Mediatropolis
Posted on October 7, 2011 | posted by:
If success in urban planning was measured by impact, advances in technology, such as electricity, plumbing, and transportation, are arguably the most successful urban planning initiatives of our time. Technologists like John Thackara argue that the same will be said of advances in digital technology. However, like the automobile, access and acceptance of technology are two pivotal factors in determining the integration of these communication mediums into urban planning discourse.
In his book, “In the Bubble,” John Thackara tells us “Urban planners need to pay as much attention to social networks as soft infrastructure as they do now to the hard infrastructure of roads and railways.” While this may be true to a certain extent, radically shifting methods of public engagement to a purely digital medium would be a catastrophic failure. The issue lies not with the inabilities of urban planners, architects, and landscape architects to engage the public through digital means, but rather with the public’s adoption of these technologies at this time. In a study conducted by Ignite Social Media in 2011, the dominant age groups using Facebook were those in the 25-34 and 45-54 age ranges. Significantly less people in the age ranges of 55-64, and 64+ are using the technology. If urban planners were to radically change their methods of engagement to favor emerging technologies such as Facebook, public engagement would then be shaped by the age ranges whom dominant Facebook’s user composition.
Using the automobile as an example, if urban planners were to act based on anticipating technology outcomes as opposed to reactive methods, the United States would have struggled to justify, fund, and build highways at a time when the automobile was an emerging technology in the late 1800’s, both in sophistication and adaptation. The same can be said for Facebook and other social media platforms: if cities were designed to promote and integrate current social media technologies into the public realm, our public spaces would serve a select demographic and risk being antiquated when these technologies reach a certain level of sophistication. Transitioning from current paradigms to digital ones will take time, and patience from policy shapers and urban planners.
While many of Thackara’s cited examples of programs promoting the integration of social media into urban planning discourse are no longer in existence, other websites and services have emerged to begin bridging the gap between current practices and the future integration of digital technologies into shaping cities. OpenPlans.org, for example, is a non-profit organization whose aim is to create a more transparent resource for public agencies’ data. This methodology invites a more open and engaging public process for city planning, however, the site’s success is dependent on access to its resources, through available and affordable Internet, and adaptation, a willing public to use it as a platform to engage their city’s planning process.
In short, like all technologies before it, digital technologies such as geolocation devices, augmented reality software, and communication tools, share more in common with previous technologies than they appear. Access to these technologies is not universal, both in availability and quality, and this issue is one resonant with all emerging technologies. The adoption of these technologies is also an issue, and changing cultural preferences is seldom an easy task. However, technology is persistent, driven by our need to create and shape the world around us. The Internet, one of the most rapidly evolving technologies ever created, will likely not fall short of this notion, and engulf urban planning practices, in time.
Sources:
John Thackara, “In the Bubble”