HKIUD Public Affairs Committee’s Comments on the EKEO’s Feasibility Study of Developing Kowloon East into a Smart City – Stage 1 Public Engagement

1. Whilst we support the initiatives of smart cities in general, it is subject to debate whether it is the means or is it the end in itself, and whether taking East Kowloon district for study could demonstrate what it is like for other older urban areas and the whole city of HongOn the first question, use of ICT, GPS, CCTV, traffic detectors, sensors, RFID, UAVs etc. and all sorts of mobile devices can already do many things these days and handle a lot of data. The project should not be technically biased and without being sufficiently people oriented.
2. Some values which urban designers, planners and the people cherish are qualitative and difficult to define. As the Introduction in the PE pamphlet also says : there is “no universal definition of what is a smart city …”. However, we do share the Key Elements in Chapter 02 about a city, be it smart or traditional, in the importance of “Green Environment and Resilience, Public Engagement, Efficient Services, Resource Optimisation, Social Inclusion, Mobility and Collaboration.”
3. HKIUD members comprise professionals in several planning and development related disciplines. Good urban design is considered as the provision of sustainable and quality places for people, business and the city, making it vibrant and interesting, organic and adaptable, healthy and safe, connected and integrated, diverse and sociable, convenient and comfortable, valuable yet low maintenance, as well as green and sustainable, and respectful of heritage by combining old and new. Thus, we have many aspects in common with the pursuit of this Study.
4. To build a smart city we should build upfront a system that is smart and intelligent, that can adapt and guide changes in future with the accumulation of more and more information and feedback, rather than to build everything as fixed upfront, however futuristic looking it mayA system is only smart if it has learning capacity and can combine new technology with new ways of thinking about technologies’ role in the urban development process and people’s livelihood in a holistic manner. Designs and planning should be able to bring about positive changes in users’ behaviour to become smarter in future.
5. Nowadays, in fact even the business sector and utility service providers, not just governments, are applying or developing “smart city” technology, to improve their services andAs far as government is concerned, probably the more relevant ones include public transport and traffic management, energy, health care, water supply, waste management and smart government buildings and smart public housing. There is a need for a platform whereby users of private sector services could also be coordinated and integrated in a smart city system. Ultimately, the system should be able to provide citizens with information about both public and private services seamlessly, and could thereby also help the governance in such aspects as crime prevention, facility management, disaster prevention, etc.
6. Findings from the Study should be used with caution since the Study area is just a part of the city. Although it is said that the Study area has the following issues of mixed landuses and ownership, traffic congestion; crowded pedestrian environment; environmental quality, these issues are relatively minor compared to the whole city and older urban areas where the environmental problems are more acute.
7. Analyses of a collection of data and the opinions of participants gathered from questionnaire surveys and from the internet and APPs may also not necessarily be able to point to the way forward, since their behaviours and feedbacks may be shaped by their experience within existing restrictions and even simply personal bias.
8. Besides, if the main objective is to find the most economical ways in handling the urban issues just from the service provider’s point of view, there is a possibility of stereotyping designs thus limiting people’s choices and stifling organic changes and variations which often add vibrancy and interest to the townscape. It is noted that the core of the framework would “… place particular emphasis on people as foundation. By creating a platform, promoting innovation, converging people for interaction and collaboration to foster development and implementation of various smart city initiatives … ”.
9. However, despite the above precautions our response to the Study to test the concept of smart city is still positive at least in respect of the emphasis given to promotion of walkability, improvement to the energy efficiency of buildings and the intention to “ride on” with various ongoing initiatives such as “wi-fi infrastructure”, internet; centralised digital infrastructure and opening various data for sharing.
10. It is noted with interest that the document states that “The core of our framework places particular emphasis on people as foundation. By creating a platform promoting innovation, converging people for interaction and collaboration to foster development and implementation of various smart city initiatives.” However, it is unclear how this platform would be established. It is also not known how the above can lead to co-creation, knowledge drive, .. cross sector collaboration and how to crystallise the contributions made by the community in the public engagement to arrive at “New implementation models”.
11. However, despite the above precautions our response to the Study to test the concept of smart city is still positive at least in respect of the emphasis given to promotion of walkability, improvement to the energy efficiency of buildings and the intention to “ride on” with various ongoing initiatives such as “wi-fi infrastructure”, internet; centralised digital infrastructure and opening various data for sharing. We look forward to further participating in the next stage of public engagement soon.

Public Affairs Committee of

The Hong Kong Institute of Urban Design

January 2017