Smart e-Cities in Australia?

Strategies and Policies

Most of the major cities (not necessarily e-Cities) in Australia are ‘planned cities’ and have benefited from comprehensive planning to layout the city in ways that are still relevant today.

For example, Adelaide’s , often praised, four-square layout, Melbourne’s central grid layout (largely outgrown – but still defining the CBD area), and the national capital, Canberra – an entirely new city started in 1908, heavily influenced by the city garden movement, and laid out in a radial hub and spoke pattern by the Chicago architect Burley Griffin.

In more recent times the rapid development of Gold Coast City (Australia’s fastest growing city) has perhaps more in common with Dubai than its Australian sister cities. Australia has an exceptionally modern urban infrastructure, which has largely been unfettered by the need for preservation or land shortage. As a result, it is not uncommon for a building of 20 years of age (or less) being torn down as part of an urban renewal program. This modern urban infrastructure is an ideal base for the e-City.

However, it has resulted in considerable urban sprawl along the main arterial routes , e.g. the Pacific Highway. Which is an inducement for the development of mini e-Cities as the suburbs grow.

It is important, therefore, to understand that unlike more traditional urban environments in Europe – the latest design features are constantly being deployed on large urban regeneration projects and the resultant urban landscape generally embodies the latest thinking in urban planning, i.e. today's - e-Cities.

This coupled with the very high level of urbanization in Australia make totally new smart e-Cities something of an irrelevance – though there is considerable opportunity to do so. e-Cities are growing organically in many parts of Australia.

The most likely Australian e-City development scenario is the ongoing development of key ‘growth poles’ such that adjacent cities effectively ‘join up’ in a planned fashion (rather than unplanned fashion such as in London and other major conurbations worldwide). This can be seen in the growth of the Gold Coast City and Brisbane’s outer suburbs and the planned development of the Pacific Innovation Corridor PIC. In addition, entirely new e-Cities can be risky ventures as one of Australia’s more recent and much publicized attempts at creating a new e-City or smart city indicates.

Such was the case with the Multi-Function Polis MFP first proposed in 1987 – to build a new technology city (effectively an e-City) with a population of 100,000.

First mooted for the State of Queensland in 1990 – in what is now known as the innovation corridor connecting the Queensland’s State capital Brisbane with its fastest growing city – Gold Coast City, more often referred to as ‘Surfers Paradise’, which was subsequently taken up by the State of South Australia (North of Adelaide – the State capital) following months of interstate rivalry and procrastination.

The MFP was to contain all the normal components of a modern smart technology based e-City – modern communications system, futuristic villages containing housing, education, employment (high tech. companies) and recreation.

The MFP was cited as the means to promote international exchange within the region and a model for new industries and new lifestyles for the 21st Century.

The e-City project was a joint collaboration between the Japanese and Australian governments with considerable investment by the Japanese government and private investors.

Bedeviled by political problems from the start and a lack of inward investment – the Australian Federal government withdrew funding in 1996 and officially announced the cancellation of the e-City project in 1998 – ending one of the most internationally embarrassing developments in Australia’s history.

Unlike Europe, Australian cities are becoming smart organically as they undergo ongoing extension and redevelopment to accommodate rapid population growth – encouraged by government immigration policy designed to attract skilled and well educated immigrants - knowledge workers.

Given that many Australian cities already meet Richard Florida’s three T criteria (test) – Technology, Talent and Tolerance for the development of the ‘creative class’ essential to the development of the knowledge economy the Federal government is looking to move to the next level of Technology based infrastructure that underpins the smart e-City, e.g. super fast broadband, commercially feasible smart utility grids and enabling robust teleworking.

The Federal government is encouraging the development of an integrated approach (with the Private Sector) to provide the infrastructure for Australian e-City development to further advance – smart transport, water, electricity and of course the fourth utility – smart high speed broadband, in a way that is sustainable, climate friendly way, i.e. minimizing the carbon footprint and complies with the government’s green agenda.

In common with other countries, Australia’s current administration (Rudd) is banking on financial stimulus to fund these developments as the means to emerge from the financial downturn in a better position to compete internationally in the knowledge economy in general and green technologies in particular, based on its domestic development of the urban infrastructure for the home and e-City.

This is spawning the development of such key components as the National Broadband Network NBN , smart transport, green IT, video conferencing (dematerialization, e.g. teleworking – is an important constituent in a country the size of Australia), smart and non-fossil fuel transport systems, cloud computing and the smart utility (water and electricity) grid – with Australian Universities and Public Research centers in all States being proactively involved.

Universities, themselves, are increasingly becoming mini ‘smart e-Cities’ in their own right and are acting as a growth pole for natural clusters to develop around them.

Ironically, variations in State policy and interstate rivalry have also assisted, rather than impeded such cluster developments in some cases. For example, the clustering of the gambling industry in Northern NSW resulting from the ban on gambling in Queensland.

One key stakeholder in this is thus the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts DEWHA (a strange portfolio mix) with its commensurate interest in renewable energy .

For example, the DEWHA in conjunction with the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, and the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism DRET recently (May 2009) committed $100 million to develop the Smart Grid, Smart City demonstration project in partnership with the energy sector.

The initiative will support the installation of Australia's first commercial-scale smart grid system (possibly the first commercial scale development of its type in the world). Smart grids combine advanced communication, sensing and metering infrastructure with existing energy networks.

This enables a combination of applications that can deliver a more efficient, robust and consumer-friendly electricity network to the e-City and its rural cousins.

Smart grid infrastructure uses sensors, meters, digital devices and analytic tools to automate monitor and control the two-way flow (current systems are one-way) of energy from power plant to plug, integrating energy sources – solar, wind and conventional into the grid, optimized distribution and managed demand, e.g. off-peak use and storage of electricity, etc.

The Federal government has clearly placed Smart grids, with their potential to transform the way Australians use energy in their cities, homes and businesses, at the forefront of its green sustainable living agenda and its commitment to reduce Australia’s carbon footprint.

A smart grid can identify and resolve faults on the electricity grid, automatically self-heal, manage voltage and identify infrastructure that requires maintenance.

Smart grids can also help consumers manage their individual electricity consumption and enable the use of energy efficient 'smart appliances' that can be programmed to run on off-peak power. Experience gained here will clearly transfer to other smart grids – water and transport (particularly electric cars), all of which are predicted to dramatically change the world and city living within the next five years .

Development of e-Cities is likely to continue along this rather fragmented path – driven and influenced by the dual need for environmentally sustainable city development and the ambition to capture a sliver of the $ multi-billion global clean energy marketplace in the short five year window of opportunity that exists, spurred on by rapid clean energy development in the Asia Pacific region, e.g. China , Korea and Japan.

Challenges

Without these nationally funded developments there is the possibility that States and Municipalities will attempt to go it alone. Whilst there is no limit to the innovation and general capability within the States themselves there is the danger of duplication, inadequate funding, patchy development, inconsistent standards, etc.

National infrastructure developments need to be just that – National, with solid State and Municipal backing if it is to succeed. Australia’s early development history which saw incompatible standards in the rail network limit interstate and international commerce to this day must not be repeated.

Interstate and municipal rivalry and other factors has also lead to a fragmentation of the commercial landscape – making some cities, like Sydney – ‘headquarter cities’ and home to the vast majority of multinationals (due primarily to its predominant financial sector). This can have an adverse affect on the development of other cities.

Within States too, the predominance of State capitals can lead to the virtual starvation of some deserving Municipal initiatives.

The Queensland State government ban on gambling led to a funds flow into the neighboring State of New South Wales and the disproportionate development of Australia’s largest non-capital city – the Gold Coast, and how the State government sort to draw back development to the State capital.

This can also be seen in the development of the Pacific Innovation Corridor PIC that connects the Gold Coast City to Brisbane, where development has been constrained through lack of State funds being channeled to the municipality.

Findings Analysis

Inward investment from its Asian neighbors is a significant contributor too. Its history as a test bed for modern technology developments from overseas coupled with the high quality and size of its public sector and university research will stand it in good stead to position Australia at the forefront of urban planning, design, and application of smart technologies to the urban environment.

The country also benefits from a strong English speaking ICT sector (with urban development and ICT clusters and advanced software development capabilities particularly in the spatial arena) giving it the opportunity to play a major role in the development of leading edge software for the e-city too.

Domestic demand for smart technologies is sufficient to ensure that its smart technology developments for the control of municipal assets in e-Cities and dematerialization can reach commercial maturity in a showcase setting – helping it to boost the global competitiveness of Australia, the States and the Municipalities providing they can work effectively together.

For example, the shear distances that separate cities in Australia, currently requires extensive air travel and places a huge burden on the carbon footprint of Australia. Through the technologies of dematerialization and greener IT ; the potential for productivity gains - reduced dependence on fossil fuels and a much smaller carbon footprint are in reach.

If Australia’s future knowledge economy rests on the productivity and hence innovation of a few major e-Cities (innovation plays out locally) then the strategic intervention by Federal and State Government at the city level and its economic spillover area needs to align with the aspirations of the city fathers.

However, regional policy development in Australia has been more strategic than interventionist and has not favored the primacy of the city as a generator of economic wealth as it has for example – its primary production and mineral extraction communities, which have to date managed to generate considerable contribution to GDP with limited investment by the public sector.

A further threat comes from the hitching of one’s knowledge economy strategy cart to the wave of clean energy and a sustainable future may have many attractions but it is a double edged sword.

As the thinking behind the knowledge economy and the cities that will fuel it has changed dramatically over the years; any change in public perception of the validity of climate change findings could seriously derail a program whose sole unifying message is based on it.

Regardless of the rights and wrongs of the situation – public perceptions count, and there are worrying signs of a growing revolt in Australia (and in other countries too) against the climate agenda of governments.

Changes in the political landscape in Australia, US and UK could all further negate the effects of this policy and a unifying message based on it.

The world is increasingly sensitive to any form of political manipulation and government policy makers need to choose their key messages very carefully indeed. If carbon ‘cap and trade’ initiatives fall in favor – it would be a travesty if other initiatives, such as the smart management of energy in our homes and e-Cities stall with it.

It is also salutary lesson that much of the resistance to the ‘clean agenda’ of governments is coming from the smaller but still none-the-less significant non urban sectors.

Resistance from this sector can be seen in the US, China and Korea too.

Addressing this sector requires the same degree of fervor given to urban environments if a balanced and harmonious national community is to emerge and benefit equally from the knowledge economy and could conceivably offer up as much if not more economic benefit than expected.

Unfortunately, no world government seems to be addressing this issue – an issue that could turn out to be of much greater significance to countries with vast untapped hinterlands (Australia, Africa), grid locked urban infrastructures (UK, Europe) and where the ‘creative classes’ may seek some respite from city living and where teleworking makes urban proximity less important. It remains to be seen whether Australia can achieve its triple objectives of developing smart showcase e-Cities at home, meet its domestic environmental and sustainable energy aspirations whilst commercializing indigenous research and development in the area of smart technologies for a place in the related global markets without a more coordinated approach – between Federal, State and Municipal governments to leverage its obvious advantages.

That is a balanced ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’ (not centrist) development for Australia as a whole and its regional economic hubs (including major cities), rather than poorly supported bottom-up regional development that focuses more on the competition between regions, cities and States than the good of the Australian nation as a whole and its global competitiveness.

Return from e-Cities Australia to International e-Strategies