be biotechnology, food technology, advanced manifacturing, creative industries and the development of digital content. Universities will focus on artificial intelligence, virtual reality and augmented reality technologies. The contribution to the Kingdom’s GDP is projected to reach at least $100 billion by 2030.

Smart city

The city will be CO2 neutral. The personal transport will rely on autonomous cars. The city will be serving as a laboratory for innovative construction techniques and materials. Internet will be free, other forms of connectivity will be state-of-the-art. Land use will be mixed, allowing people to reach their destinations by walking to encourage a healthier lifestyle. Government services will be fully automated and easily accessible to all residents.

Liveable city

The city is located in a rich natural environment, offering a shoreline of 450 km. Its center will be a marvelous park. In every aspect human beïngs will be top priority. Its cultural life, healthcare and its educational institutions will measure with the best of the world. NEOM is meant to grow into an aspirational society with an idyllic lifestyle. It will become a community founded on modern architecture, green space, high quality of life, safety, and technology in the service of humanity paired with excellent economic opportunities. The city will offer a multicultural environment in wich a proactive and diverse community will thrive and living by world class social norms. These conditions will attrack the best scientists and entrepreneurs of the world, especially the younger ones.

Automomous status

NEOM will be granted the status of an autonomous economic zone and be will be independent of the Kingdom’s existing governmental framework, excluding sovereignity laws. This status enables the industry to manufacture and provide goods and services at globally competitive prices and also to be a place of freedom.

A cultural turn

A visionary Mohammed bin Salman said This project is not a place for any conventional investor … This is a place for dreamers who want to do something in the world He added that young Saudis and the promotion of moderate Islam are the key to his modernizing dream for his country: We are only going back to how we were: to the tolerant, moderate Islam that is open to the world, to all the religions and traditions of its people.

At this point, I strongly recomment to watch the video that is part of the glossy presentation of NEOM.

The information above has already acknowledged you with the facts. Now focus at the subtext of this presentation and its subtle suggestions of a cultural turn. You are watching a modern country, with happy young men and women, mostly unveiled. Girls are dancing. The crown prince wil have understood that a cultural change like this requires NEOM to be an autonomous entity with Saoudi-Arabia. But it is evident that he aims it to become a role model for the country as a whole.

Realizing NEOM’s infrastructure, attracting new industries and having competent scientist and entrepreneurs migrated from abroad will be a huge operation. Taking into account the availability of large resources and the power of bin Salman, the project is not a mission impossible. However it wil take time. When asked about the number of citizens of NEOM, bin Salman said – rightly – that the population has to grown organically. But the same applies to the city as a whole which makes any estimation of its contribution to Saoudi-Arabian GDP in vain.

cultural turn will be even more demanding, but it is a necessary requirement for the success of the project. Probably bin Salman’s intention to liberalize the country, the Islam included, will be supported by the younger generation, women in the first place. However the resistance from the traditional establishment will be tough. Only to-day the King put in jail sixteen of bin Salman’s opponents. Bin Salman might take as example the almighty and popular current Chinese president and leader of the communist party Xi Jinping. However Xi is standing at the shoulders of mighty predecessors like Deng Xiaoping and does not need taking into account conservative religious leaders[1].

NEOM is not just another smart city, it is a focal point for radical cultural and social change in Saoudi-Arabia and possibly the Arab world as a whole. Mohammed bin Salman is realizing the scale of his mission when he is saying: This is a double-edged sword. If they (young Saudis) work and go the right way, with all their force they will create another country, something completely different … and if they go the wrong direction it will be the destruction of this country.

[1] Referring at Chinese leaders is not by chance: My next article deals with another new mega city, Xiongan. This city, 100 km from Beïng has to relieve the capital’s growth and the subsequent pressure on trafic, air quality and housing. The city will cover three times the surface of New York; the sum to invest $250 billion.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Smart city

Are smart cities also sharing cities?

Aside from smart and resilient, a growing number of cities is wielding the adjectieve sharing. Seoul was in 2013 the first self-appointed Sharing City in the world. In 2015 Amsterdam claimed to be the first one in Europe. 

San Francisco

However, the most eyecatching initiatives with respect to sharing originate from one city in particular – San Francisco – the hometown of sharing-oriented start-ups like Twitter, Dropbox, Lyft and Airbnb. A sharing aptitide is characterizing the life style of many of its millennial population: co-working, co-living (also due to sky-rocketing rents), eschewing car-ownership and a preference for living in the city center.

sharing cities San Francisco brand of ‘sharing’ is commercial in the first place and has beside winners also many losers, for instance the drivers of companies like Uber and Lyft and those in other taxi-companies. The unprecedented influx of tourists in cities like Amsterdam and Barcelona due to the succes of one of the sharing economy icons, Airbnb, also will not contribute to its popularity.

For this reason Duncan McLaren & Julian Agyeman plea for a brand of real sharing cities, based on just sustainabilities. In their seminal book Sharing cities’ (MIT Press, 2015) they elaborate examples from Seoul, Copenhagen, Amsterdam and Medellin to clarify a more inclusive communal sharing paradigmthat goes beyond commercial motives. Real sharing cities relate questions with respect to social needs and welfare – economic opportunity included – to social justice and environmental limits imposed by supporting ecosystems.

Summing up, sharing means that more persons use the same product or service without owning it. This can apply to the (re)use of bikes, cars, appartments of books. But the sharing paradigm includes also includes recycling, common facilities for water and energy, credit unions and cooperative banks. Sharing might be motivated by cost reduction by social justice or by decreasing our ecological footprint.

Seoul

Communal sharing is connected with the sources of wellbeing: Fresh air, water, energy, education, cure and care, socializing, inclusion and liveable space. The city of Seoul offers many examples in this respect. The concept of jeong plays a key role. People believe that being kind and cooperative will benefit all in the long term. More specific, the administration of the city is promoting and supporting collaboration and caretaking in the densely populated apartment blocks. At the same time mayor and eldermen value listening to the inhabitants. People can easily utter complaints and requests talking in the ‘listening ear’ in front of the town hall (photo below).

sharing cities

The city administration also plays an intermediate role in the economic development. Start-ups are supported by the ‘Dreambank’, a pooled facility of 20 banks.

Medellin

sharing citiesOther cities offer additional insight in the intermediate role of city government to enhance the ‘sharing potential’ of their towns. An striking example is Medellin, the second town in Colombia and the former center of drug trafficking, also known as ‘murder capita’ of the world. After that military shot the infamous gangleader Pablo Escobar, the city government started to repair the ruined social fabric of the town. It invested large sums in education and communal facilities, often in iconic buildings like the Biblioteca de Espagna in the middle of poor areas, to enable their inhabitants regaining some feeling of proudness.

At the same time all isolated parts of the town were connected by a new public transport system of metrolines, gondolas and escalators. Participatory budgetting was introduced an instrument to increase citizen involvement.

Copenhagen and Amsterdam

McLaren & Agyeman also feature Copenhagen and Amsterdam as examples of ‘social urbanism’, because these city’s sharing policies are community motivated in the first place. Copenhagen has improved the liveabllity of its city center with an infrastructure based on the use of bicycles. Amsterdam did the same with its dense public transport network and creating bikelanes as well. In addition Amsterdam’s social housing policy has accomplished more integration of its immigrant population than many other cities. The city also facilitates a huge number of ‘commoning’ activities.

sharing cities

Reflecting upon the cases above, a couple of concepts demand clarification.

Collaboration

Collaboration is used often as an equivalent for sharing. This is not necessary true. Collaboration refers to collective action to get things done; sharing usually involves individual action. Collaboration happens in the economic domain – for instance cooperative work, self-managed companies and community currences and in the social domain as well, for instance commoning activities like gardening, cooking, the exploitation of collective housing, community shops and even swimming pools and transport. Apart from the direct benefits of collaboration, its value is also the growth of social capital. As a consequence, collaboration is a necessary extension of the concept of sharing.

Connectivity

Commercial sharing depends heavily from the availability of IT-platforms, think of Airbnb and Uber. But connectivity is also critical for certain social forms ‘sharing’, for instance instaneous mapping of damagein case of earthquakes or flooding in order to support rescuing activities.

Sharing versus smart

Sharing and smart are not equivalents; however accentuating its sharing capacity, might be a way to for smart cities to be more specific about its characteristics. My description of Smart City 3.0 includes many characteristics of the sharing city that are described above.

Amsterdam is profiling itself for some years as a smart city. Recently, the city also embraced the adjectives ‘sharing’ and ‘collaborative’. I doubt the wisdom of this policy. The content of the missions of Amsterdam Smart City and Amsterdam Sharing city do not differ that much. Therefore applying two adjectives is confusing, given that most citizens still have to become acquaintant with the benefits and challenges of living in a smart city. From a communication viewpoint, I would have chosen to clarify being smart with a small number of key words. Sharing might be one of these. My choice of the other ones would have been: citizen-based, inclusive, entrepreneurial, collaborative, sustainable and IT-enabled. Maybe my advise is still useful.

This is an episode in a series that elaborates aspects of smart cities. This article has already been published in Smart City Hub.

1 Comment

Filed under Smart city

Are smart cities also sharing cities?

Aside from smart and resilient, a growing number of cities is wielding the adjectieve sharing. Seoul was in 2013 the first self-appointed Sharing City in the world. In 2015 Amsterdam claimed to be the first one in Europe. 

San Francisco

However, the most eyecatching initiatives with respect to sharing originate from one city in particular – San Francisco – the hometown of sharing-oriented start-ups like Twitter, Dropbox, Lyft and Airbnb. A sharing aptitide is characterizing the life style of many of its millennial population: co-working, co-living (also due to sky-rocketing rents), eschewing car-ownership and a preference for living in the city center.

sharing cities San Francisco brand of ‘sharing’ is commercial in the first place and has beside winners also many losers, for instance the drivers of companies like Uber and Lyft and those in other taxi-companies. The unprecedented influx of tourists in cities like Amsterdam and Barcelona due to the succes of one of the sharing economy icons, Airbnb, also will not contribute to its popularity.

For this reason Duncan McLaren & Julian Agyeman plea for a brand of real sharing cities, based on just sustainabilities. In their seminal book Sharing cities’ (MIT Press, 2015) they elaborate examples from Seoul, Copenhagen, Amsterdam and Medellin to clarify a more inclusive communal sharing paradigmthat goes beyond commercial motives. Real sharing cities relate questions with respect to social needs and welfare – economic opportunity included – to social justice and environmental limits imposed by supporting ecosystems.

Summing up, sharing means that more persons use the same product or service without owning it. This can apply to the (re)use of bikes, cars, appartments of books. But the sharing paradigm includes also includes recycling, common facilities for water and energy, credit unions and cooperative banks. Sharing might be motivated by cost reduction by social justice or by decreasing our ecological footprint.

Seoul

Communal sharing is connected with the sources of wellbeing: Fresh air, water, energy, education, cure and care, socializing, inclusion and liveable space. The city of Seoul offers many examples in this respect. The concept of jeong plays a key role. People believe that being kind and cooperative will benefit all in the long term. More specific, the administration of the city is promoting and supporting collaboration and caretaking in the densely populated apartment blocks. At the same time mayor and eldermen value listening to the inhabitants. People can easily utter complaints and requests talking in the ‘listening ear’ in front of the town hall (photo below).

sharing cities

The city administration also plays an intermediate role in the economic development. Start-ups are supported by the ‘Dreambank’, a pooled facility of 20 banks.

Medellin

sharing citiesOther cities offer additional insight in the intermediate role of city government to enhance the ‘sharing potential’ of their towns. An striking example is Medellin, the second town in Colombia and the former center of drug trafficking, also known as ‘murder capita’ of the world. After that military shot the infamous gangleader Pablo Escobar, the city government started to repair the ruined social fabric of the town. It invested large sums in education and communal facilities, often in iconic buildings like the Biblioteca de Espagna in the middle of poor areas, to enable their inhabitants regaining some feeling of proudness.

At the same time all isolated parts of the town were connected by a new public transport system of metrolines, gondolas and escalators. Participatory budgetting was introduced an instrument to increase citizen involvement.

Copenhagen and Amsterdam

McLaren & Agyeman also feature Copenhagen and Amsterdam as examples of ‘social urbanism’, because these city’s sharing policies are community motivated in the first place. Copenhagen has improved the liveabllity of its city center with an infrastructure based on the use of bicycles. Amsterdam did the same with its dense public transport network and creating bikelanes as well. In addition Amsterdam’s social housing policy has accomplished more integration of its immigrant population than many other cities. The city also facilitates a huge number of ‘commoning’ activities.

sharing cities

Reflecting upon the cases above, a couple of concepts demand clarification.

Collaboration

Collaboration is used often as an equivalent for sharing. This is not necessary true. Collaboration refers to collective action to get things done; sharing usually involves individual action. Collaboration happens in the economic domain – for instance cooperative work, self-managed companies and community currences and in the social domain as well, for instance commoning activities like gardening, cooking, the exploitation of collective housing, community shops and even swimming pools and transport. Apart from the direct benefits of collaboration, its value is also the growth of social capital. As a consequence, collaboration is a necessary extension of the concept of sharing.

Connectivity

Commercial sharing depends heavily from the availability of IT-platforms, think of Airbnb and Uber. But connectivity is also critical for certain social forms ‘sharing’, for instance instaneous mapping of damagein case of earthquakes or flooding in order to support rescuing activities.

Sharing versus smart

Sharing and smart are not equivalents; however accentuating its sharing capacity, might be a way to for smart cities to be more specific about its characteristics. My description of Smart City 3.0 includes many characteristics of the sharing city that are described above.

Amsterdam is profiling itself for some years as a smart city. Recently, the city also embraced the adjectives ‘sharing’ and ‘collaborative’. I doubt the wisdom of this policy. The content of the missions of Amsterdam Smart City and Amsterdam Sharing city do not differ that much. Therefore applying two adjectives is confusing, given that most citizens still have to become acquaintant with the benefits and challenges of living in a smart city. From a communication viewpoint, I would have chosen to clarify being smart with a small number of key words. Sharing might be one of these. My choice of the other ones would have been: citizen-based, inclusive, entrepreneurial, collaborative, sustainable and IT-enabled. Maybe my advise is still useful.

This article was published before in the Smart City Hub

Leave a comment

Filed under Economy, Smart city