Connections between technologies and bodies is not a new thing for many disabled persons. Assistive technologies — tools and products designed to support people with disabilities — have played a part in mitigating built and institutional barriers experienced by disabled persons for decades.

While not strictly considered assistive, immersive and wearable technologies have the potential to change the relationship between disabled users and their experience of place.

For example, Ray-Ban’s Meta glasses use AI to describe what the cameras are capturing using the Be My Eyes app. Using OpenAI’s large language model, ChatGPT, this effectively turns a user’s smartphone into a vision assistant.

Beyond wearables, some technologies are more closely tied to or integrated with the body. Examples include brain-computer interfaces, AI-enabled prosthetics and bone-anchored hearing aids.

The availability and production of environmental data from these technologies may impact how we relate to each other, how we move through and understand space, and how we engage with the physical environment around us at any given moment.

We’re at a critical juncture where AI-enabled technologies used by individuals may profoundly impact our urban futures.

What happens, for example, when wearables make any “place” a digital work or play place? What does a largely private-sector, consumer-driven, AI-enabled digital intervention into a city’s spaces mean for planning, zoning and taxation? What are the environmental costs of the global AI project?

And crucially, who gets to participate in this digital reimagining?

AI and the city

While access can be challenging — wearables are often costly — ableist thinking regarding the use of technology to render invisible Blind and/or Deaf people and culture is also a problem. Some people might naively assume that all Blind and Deaf people are universally seeking a bio-technological “miracle.”

There are also other challenges: how a technology captures or describes its data may not match up to a user’s pre-existing sense of place. Moreover, access to tech can produce some unintended consequences, including the erosion of in-person community building among disabled people.

Hearing loss of some kind affects around 1.5 billion people: I am one of those people. I am a disability studies scholar who wears behind-the-ear hearing aids to augment my hearing experience.

My hearing aids use AI and machine learning to sense and adjust my sound environment. They help me cope with the ways in which the places of my everyday life — such as my home or the lecture hall — are generally configured for people without hearing loss.

When I use my hearing aids, I find that the city has never sounded so wonderful, and yet sometimes irritatingly loud. The sound of birds is one thing; the grinding sound of a breaking subway is another entirely.

Cumulative exposure to noisy indoor and outdoor places of the city poses auditory health risks, such as noise-induced hearing loss or tinnitus, and can contribute to poor health more broadly. I have to be careful about ongoing noise exposure, and by adjusting the volume of my hearing aids, I can turn down the city when I want to.

Future bodies and urban futures

AI-powered technologies can exacerbate issues of access, privilege and freedom of movement. This happens both through who is able to purchase and use devices, as well as through data and their applications. Data may be biased in terms of race, gender, sexuality and disability.

Scientific research and media representations tend to highlight the benevolent possibilities of technologies for “repairing” bodies conceived as being functionally medically deficient.

Much less is said about disabled persons controlling the narrative, taking up key roles in the messy terrain of AI, machine learning and data governance, and in the planning and design of future cities.

Digital modelling

We are also witnessing growing interest in the digital twinning — creating highly accurate digital models — of everything from human hearts to entire cities.

Whether rendered at the scale of the body or city, the motivation for twinning appears centred on planning and performance optimization — a quest for perfection. Like any model, we are dealing with an abstraction from reality. City twins seem to fail to capture many of the fine grain environmental barriers experienced by disabled persons.

Ownership limits

Not everyone can, should or wishes to be technologically “assisted” or augmented. There are medical, identity and culture, affordability, legal, moral and ethical concerns.

Other issues raised by brain-computer interface research, for example, include concerns about legal capacity and ownership of the self, including ownership of device-generated data.

In a study on the impact of neural technologies, researchers shared the legal repercussions relating to two disabled people deprived of voting rights in Spain. The person who recovered the ability to communicate autonomously using their finger and a computer had their rights restored, while the other, who used a human intermediary, did not.

Legal questions also arise regarding how liability is assigned when augmented bodies are injured or cause injuries to others.

Where does the person end and the technology begin, and vice versa? Who gets to decide?

Future technologies

As the use of AI and assistive technologies increases in everyday urban life, we will need to address these questions sooner rather than later.

And if disabled persons are not adequately involved in these discussions and decisions, then cities will be less — rather than more — accessible.

• Ron Buliung is a Professor, Geography and Planning, University of Toronto
• This article first appeared in The Conversation

The post AI-powered assistive technologies are changing how we experience and imagine public space appeared first on Stuff South Africa.

As part of an international project looking at the impact of AI on cities, we recently “broke ground” on a new field of research called AI urbanism. This is different from the concept of a “smart city”. Smart cities gather information from technology, such as sensor systems, and use it to manage operations and run services more smoothly.

AI urbanism represents a new way of shaping and governing cities, by means of artificial intelligence (AI). It departs substantially from contemporary models of urban development and management. While it’s vital that we closely monitor this emerging area, we should also be asking whether we should involve AI so closely in the running of cities in the first place.

The development of AI is intrinsically connected to the development of cities. Everything that city dwellers do teaches AI something precious about our world. The way you drive your car or ride your bike helps train the AI behind an autonomous vehicle in how urban transport systems function.

What you eat and what you buy tells AI systems about your preferences. Multiply these individual records by the billions of people that live in cities, and you will get a feeling for how much data AI can harvest from urban settings.

Predictive policing

Under the traditional concept of smart cities, technologies such as the Internet of Things use connected sensors to observe and quantify what is happening. For example, smart buildings can calculate how much energy we consume and real-time technology can quantify how many people are using a subway at any one time. AI urbanism does not simply quantify, it tells stories, explaining why and how certain events take place.

We are not talking about complex narratives, but even a basic story can have substantial repercussions. Take the AI system developed by US company Palantir, that is already employed in several cities, to predict where crimes will take place and who will be involved.

These predictions may be acted on by police officers in terms of where to assign resources. Predictive policing in general is one of the most controversial powers that artificial intelligences are gaining under AI urbanism: the capacity to determine what is right or wrong, and who is “good” or “bad” in a city.

This is a problem because, as the recent example of ChatGPT has made clear, AI can produce a detailed account, without grasping its meaning. It is an amoral intelligence, in the sense that it is indifferent to questions of right or wrong.

And yet this is exactly the kind of question that we are increasingly delegating to AI in urban governance. This might save our city managers some time, given AI’s extraordinary velocity in analysing large volumes of data, but the price that we are paying in terms of social justice is enormous.

A human problem

Recent studies indicate that AI-made decisions are penalising racial minorities in the fields of housing and real-estate. There is also a substantial environmental cost to bear in mind, since AI technology is energy intensive. It is projected to contribute significantly to carbon emissions from the tech sector in coming decades, and the infrastructure needed to maintain it consumes critical raw materials. AI seems to promise a lot in terms of sustainability), but when we look at its actual costs and applications in cities, the negatives can easily outweigh the positives.

It is not that AI is getting out of control, as we see in sci-fi movies and read in novels. Quite the opposite: we humans are consciously making political decisions that place AI in the position to make decisions about the governance of cities. We are willingly ceding some of our decision-making responsibilities to machines and, in different parts of the world, we can already see the genesis of new cities supposed to be completely operated by AI.

This trend is exemplified by Neom, a colossal project of regional development currently under construction in Saudi Arabia. Neom will feature new urban spaces, including a linear city called The Line, managed by a multitude of AI systems, and it is supposed to become a paragon of urban sustainability. These cities of the future will feature self-driving vehicles transporting people, robots cooking and serving food and algorithms predicting your behaviour to anticipate your needs.

Read More: 1 in 3 people are lonely. Will AI help, or make things worse?

These visions resonate with the concept of the autonomous city which refers to urban spaces where AI autonomously performs social and managerial functions with humans out of the loop.

We need to remember that autonomy is a zero-sum game. As the autonomy of AI grows, ours decreases and the rise of autonomous cities risks severely undermining our role in urban governance. A city run not by humans but by AIs would challenge the autonomy of human stakeholders, as it would also challenge many people’s well-being.

Are you going to qualify for a home mortgage and be able to buy a property to raise a family? Will you be able to secure life insurance? Is your name on a list of suspects that the police are going to target? Today the answers to these questions are already influenced by AI. In the future, should the autonomous city become the dominant reality, AI could become the sole arbiter.

AI needs cities to keep devouring our data. As citizens, it is now time to carefully question the spectre of the autonomous city as part of an expanded public debate, and ask one very simple question: do we really need AI to make our cities sustainable?

• Federico Cugurullo is an Assistant Professor in Smart and Sustainable Urbanism, Trinity College Dublin
• This article first appeared in The Conversation

The post AI could make cities autonomous, but that doesn’t mean we should let it happen appeared first on Stuff South Africa.

Yet, in huddling for safety under our pools of light, we have lost our connection to the night sky. Star counts by public awareness campaign Globe at Night revealed that, between 2011 and 2022, the world’s night sky more than doubled in artificial brightness. Yet local interventions can create meaningful change.

Light pollution is cutting us off from one of nature’s greatest wonders, harming wildlife and blocking research that could help fight climate change. Stars are more than pretty glimmers in the night sky. They have shaped the mythology of every human civilisation. They guide birds on their astonishing migratory journeys. And now we need to do our bit to prevent light pollution so stars can be part of our future.

The human eye can detect around 5,000 stars in the night sky. But the light emitted by skyscrapers, street lamps, and houses obscures all but a handful of the brightest stars.

Our ancestors used the rising and setting of the constellations as calendars. They also navigated by the stars as they searched for new lands or traced nautical trade routes. Sailors don’t normally use the stars to navigate any more, but they are still taught how to, in case their navigation systems break down.

Migratory animals, including birds and insects, are drawn away from their natural flight paths by the beckoning “sky glow” of cities. In the summer of 2019, Las Vegas was invaded by millions of migrating grasshoppers, while the beams of New York’s 9/11 Tribute in Light are a magnet for flocks of migrating songbirds flying at night.

Disoriented by the bright city lights, birds crash into towering skyscrapers. Insect numbers are collapsing worldwide and light pollution is making matters worse by disrupting their nocturnal life cycles.

What is light pollution

Light pollution is caused by the same physics that turns the sky blue during the day. Sunlight is made up of all the colours of the rainbow and each colour has a different wavelength. The air that surrounds us is composed of tiny particles (such as oxygen and carbon dioxide molecules).

As light from the Sun makes its way through the air, it is scattered by these particles in random directions. Blue light (with shorter wavelengths) is scattered more than red light (which has longer wavelengths). As a result, our eyes receive more blue light from every direction in the sky.

At night, light scattered by the same air particles causes the sky to shine down on us. A small fraction of this sky glow is caused by natural sources, such as starlight and the Earth’s atmosphere. But most of the light that creates sky glow is artificial.

Light pollution also affects our ability to study the universe. Even modern observatories, built on remote mountaintops, are affected by the encroaching sky glow from growing, sprawling cities. Light pollution is so widespread that three quarters of all observatories are affected.

Looking up

There is no reason to despair, though. We created light pollution; we can fix it.

Around the world, dark sky associations are working to educate the public about the hazards of light pollution, to lobby for legislation to protect dark sky reserves and encourage people to reignite their connection with dark, star-studded skies.

Fighting light pollution begins at home. If you need to keep outside lights on for security, use shielded lamps that only shine downwards. Use light bulbs that do not emit violet and blue light as this is harmful to wildlife. Smart lighting controls will also help reduce your house’s effect on wildlife and make it easier for you to observe the night sky.

You will also find interactive maps that show how polluted the skies are in your area. These maps are created from data gathered by satellites and by citizen scientists taking part in annual star counts. You can help darken our skies, too.

In the UK, the 2023 annual star count will take place on February 17-24. And, wherever you are in the world, you can always take part in the year-long Globe at Night star count whenever you want.

The task is simple: step outside on a clear night, count how many stars you can see in a well-known constellation, such as Orion, and report back.

To defeat light pollution, we need to know how severe it is and what difference national policies and local interventions (such as replacing the street lights in your town) make. In the UK, for example, star counts show light pollution may have peaked in 2020 and has started to decline.

Perhaps the most important aspect of star counts is that they shine a light on our vanishing night skies and galvanize us to take action. Ultimately, it’s up to each and every one of us to reduce our effect on the sky, by changing the way we light our homes and neighbourhoods and by lobbying our representatives to pass dark sky legislation.

• Or Graur is a Reader in Astrophysics, University of Portsmouth
• This article first appeared on The Conversation

The post Light pollution has cut humanity’s ancient connection with the stars – but we can restore it appeared first on Stuff South Africa.

The introduction of these aerial craft into cities will require the built environment to change dramatically. Drones and other new aerial vehicles will require landing pads, charging points, and drone ports. They could usher in new styles of building, and lead to more sustainable design.

My research explores the impact of aerial vehicles on urban design, mapping out possible future trajectories.

An aerial age

Already, civilian drones can vary widely in size and complexity. They can carry a range of items from high resolution cameras, delivery mechanisms and thermal image technology to speakers and scanners. In the public sector, drones are used in disaster response and by the fire service to tackle fires which could endanger firefighters.

During the coronavirus pandemic, drones have been used by the police to enforce lockdown. Drones normally used in agriculture have sprayed disinfectant over cities. In the UK, drone delivery trials are taking place to carry medical items to the Isle of Wight.

Alongside drones, our future cities could also be populated by vertical takeoff and landing craft (VTOL), used as private vehicles and air taxis.

These vehicles are familiar to sci-fi fans – the late Syd Mead’s  illustrations of the Spinner VTOL craft in the film Blade Runner captured the popular imagination, and the screens for the Spinners in Blade Runner 2049 created by Territory Studio provided a careful design fiction of the experience of piloting these types of vehicle.

Now, though, these flying vehicles are reality. A number of companies are developing eVTOL with electric multi-rotor jets, and a whole new motorsport is being established around them.

These aircraft have the potential to change our cities. However, they need to be tested extensively in urban airspace. A study conducted by Airbus found that public concerns about VTOL use focused on the safety of those on the ground and noise emissions.

New cities

The widespread adoption of drones and VTOL will lead to new architecture and infrastructure. Existing buildings will require adaptations: landing pads, solar photovoltaic panels for energy efficiency, charging points for delivery drones, and landscaping to mitigate noise emissions.

A number of companies are already trialling drone delivery services. Existing buildings will need to be adapted to accommodate these new networks, and new design principles will have to be implemented in future ones.

The architect Saúl Ajuria Fernández has developed a design for a delivery drone port hub. This drone port acts like a beehive where drones recharge and collect parcels for distribution. Architectural firm Humphreys & Partners’ Pier 2, a design for a modular apartment building of the future, includes a cantilevered drone port for delivery services.

The Norman Foster Foundation has designed a drone port for delivery of medical supplies and other items for rural communities in Rwanda. The structure is also intended to function as a space for the public to congregate, as well as to receive training in robotics.

Drones may also help the urban environment become more sustainable. Researchers at the University of Stuttgart have developed a re-configurable architectural roof canopy system deployed by drones. By adjusting to follow the direction of the sun, the canopy provides shade and reduces reliance on ventilation systems.

Demand for air taxis and personal flying vehicles will develop where failures in other transport systems take place. The Airbus research found that of the cities surveyed, highest demand for VTOLs was in Los Angeles and Mexico City, urban areas famous for traffic pollution. To accommodate these aerial vehicles, urban space will need to transform to include landing pads, airport-like infrastructure and recharge points.

Furthermore, this whole logistics system in lower airspace (below 500ft), or what I term “hover space”, will need an urban traffic management system. One great example of how this hover space could work can be seen in a speculative project from design studio Superflux in their Drone Aviary project. A number of drones with different functions move around an urban area in a network, following different paths at varying heights.

We are at a critical period in urban history, faced by climatic breakdown and pandemic. Drones and aerial vehicles can be part of a profound rethink of the urban environment.

• Paul Cureton is Senior Lecturer in Design (People, Places, Products), Lancaster University
• This article first appeared on The Conversation

The post How drones and aerial vehicles could change cities appeared first on Stuff South Africa.

The vision of autonomous traffic is either of a large convoy of vehicles just a metre apart moving along road corridors at 100km/h, or of vehicles in an urban setting where their sensors are picking up every pedestrian movement and slowing or stopping. In the first case, the vehicles form an impenetrable barrier to pedestrians or cyclists (who, like on a freeway, will probably be banned). In the second case, pedestrians and cyclists are able to ruin traffic flow and are likely to just take over streets.

It occurs to me this is a really good thing for our cities. I worried that the vision some had (mostly car makers, I suspect) was of a city completely taken over by self-driving vehicles.

All public transport would be gone as thousands of these vehicles scattered along every street looking for on-demand passengers. Historic centres and tram corridors would be ruined and we would no longer be able to appreciate their walkable character.

However, we may instead be able to take the best features of autonomous mobility technology to create cities that are more productive, liveable, inclusive and sustainable.

How would we do this?

The first thing is to realise that for 20-30 years cities around the world have been getting rid of cars in their centres and subcentres, drawing on the ideas of urban designers like Jan Gehl. This trend includes Australian cities. These centres are where the knowledge economy workers who drive innovation want to live and work.

Cities are not going to easily give up their cherished walkability to thousands of self-driving vehicles. Cities mostly are planning more walkable centres with even more public transport and fewer cars; they are unlikely to yield to autonomous vehicle ideology.

It’s more likely cities will ban self-driving vehicles from these centres, with just one small entry and exit point to enable vehicle access. Cities will not want to kill off the economic and social golden goose of walkable centres, let alone abandon climate change plans to reduce car use.

The second thing is that these active walkable centres are being heavily supported by quality public transport. Fortunately, autonomous technology is also being applied to transit services such as the trackless tram. These are guided but not driverless, like high-speed rail and metros, as they need drivers at times.

Not only could autonomous technology improve transit services, it could also take over some major road corridors that are failing at peak times. This could create an alternative rapid transit route carrying the equivalent of six to eight lanes of traffic.

The ‘movement and place’ approach

Around the world and in Australia, cities are looking to make roads into combined “movement and place” sites – some places will remain highly walkable and some will be just for movement but special corridors will be for both so theykeep people and goods moving and are places for people to live, work and enjoy. This approach gives priority to fast public transport using light rail or trackless trams combined with higher-density development around their stations.

The big issue on such corridors is how to get rid of cars so mass transit services have a fast, free lane to travel along as well as walkable station precincts to enter. Such a system would be much more efficient in traffic terms, but car users don’t easily give up their right to space.

However, the inherent problem with self-driving vehicles is that they will make a corridor impenetrable and travel through a dense precinct ridiculously slow and unpredictable. The politics will therefore shift towards a fast transit corridor along main roads together with walkable, car-free station precincts.

Self-driving cars can help make the fast corridor work as they are ideal for bringing on-demand passengers to the precincts where people can access local services and transfer to the fast transit line. This integrated service enables the best of both mobility solutions: fast and effective access, without destroying either the corridor or centres, and an on-demand local service as shown below.

Each centre will have micro-mobility options feeding into the transit system and the station precinct services. These options will provide “first mile-last mile” connectivity on demand. They include walking, electric bikes, scooters, skateboards and autonomous shuttles or cars that travel to and from the centre along a specific isolated route.

Certain main roads would have to be declared as clearways for autonomous electric transit, with a set of stations serving high-density centres for urban regeneration. Autonomous vehicles could reign supreme out in the suburbs that were built around the car, but would not interfere with existing or new transit corridors as well as the historic and new centres where pedestrians would reign supreme. Such is the vision of the City of Liverpool for a trackless tram route to Western Sydney Airport.

This vision is not anti-autonomous vehicles. It is enabling innovations to serve us rather than being our master. We cannot simply give up our cities to cars just when we are learning to overcome such dependence.

To make the most of autonomous vehicles’ advantages and avoid the disadvantages, we must choose to shape our cities. Autonomous transit services with feed-in autonomous cars and micro-mobility can achieve the walkability and civility we need for a good city in the future.

• Peter Newman is Professor of Sustainability, Curtin University
• This article first appeared on The Conversation

The post Driverless vehicles and pedestrians don’t mix. So how do we re-arrange our cities? appeared first on Stuff South Africa.

Urban planners, technology companies and developers are increasingly looking for ways to improve our lives and make our systems more efficient. If we continue to live as we have, polluting and making our air increasingly toxic, we may have to develop solutions like indoor tracks for dog-walking, à la the Jetsons. But is that what we aspire to become?

Utopian purpose

Utopias are imagined as an ideal place or community. This is a difficult goal to achieve as evidenced by initiatives such as Brasília, Levittown, Celebration, Songdo, Eko-Atlantic and Sidewalk Labs Toronto.

We haven’t figured out how to make utopian environments work for people. We have a long road ahead to make improvements that will both preserve the environment and improve our quality of life.

In his forthcoming book chapter in Innovative Solutions for Creating Sustainable Cities(Cambridge Scholars, UK), intelligent community expert John Jung explains that utopian initiatives are diverting our attention away from the challenges of urbanization, such as poverty and housing security.

Utopian design attempts

Utopian projects have faced much criticism, including not being able to scale up. Some pilot projects have been reported as inauthentic, as untrustworthy or flawed in design. True solutions need a community-engaged design process that promotes inclusion and avoids elitism or exacerbating existing problems.

At the turn of the 20th century, the Garden City Movement, attempted to develop a utopian social ecosystem where people and nature would coexist in harmony. This influenced suburban planning, which deliberately left space for parks, farms and other green spaces.

Later, Frank Lloyd Wright’s vision of Broadacre City proposed that we use technological tools to better our lives, diversify land use, integrate organic architecture and innovative neighbourhoods. These ideas gave rise to popular new systems such as the gig economy, innovative work environments, sustainable mobility options and green buildings.

Brasília: Promoting sprawl

Among the early examples of utopian cities in the digital era there is the uniquely-planned city of Brasília, now a designated UNESCO world heritage site, developed as a political effort to bring a vast new country together. Modern government structures and highways were designed to efficiently move automobiles and people around the capital. However, post-construction literature suggests that the design failed due to lack of accessible and affordable housing for its workers and flawed execution, which among other things promoted sprawl.

Modern suburbia

Levittown, Reston and Celebration were all privately funded modern suburban developments in the U.S. The developments had noble intent and showcased the efficiencies of prefabrication, but they were also judged to have significant faults, including “exclusion, segregation and persecution.”

Smart city Songdo

Songdo, in South Korea, is touted by some as the perfect example of a smart sustainable city. Every aspect of life is controlled by networked computers from climate control to communications. Yet it is having difficulty attracting businesses and residents. Designed for 300,000, only a third of the residential development is occupied, and there are very few businesses. However, Songdo has also been called a lonely city and a transparent city where it is difficult to get to know neighbours and too much communication is happening on the internet.

Eko-Atlantic: Devastating floods

Eko-Atlantic and Smart City Lagos in Nigeria is a six-million square metre waterfront reclamation project with a vision to become Africa’s financial centre. The development is expected to house a population of 250,000 inhabitants and another 150,000 commuters. According to its critics, the project has lacked transparency and has largely built housing for the wealthy. Its most significant flaw, the breakwater, proposed to withstand winds and waves from the Atlantic Ocean, has since pushed waves into neighbouring parts of Lagos, resulting in deadly floods.

Sidewalk Toronto: Data and privacy concerns

Sidewalk Toronto, a project of Alphabet (Google), is planning to install various technologies to enhance efficiency and quality of life in a new waterfront neighbourhood. Extensive amounts of data will inform city planning and development processes, but the proposed collection and use of data is at issue. Critics claim that the original agreement between Waterfront Toronto and Sidewalk Labs has been too vague, especially in creating a precedent-setting framework around the use, ownership and application of the data. The lessons coming out of this project will benefit many other cities, but the pushback by local citizens to the data privacy concerns are very real and need to be resolved.

Intelligent communities

Urban areas need to plan intelligently for the use of smart devices, leadership in social and disruptive innovations and change management processes. It is important to note that future visions of modern society need increasing amounts of broadband to be deployed equitably.

Solutions that are holistic, that engage people and are sustainable economically, environmentally, socially, culturally and ethically. We need to find urban designs that work for existing neighbourhoods, infilling so that cities are financially sustainable and provide sustainable mobility systems and more green space. At the same, our cities need to provide opportunities for greater self sufficiency and self-management practices, such as growing food and generating energy.

The better cities of the future may not be utopian, but they need to be intelligent designs achieved through collaboration and inclusion to address cultural and technological change.

This article is based on a chapter by John Jung in the forthcoming book, Innovative Solutions for Creating Sustainable Cities (Cambridge Scholars), edited by Sylvie Albert.

• Sylvie Albert is Professor, Faculty of Business & Economics, University of Winnipeg
• This article first appeared on The Conversation

The post Smart cities: The promises and failures of utopian technological planning appeared first on Stuff South Africa.

The process of 3D printing layers materials to create three-dimensional objects using digital equipment. Local makers are given access to fabrication labs equipped with technology to learn and this incubation environment can develop future entrepreneurs.

The fabrication city model emerged around 2011, developed by the MIT’s Centre for Bits and Atoms and by over 1,000 Maker Centres that give local makers access to 3D printing and other production tools. There are also neighbourhoods and city clusters that facilitate the maker movement.

There are opportunities for individuals and groups to create and market products from used or new materials using a digital device and additive technology. By facilitating these activities, cities can radically transform the way production and consumption happens within their region. Interconnecting people and processes to create local and regional inclusive innovation and economic growth while also reducing environmental impacts. What might we re-use if we practice more inclusive innovation and how might we change the local economy if we support local sourcing?

Printing the future

In our upcoming book, Innovative Solutions for Creating Sustainable Cities, the fabrication city section explains that going forward, we cannot follow the same principles as before by moving materials — or focus on the pursuit of efficiency (less investment of capital, energy, resources) for the maximization of outputs.

Instead, we must radically redefine urbanism by changing how we produce, consume and live in cities so they can digest locally the waste they produce. Just as the digital economy is making platforms available for anyone to sell globally, new technologies such as additive manufacturing are allowing us to rethink where and how we make things.

The use of 3D printing is already transforming many conventional industries. For example, GE is able to replace a third of the parts on an aircraft engine using 3D printing and by fusing materials together they can reduce the overall number of parts. Honda created an electric vehicle entirely from 3D-printed segments. On-demand printed cars may be just around the corner. Even homes are being 3D printed at highly reasonable costs these days — although a bit rudimentary, the output can only get better.

This manufacturing revolution will have substantial implications, providing cities and local entrepreneurs with the opportunity to mass customize and produce for just-in-time delivery. It will reduce transportation and waste and thus help to minimize emissions. It may also reduce the overall cost for consumers while increasing local jobs.

Rethinking local production

Imagine cities equipped with flexible factories using local supply chains and locally sourced materials. These fabrication sites use waste materials, disassembled components and other sources to manufacture products digitally and customised for citizens. From prosthetic limbs to plastic waste used to create seating in city parks, to yes, a fridge, there are an increasing number of products being manufactured by local entrepreneurs.

Industrial manufacturing has begun this transition from degenerative to regenerative design (these are processes that restore and renew sources of energy and materials), also known as the circular economy. Waste, for example, is recirculated and fabricated to meet new needs such as energy production.

The fabrication city concept meets social, economic, governance and sustainable development goals. This is a tremendous incentive for cities to engage and establish new urban systems that are regenerative and restorative by design. The Fab City Global Initiative, begun in 2016, includes 27 participating municipalities and governments, among them Detroit, Amsterdam, Bhutan, Shenzhen, Ekurhuleni, Santiago de Chile, Boston and Paris.

There is a rich network of designers, makers and innovators from a wide range of sectors contributing to developments in consumer goods, energy, food production, health products and more. It is not hard to conceive that bulky products such as cars or fridges that are expensive to ship and warehouse could, in the future, be manufactured on demand locally.

Barcelona is perhaps the most easily recognized fabrication environment. Already, a significant amount of food, materials and products are no longer manufactured thousands of kilometres away — they are conceived, designed and grown within the urban boundaries.

Fabrication cities can differentiate themselves through design. They create a unique ecosystem that attracts innovative people and organisations, which allows cities to diversify and offer an unparalleled quality of life. Fabrication cities are a powerful game changer in the way that we make and dispose of everything we consume.

This article is based on a chapter by Tomas Diez, Jeremy Millard, Massimo Menichinelli and Marie Nicole Sorivelle in the forthcoming book, Innovative Solutions for Creating Sustainable Cities (Cambridge Scholars), edited by Sylvie Albert.

• Sylvie Albert is Professor, Faculty of Business & Economics, University of Winnipeg
• Jeremy Millard is Visiting Senior Research Fellow, University of Bradford
• Tomas Diez is Director at Fab Lab Barcelona
• This article first appeared on The Conversation

The post Print your city? 3D printing is revolutionizing urban futures appeared first on Stuff South Africa.