You are currently browsing the daily archive for March 15, 2010.

Innovation Blog

Innovating Our Neighborhoods:  Breaking the Tyranny of Cars

By Shlomo Maital    Peter Katz, The New Urbanism

   “Imagine,” former Beatle John Lennon sang in his 1971 hit,  “imagine all the people… sharing all the world…You may say that I’m a dreamer…but I’m not the only one.”     

      You’re not alone, John.  Let us all imagine! 

      Imagine, if you will, getting up in the morning, scrambling bleary-eyed into your car and spending a frazzling hour or two in a traffic jam, arriving at work irritable and crabby, only to reverse the process at day’s end, arriving home exhausted after battling aggressive motorists for another hour or more.  And then − repeat the torture again, the next day, and every weekday.

       There is no need to imagine.  This is the reality many face  in Israel and abroad.  According to the United Nations Population Fund, since 2008 a majority of the world’s population, some 3.3 billion people,  live in cities.  Far more people work  in cities.  And cities everywhere are increasingly choked by private cars.    

         So, let’s listen to Lennon’s words again.  This time,  imagine getting up in the morning, walking to work down tree-lined boulevards, stopping for coffee at an outdoor café;  or  walking to a railroad station and zipping by train to work, to shop, to classes or to do errands or meet friends, a half-hour away.  

        This is the neighborhood-sharing vision of a group of revolutionary city planners, known as the New Urbanists.  They propose a new approach to urban development built around public transportation, known as transit-oriented development, or TOD.     I recently interviewed Peter Katz, a leader and founder of New Urbanism in America, now a Sarasota, Florida, County urban planner, during his first visit to Israel.

        TOD is defined as moderate-to-high density development, featuring a mix of residential, employment & retail uses,  all in short walking distance from adjacent public transportation. The essence of TOD is making transportation (access) a vital part of every master plan.  Indeed, easy access is the starting point of urban development. This is generally not the case.

     Peter Katz says  the new TOD approach is a three-legged stool, whose ‘legs’ are compelling urban design, effective public process, and better development regulations.    For a new approach to the planning process, Katz suggests a novel idea.   Mobilize neighborhood groups to say how they would like their neighborhood to look,  then integrate their ideas and create winning master plans.  This process is highly visual, with groups posting drawings and pictures on walls that reflect their thinking.  The results are then quickly integrated and combined by experts into development plans.  Katz says he and others have applied this method with success in the U.S.   (See my Blog on “Vive la Charette!”).  He notes that in an era when deficit-ridden central governments are slashing grants to local government, TOD is a way to enhance local property values and raise revenues.  

      Archaeologists and anthropologists claim that some 40,000 years ago, a wondrous thing occurred.  Homo sapiens began to create things of beauty, like drawings on the walls of caves, using their imaginations.  Only humans have imaginations.  Animals lack them.

     Why has this imaginative process seemingly halted, when it comes to planning the neighborhoods we live in?  Have we lost our city planning imagination? Can we revive it?  And can we enlist John Lennon, Peter Katz, the New Urbanism and TOD to unchain our lives from the tyranny of cars?             

* A longer version appeared in The Jerusalem Report, “Marketplace” column 


Innovation Blog

Battle of the Titans: Jobs vs. Schmidt —  A Case of Collabo-WAR

    Eric Schmidt and Steve Jobs

    Boxing fans know that in heavyweight prize fight history, the two bouts between Joe Louis, an American, and Max Schmeling, a German, were among the greatest in history. I am reminded of these two bouts while reading “A fierce clash of computing titans” — the prize fight between Google’s CEO Eric Schmidt and Apple’s CEO Steve Jobs. [1]

    Some of us anticipated a different prize fight — between the Wintel (Windows + Intel) partners.   A beautiful loving relationship between Microsoft’s Windows operating system and Intel’s microprocessors soured somewhat, as Intel began putting growing amounts of software onto its chips.  (Many Intel development engineers are in fact software engineers). But real warfare never developed.

    A similar honeymoon existed between Apple and Google.  Three years ago, Schmidt shook hands with jobs on a San Francisco state and helped Jobs unveil the iPhone.  “This product is going to be hot!” Schmidt said.   Some suggested merging the two firms, into AppleGoo. 

    No longer.  Harvard Business School’s Adam Brandenburger once wrote a book titled Coopetition, a term he coined, signifying how companies cooperate at one level (e.g. development), then compete at another (e.g. in the marketplace).  Today we have examples of what I would call Collabo-WAR:  Initial collaboration between giant firms that turns into World War III.   Apple and Google form an example.

     What is the source of conflict?  Both Jobs and Schmidt are tough and intensely competitive.   Apple and Google are now warring over controlling the future of mobile computing and cellphones.  Apple has sued HTC, the mobile phone maker that runs Google’s Androir operating system; this is seen as the start of Apple’s legal assault on Google’s plans to dominate mobile devices just as it dominates web search and web advertising.   

     Apparently, Apple (true to form) wants smartphones to have tightly controlled proprietary standards, with customers buying applications from Apple’s App Store.  Google, true to form, wants smartphones to have open nonproprietary platforms so users can freely roam the Web for applications. 

   Like the Louis-Schmeling fight, the battle is both ideological (Germany vs. US, white vs. black)  and deeply personal.  Jobs thinks Google broke the alliance between the two companies by producing cellphones that resemble iPhones.  Jobs even disparaged Google’s famous mantra, saying ironically, “Don’t be #$%#@@#$% (expletive) evil!”.   As always, strong egos are involved.

    Who will win?   Well, in the past Apple tried hard to close their systems and capture all the value, and ultimately lost to the more open PC standard.  But, anticipate more than one prize fight between the two.  In the first Louis-Schmeling fight, on June 19, 1936, at Yankee Stadium,  Schmeling used a jab and right cross to baffle Louis, then knocked him out in the 12th round — Louis’s only knockout defeat in his prime.  In the second fight, on June 22, 1938, Schmeling tried the same tactics.  But Joe Louis, the Brown Bomber, was ready.  He knocked Schmeling out after only two minutes of the first round.  

     Apple may win early rounds in the law courts, to ‘close’ its system.  But ultimately such efforts to monopolize an industry fail, as ‘barbarians’ climb the walls or batter them down and open the system.   

     In this Collabo-WAR, Apple is likely to lose, just as they did in the 1980’s. 

[1] By Brad Stone and Miguel Helft, Global New York Times, March 15, 2010, p. 13.

Blog entries written by Prof. Shlomo Maital

Shlomo Maital
March 2010
« Feb   Apr »