Vienna

“Hot or Not” for Cities

MIT from aboveMIT is full of cool labs.  SENSEable City Lab brought us the Copenhagen Wheel.  Now the Media Lab brings Place Pulse – an ongoing project to identify society’s perception of the safest, most affluent, and most unique places. The website is the front end of an impressive back end algorithm.  Geo-tagged photos of particular city scapes are presented to visitors of the site in pairs.  Users are asked to click which place looks safer, more unique, or more upper-class.  The algorithm uses the resulting binary data to classify places into these three categories.

That may not seem impressive, but check out the results.  Among all cities surveyed (Boston, New York, Vienna, Salzberg, and Linz), Boston and New York have the most unsafe-looking places, while the Austrian cities have the top 10 safe-looking places.  Just quickly looking at the photos categorized this way provides amazing insight into particular characteristics that draw people to, or send them running from, a public place. A sense of enclosure, vegetation, street-level retail, and other human beings are common characteristics among the safe-looking places.

As the developers note, these associations become even more powerful when mapped and correlated with other characteristics of their surrounding neighborhood or community.  These visualizations are not on the website, but will be published eventually along with a fully-featured, interactive website allowing anyone to participate in or create their own study.  If you’re in Austria, you should check out the exhibit in the meantime.

 

“Hot or Not” for Cities

MIT from aboveMIT is full of cool labs.  SENSEable City Lab brought us the Copenhagen Wheel.  Now the Media Lab brings Place Pulse – an ongoing project to identify society’s perception of the safest, most affluent, and most unique places. The website is the front end of an impressive back end algorithm.  Geo-tagged photos of particular city scapes are presented to visitors of the site in pairs.  Users are asked to click which place looks safer, more unique, or more upper-class.  The algorithm uses the resulting binary data to classify places into these three categories.

That may not seem impressive, but check out the results.  Among all cities surveyed (Boston, New York, Vienna, Salzberg, and Linz), Boston and New York have the most unsafe-looking places, while the Austrian cities have the top 10 safe-looking places.  Just quickly looking at the photos categorized this way provides amazing insight into particular characteristics that draw people to, or send them running from, a public place. A sense of enclosure, vegetation, street-level retail, and other human beings are common characteristics among the safe-looking places.

As the developers note, these associations become even more powerful when mapped and correlated with other characteristics of their surrounding neighborhood or community.  These visualizations are not on the website, but will be published eventually along with a fully-featured, interactive website allowing anyone to participate in or create their own study.  If you’re in Austria, you should check out the exhibit in the meantime.

 

The Case of Tourism and Roaming

In our Handbook on innovation in services and mobility in cities, we published comparative data on the cost and impact of digital vs paper tourist maps. One of our conclusions is that digital mobility costs 1,011x more than paper maps. The updated table below, reflecting the latest available data on global tourism in cities (2008), shows the scale of the burden roaming poses on cities. Table taken from "Connected Cities: Your 256 Billion Euro Dividend"

Our data shows that, as an example, the 15 million international tourists visiting London in 2008 would have had to pay a total of EUR 102 billion in roaming charges to access the 22 million paper maps they collected that year. This is about 5x the total spending of tourists in London per year. Yet, the paper maps resource consumption constituted the equivalent of 19,000 trees - never mind the burden on dealing with the 1,600 hectares of discarded paper to the recycling systems.

But these numbers are fictional, since no tourist coughs up the EUR 4,550 per visit that these numbers imply. instead, visitors chose to disable data services and roaming, pick up a free paper map (subsidized by the local tourist industry), continuing to make use of all its functions: scribbling, asking for directions, sharing & tearing, and tracing their route. All that at a cost of zero Euros.

What then, has to change? In our book we argue that we need to fundamentally change the way we organise the cost of digital services in cities, eliminating roaming whilst adding significant commercial upsides to the operators to the tune of EUR 2 billion per year. Roaming is about 182x as costly as local data tariffs on prepaid plans, meaning that London could replace its paper maps for about EUR 560 million - or a mere 2.8% of tourist expenditure. These numbers do not take into account the efficiency gains in bulk-costs and data consumption by reversing our business models, which would reduce costs to around 1.4% of spending and could make London (or any other city choosing to become the first to tackle this issue) the first roaming-free tourist destination in the world.

Who would finance this? How about those that pay for the maps already dedicating a small percentage of their revenue instead to making theirs the most innovative and attractive tourist destination in the world...