Waterfront Toronto, the agency that Alphabet is partnering with, is also responsible for the redevelopment of the Canary District (which is immediately to the north of the area that Google has just got involved with).
When they launched they put out some press releases about how the Canary District was going to have free neighbourhood wifi and other fancy things. As far as I can tell, that never happened, yet they won an award for it being an "intelligent community".
> Even as the network is being built out, it’s already winning accolades. Last year it helped the City of Toronto earn the title of the world’s No. 1 Intelligent Community of the Year as chosen by the Intelligent Community Forum in New York.
Well they did bring fibre to the two existing developments in the Canary District. And for a far better price than than Canadians are used to with the big 3. I don't really see a lot of innovation, they were just able to sign a 10 year contract with Beanfield.
The Canary District is far from finished, so perhaps some of that infrastructure will be built out when it is completed.
Also, a lot of the developments they mentioned have yet to be completed (Monde, Waterfront Innovation Centre, Tridel's Aqualina/Aquavista) and aren't even in the "Canary District".
It speaks to Canada's exorbitant LTE data prices that just putting Wifi "everywhere" is what is required to make a dent in mobile/community connectivity.
>"So what would a city designed by Google look like? It would likely include features such as LinkNYC, the public Wi-Fi hubs installed around New York City."
Make not mistake about it the LinkNYC "kiosks" are digital billboards that give allow Google to flash ads at residents on every block. I haven't seen anyone engaging with these "kisoks" for any kind of informational purposes. On rare occasions I have seen someone using them to charge their USB device.
You can use the WiFi on these things from a surprising distance (hundreds of feet) with a proper antenna. Even with an IPSEC tunnel in place, one can achieve a connection with over 100Mbps upload and download with 5ms latency. That's much better than what most ISPs in NYC provide. And it's free. So, there's that.
I appreciate my own experience is only anecdotal evidence but I see people using them all the time. It is mostly homeless people who use it to make phone calls but I've often seen people charging devices.
They used to be used a lot more but I heard they started blocking video so the homeless couldn't use it to watch inappropriate content.
> I appreciate my own experience is only anecdotal evidence but I see people using them all the time. It is mostly homeless people who use it to make phone calls but I've often seen people charging devices.
So a free VOIP phone and a USB charger? This strikes me as a failure to live up to their stated capabilities.
I believe they also provide free wifi. That is harder to quantify since you don't have to be directly adjacent to the kiosk to use it.
I'm just countering the initial claim that one person never sees anyone using it. At least in my neighborhood, especially along my walk to work, I see people physically interacting with the devices very frequently.
And that Transit Wireless WIFI is not paid for with advertising blight. So really the net utility added for all of this advertising is is a USB charging station. You could always make 911 calls at the phone kiosks these replaced.
The more interesting aspect are the always on cameras that are built into each billboard. The data being collected and analyzed across a city over time must be generating very valuable data.
Has LinkNYC responded to this? It seems at least plausible that some feature of the devices (video chat?) requires a camera. Do we know that the cameras are always-on?
Looks like it’s not completely unreasonable—they’re not doing straight-up tracking, and wanting to figure out who damaged your expensive machine is a reasonable goal. However, this still (I think) allows tracking anybody they claim is dangerous or a criminal. Better, but far from good.
The free wifi is useful as a tourist. The surprising amount of them in Manhattan means you don't need to use relatively expensive roaming data as often. Once you've pressed the required buttons on the captive portal your phone just connects and sorts out your email & notifications as you stroll near one.
I'm not disputing the utility of free WIFI and while that might be great for the tourist who visits NYC the residents have to live with advertising blight.
Since there is also a WiFi hub, engaging wirelessly is evidently also something “you are supposed to do”, and presumably moreso than physical interaction as the number of supported simultaneous physical interactors is much lower than the supported simultaneous wireless connections.
Nice strawman. So if unpleasant elements exist in one's environment, a dramatic increase in those unpleasant elements shouldn't bother you? Yeah that makes a lot of sense.
> I haven't seen anyone engaging with these "kisoks" for any kind of informational purposes. On rare occasions I have seen someone using them to charge their USB device.
I think they have the opposite problem -- people who camp out at the kiosk literally all day for the free charging/internet.
Modern smartphones randomised their Bluetooth MACs. I'm not sure about WiFi. But anyway if you wanted to track people's movement it's easier to do it via the cell network, or... Google Maps.
Toronto is a funny city. Most cities play up their coast line, Toronto gets scummier as you move towards the water, though they are addressing it and its improved a lot over the past 10 years with the condo boom.
I really hope they can do something productive with the land because right now its a big eye sore and its a prime location right in the heart of the city.
As someone who currently lives on said coastline, I'm really not sure what you mean by "scummier". In my humble opinion, it is the most pleasant part of the city, more than half of it is accessible parkland of some sort.
The only sorta crummy building on the waterfront from this vantage is the Canada Malting Silos, but even that has its charm.
To me, a lot of the rest of the city is an eyesore. Unfortunately a lot of the large buildings in Toronto are brutal postmodern slabs of concrete spiritual oppression, including many around New City Hall.
The Port Lands are not actually so bad at the shore, some of the industrial stuff like the Hearn coal reactor and the recycling plant that went up in flames a month or so ago is a bit rough, but it's convenient to the city that these things are within city limits. It is exceptionally unusual to have facilities like those on the Port Lands and the island airport this close to the city center.
The Hearn is one of the most beautiful and unique buildings in the city. Luminato Festival has used the space for the past two years, and I hope to see more diverse programming there in the future. I would extend similar praise to the malting silos - both are historic structures that, while certainly deteriorating and in need of repair and upgrades, are some of the few buildings that give the waterfront and Port Lands an identity different to that of the rest of the city. When developers have their way and structures like these disappear to make way for thoughtless, cheaply constructed condo buildings, the city will lose some of the few facets of identity that remain.
Developers have already ransacked almost everything south of the Gardiner at this point, so I suppose it's only a matter of time until they turn the rest of the city into a quick buck as well.
Yeah, the lack of character and thoughtfulness in the new buildings going up is among my reasons for looking to move out (right beside the decline of the government's respect for civil liberties, and the increase in outright corruption with the majority party under the leadership of a snowboard instructor).
Were you just looking for an opportunity to slag Trudeau? Last time I checked he isn't mayor of Toronto -- unless there's just something I don't know about John Tory. Maybe you can root for Doug Ford in the next mayoral round. I mean, we're talking about Toronto, right?
Moving to the United States of America, I mean. Toronto is in Ontario, which is in Canada. The Mayor of Toronto largely fine, the Premier of Ontario is questionable, the Prime Minister of Canada is concerning.
You sure have made a lot of assumptions about me: I'd advise you to keep them to yourself, Rob.
If there's anyone I would be concerned about it's the Ontario premier, but sure go on ahead down to the US where they ostensibly don't build uninspired buildings in their cities or something.
The area between Jarvis and University/York is pretty unpleasant to walk around once you're south of Front, in my opinion. Walking in the rest of the city is quite nice.
I suppose it can be attributed to the expressway being there, but shit - I dread visiting the area on foot.
These places are designed for and receive a ton of foot traffic - the ACC and Union Station, specifically. It's somewhat odd that the area immediately surrounding isn't very pedestrian-friendly.
I'll be the one to agree with you, but scummy isn't necessarily the right adjective -- Soulless would be better. I rarely have any reason to go south of Queen Street unless I'm going to Toronto Islands (which I love dearly). A project like this, plus the rail deck park they want to build over the train tracks might help sway me, but what they really need is to tear down/bury the expressway so that everything south of it doesn't feel so divided from the rest of the city.
Toronto does not get 'scummier' towards the water, unless you mean in the absolute most general sense - i.e. from way out in the burbs, yes, the 'downtown' is 'scummier' and is 'closer to the water'.
But Toronto is mostly just a giant cold suburb, that is reasonably well run, but doesn't standout for any reason in particular.
It's the ultimate 'B' city.
It's consistently better than almost anywhere, and yet, not one aspect is really world class. I mean - San Francisco is 'missing' so many things that make it a truly all-round city, yet is so exceptional in many ways. Toronto 'has everything' but it really lacks a 'raison d'etre'.
And FYI I grew up there I can say what I want about it :)
Toronto is totally different even from 10 years ago. Spadina/Queen/King (where all the starts-up are located) is so busy even at nights and weekends because so many people live and work there. The ports area being developed, is totally dead by comparison (that's why the city wants Google to help develop). And suburb Toronto, check out Yonge/Sheppard-Finch today, it is 2-km stretch of pan-Asian restaurants that you cannot find anywhere outside of Asia.
I'm definitely impressed by how 'busy' it is - but TO is mostly a 'Starbucks, Timmies, Whole Foods and IKEA' kind of town.
It's more brand oriented and suburban than ever before.
Example: Toronto used to have a 'musical sound'. You could hear a band maybe know that it was from TO.
No such thing anymore.
TO is a large group of fairly well behaved and polite people from around the world getting along in the cold. And that's it.
Toronto has made me realize that culture cannot be invented, and that you can't just 'create' cohesion.
Sadly, most things that would have made the are unique - have been wiped out ... the suburbs of Toronto, Singapore, Denver, Amsterdam - are becoming more and more alike the only thing differentiating them is the weather. :)
The Yonge/Finch area is pretty disappointing actually. The food quality is fairly low outside of a couple gems (in a sea of garbage). Random places around Markham are much better if Asian is your fancy.
As somebody who has seen my friends move there in their 20s, I can't help but think it rubs off on the residents... Not so much that they become sorta 'B', but they seem to become fearful of culture outside of their bubble.
Give me a friend who moved to Montreal over the Toronto lot any day.
I think people become meek when they have no common culture to participate in. And of course, they 'follow the rules' which we Canadians do very well.
Even thought most folks have some 'imported' culture to which they can belong and which gives them identity, it's rarely going to be common enough - or prominent enough - that it gives them any swagger or anything.
To your point: sometimes people make pop songs about Montreal, not so much Toronto, although Drizzy has been doing some calling out ... I just can't think that he's authentic.
Toronto reminds me a lot of Singapore these days: ex-English colony, well managed, secure, but no real culture of their own or swatter.
I've lived in Toronto for a while and Queen's Quay is lined with expensive condos and corporate skyscrapers. I don't really understand what you mean by scummy.
Do you mean the port lands? There's nothing wrong with that area. It was built for industrial shipping. The only eyesore in that area (Rebel) opened up no more than 3 years ago. If you mean Lakeshore, those tent cities under the Gardiner are recently established as well.
Take a water taxi over to Hanlan's before Winter rolls around. It'll change your perspective. We have a beautiful city.
The Waterfront is a lot like Yaletown, minus the yuppie businesses (e.g. Gelato shops, specialist stores which use words like "bespoke" or "artisanal" to describe their wares) .
The Port Lands have already been extensively studied and a lot of planning has gone into it. There is a pretty extensive report that is a pretty fun read/scan. This would be the plan that Google would have to integrate into.
A lot of people are denying it, but I worked down in the Port Lands (where they plan to develop for Sidewalk Labs). I can confirm. It is a dead-zone.
There are some shops centered around the film industry, deeper in is the Hearn (grandfather worked there in the 50's -- it's a nice building on the outside but requires massive amounts of maintenance to see life in the future. It's still well-used by the film industry.), Pinewood Studios Toronto, there's a garbage/recycling centre, and truck yards, empty lots, overgrowth, and an old fireman's club... and the Keating Channel pub. If you've ever worked the film industry in Toronto, you probably know the place.
When you compare Toronto's waterfront to other cities -- I get it completely. It's nowhere near as done up as say, Seattle or Boston. It's because it has an industrial past.
--
That said -- much of the city does have a nice waterfront. The Port Lands area in question is the exception here. The east end was the boardwalk and beaches and even Ontario Place on the west end is getting an overhaul, starting with the new Trillium Park: http://ontarioplace.com/en/park-trail/
>I get it completely. It's nowhere near as done up as say, Seattle or Boston. It's because it has an industrial past.
Seattle also has an industrial past, and more importantly, a lot of it is still industrial. If you pop open google maps and zoom in on Seattle's waterfront, essentially everything south of Yesler Way is shipping and other industrial uses. Additionally basically everything south of the stadiums is pretty industrial, even further inland.
From looking at Toronto, it looks like the Port Lands area you are talking about is pretty similar to the Sodo area in Seattle I was talking about, while your Harbourfront Centre and Bathurst Quay are more like what people usually consider the Seattle waterfront, with lots of parks and some restaurants, near what I can only assume is your downtown area?
The biggest difference that I see is that you guys appear to have a _lot_ of parking lots, and your rail lines and a big expressway appear to run right between your downtown and the waterfront.
You've got me there. I've only been to Seattle once and was promptly exposed to the lively harbour area as that's where we arrived by ferry from Victoria. I mean, there's a ferris wheel! And it was night so it was all lit up. Toronto has some nice features, for sure... maybe it was only the difference.
The Gardiner Expressway is a notorious design flaw with criticisms spanning decades -- people just rely on it too much now to change it. Though it's now crumbling and needs repair, there are some propositions for beautifying that area.
The rail lines have been there for a very long time, though in different spirit, maybe.
This whole conversation has reminded me I haven't spent much time down around certain parts of the waterfront in a long time. The expressway is a major psychological block for a lot of people. It makes it seem so far away. In seattle it felt like a short walk from halfway up downtown because of the features all along the walk. Walking beneath the Gardiner here is not a thrilling experience for a downtown. That's one difference I can note for sure, if we're to compare properly comparative regions of the cities.
Eh, I disagree. You don't see Houston or Tokyo trying to upsell on their coast-line. I think tourist cities play it up, but major cities that exist where they are because of their ports don't push tourists towards it because bustling ports are almost by definition disgusting.
The only exception I can think of is San Francisco, but that's by nature of its unique peninsula geography. You can just go to the west side to find decent beaches. The Port of San Francisco (east side) is still gross. (to me... there is a lot of tourists piers there I guess)
The waterfront area is pretty nice right around Harbourfront Centre, though. The Beaches to the east and Sunnyside/Humber Bay Park to the west are pleasant as well.
You can walk all the way to Pickering along the shore from secret beach (the difficult-to-access beach beside the water pumping station at the East end of the Beaches), it's something I enjoyed a lot in my tween years.
This reminds me of Google's efforts to reduce harmful mosquitos in Fresno, CA by introducing millions of sterile mosquitos (http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/07/21/538470321/...). I visited Fresno last month, and Fresnonians seem generally very annoyed at the insane amount of Google mosquitos in the city now but remain hopeful that this will be better for them in the long-haul.
It seems like the residents don't really know what's going on and their experiences are biased by what they think is going on.
Google targeted a very specific specie of mosquito, which population-wise is probably insignificant in the perceivable number of mosquito you would notice. Aedes aegypti is a specie which generally lives in tropic environment, but was brought over accidentally. The musquitos released are also male and do not bite.
Male mosquitoes feed on flower nectar and don't bite so I'm not sure why you would think residents would be annoyed at the "Google mosquitos" unless they like to spread nectar on themselves.
>"Sidewalk Labs, the smart city subsidiary of Alphabet with the stated goal of “reimagining cities from the Internet up,” now has a very big sandbox in which to conduct its high-tech experiments."
This is some of the "reimagining" and type of "experiments" Toronto residents can look forward to:
Yep, in those cases, it was almost always Google having to fight against local government and monopolies playing dirty. In this case, all 3 levels of government (city, province and country) are for this project. That's a huge difference.
Google got unprecedented concessions in Fiber markets: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/09/how-kansas-city-... (“Google received stunning regulatory concessions and incentives from local governments, including free access to virtually everything the city owns or controls: rights of way, central office space, power, interconnections with anchor institutions, marketing and direct mail, and office space for Google employees. City officials also expedited the permitting process and assigned staff specifically to help Google. One county even offered to allow Google to hang its wires on parts of utility poles—for free—that are usually off-limits to communications companies.”).
Indeed, contrary to your parent's claims, Google had a red carpet rolled out for them everywhere they went with Fiber. Including governments trying to pass favorable laws granting them access to competitors' equipment. Their entire business model was based on using dark fiber governments gave them for free and getting laws passed to save them most of the expenses other ISPs have to pay. (Google refuses to allow itself to be classified as a telecom so it isn't regulated like AT&T and Comcast are.)
The three levels of government in Canada are Municipal, Provincial and Federal.
How exactly do you expect the Canadian government to 'fight dirty' against Google? What constitutes 'fighting dirty' against one of the most powerful corporations on the planet?
The (lack of an) Oxford comma strikes again! My reading of parent is "...it was almost always Google having to fight against local government, and monopolies playing dirty" - the local government was fighting, but only the monopolies were playing dirty (e.g. by lobbying States to make laws that prevent local governments from "interfering" with the said monopolies by cozying up to Google or providing municipal internet infrastructure)
As someone that was born and raised in Toronto, big city projects either take forever to finish, or get scrapped midway through. It sounds promising that Google's involved, but I wouldn't get my hopes up.
Oh man, Mountain View. I remember how the quality was already a joke in 2011. The network's completely gone today.
In fact, I think XKCD's "Wifi vs. Cellular" [1] strip summarizes the situation perfectly. Nowadays I frequently disable wifi on my phone in problematic areas of my house or work, because LTE works better. Makes me wish for a femtocell...
That said, I assume Google is bringing lessons learned with their Access infrastructure work along with WiFi optimization as showcased in their Home hub, and things will work better this time around.
Probably lot's of different reasons. WiFi networks have to share unlicensed bands with other WiFi networks and hundreds of other things. Cellular networks have dedicated spectrum. LTE also uses a more integrated and centralized set of protocols for connection setup ("attach") and traffic management. See: https://hpbn.co/mobile-networks (scroll down to "radio resource control"). For example, getting an IP address is part of the attach procedure. (I feel like DHCP is responsible for 99% of flaky WiFi). Also, the RRC controls each cellular radio to a much greater extent than the 802.11 base station controls each 802.11 device.
Also as someone who's a software engineer working in the firmware space, I suspect LTE base stations are just plain more reliable than home WiFi routers...
I'm more concerned about whether the streetcar running on top of there will ever be more than just a sketch. An extension of the streetcar network in that direction has been proposed, canceled, procrastinated, debated for years but nothing actually happening so far.
.jpg){kind=link}
When they launched they put out some press releases about how the Canary District was going to have free neighbourhood wifi and other fancy things. As far as I can tell, that never happened, yet they won an award for it being an "intelligent community".
> Even as the network is being built out, it’s already winning accolades. Last year it helped the City of Toronto earn the title of the world’s No. 1 Intelligent Community of the Year as chosen by the Intelligent Community Forum in New York.
Anyone have details?
http://nationalpost.com/life/homes/full-speed-ahead-torontos...