Pride month: inclusive urbanism

For Pride this year, we are taking an urban perspective. The team has been talking about neighbourhoods that have become safe spaces and centres for LGBTQIA+ communities – how and why they came about, their evolution and importance today. And, as we’re DG Cities, the role technology might play in making them even safer, greener and more enjoyable, and the importance of an inclusive approach to the development of all cities and tech.

Pedestrian crossing in Trafalgar Square, London/Geograph

In cities around the world, gay districts serve as safe spaces; beacons of recognition, solidarity, and celebration for LGBTQIA+ communities. In some places, they might take the form of a green space, a couple of venues or a small stretch of a high street, in others it can be an entire neighbourhood.

One of the most famous of these in the UK is Manchester’s Gay Village, which is focused around Canal Street, a row of redbrick former mills and warehouses by the Rochdale Canal. The area has evolved over the past century, from one industry to another – from a centre of the cloth trade, to decline, and then re-emergence as a destination for nightlife. This process began in the 1980s and early ‘90s, with a handful of pubs and bars, such as The Rembrandt. Manto, another early venue, was developed in an old warehouse, its glass frontage then a radical expression of transparency and pride. Thanks to the affordability of these post-industrial spaces, and with hard work, community activism and support from the city council, a critical mass of bars and clubs emerged to cement the area’s growth.

Today, Canal Street contributes to the city in many different ways – socially, culturally, and in attracting talent, businesses, and investment. There is also a direct economic gain in drawing in visitors – Manchester Pride’s report suggests that the event regularly generates in excess of £30 million in accommodation, dining, transportation, shopping, and other related expenses. Then there is job creation in the hospitality and entertainment sector, and significant revenue generation for charities.

Canal Street isn’t alone. Similar quarters have grown in cities across the world, from New York’s East Village to Chueca in Madrid. Many of these places have their roots in historical contexts, often originating in marginalised neighbourhoods, cruising spots or areas with available, affordable space. These districts create vital space for free expression, without fear of discrimination, and for community building, activism and support.

The problem with success

However, the popularity of well-established quarters like Manchester’s Gay Village, London’s Old Compton Street, Brighton’s Kemptown and Birmingham’s Hurst Street can create its own problems. Like artists’ studios, the gay village can popularise and then catalyse the gentrification of an area. As these neighbourhoods are more cared for and become the place to go for a night out, development follows – and the luxury residential and late-night economies aren’t always compatible.

Mike Wolf, writer of one piece in a series on the history of Canal Street, warned of some of the risks associated with popularity, such as the power wielded by brewery chains, where independent businesses had previously thrived. But ultimately, as he put it: “We didn't need planning policy to protect our queer heritage. It is unstoppable.” Still, protecting these spaces is vital in preserving the legacy, culture, and identity they represent. This doesn’t just mean safeguarding the physical spaces, but ensuring anti-discrimination policies, and promoting LGBTQIA+ visibility and representation in planning decisions.

Homophobia, biphobia and transphobia haven’t gone away, and Walking and Cycling Index data shows that LGBTQ+ people feel less safe in their neighbourhoods. Still, there is a view that younger generations don’t express the same need for these dedicated spaces or support as those who came out in a more hostile era, particularly pre-1967. According to Stonewall’s 2018 report, a third of LGBT people (35%) say they never attend LGBT-specific venues or events. And while some said Pride was a highlight of the year, others surveyed resent being pigeonholed: “I don't understand why there is the use of the word community. It does not and has not ever felt like being in a community.”

With this in mind, is the purpose of LGBTQIA+ neighbourhoods changing? They are still seen primarily as a hub for nightlife, because that is how many evolved, but anyone programming, designing or shaping the city should have the aim of making every place, every public space, building and venue as safe and welcoming as the local ‘gay village’. Most importantly, inclusion can’t be designed ‘for’ but ‘with’ – it demands meaningful engagement, representation in development, and consideration of needs beyond bars and stereotypes: social spaces, retail, bookshops, for example, galleries, community venues, nurseries and supported living facilities.

Does technology have a role?

As an innovation agency, we are interested in some of the possible roles of emerging tech, and examples: apps that narrate local gay history walks, such as WYQS in West Yorkshire, digital art installations, the use of street furniture and wayfinding to increase visibility, as with Trafalgar Square’s traffic lights. There have been Pride transport takeovers, such as Amsterdam’s rainbow EV chargers and Avanti’s Pride train, and we have looked at ensuring diverse voices can be heard in the development of future mobility, like self-driving cars. Because these neighbourhoods are a focus for community and celebration, they can also be a focus for hate crime. Here, along with the potential uses of smart lighting and IoT cameras in crime prevention and evidence gathering, charity Stonewall has developed an app, Zoteria, to make reporting incidents more straightforward. Important to note that while we are looking at the role of technology to create safer spaces in the UK, some organisations around the world seek to use such devices to enforce discriminatory laws.

Then there is the role of data, the backbone of much of this new technology, which is guiding decision-making at a local and national level. For too long though, this data has excluded lesbian, gay, bi and trans people. For the first time, the 2021 census included an optional question on sexual orientation, opening up opportunities for more inclusive places and services. But in the context of big data, bias in the development of AI systems is a growing concern. As these systems are created by humans, the responses can inadvertently reflect prejudices in the information used to train them. This can result in biased outcomes that disproportionately affect specific communities. To address this, it is crucial to ensure diverse representation and inclusion at every stage in the process: the development of ethical guidelines that explicitly address issues of discrimination, supported by engagement, analysis of the data sets, and evaluation of the impact of AI systems on communities. And when it comes to the commercialisation of new technology or mobility services, to build trust, we need to see diversity represented in its promotion.

So this year, instead of turning our logo rainbow again, we want to continue this discussion, to celebrate our team, enjoy Pride month and reaffirm our commitment to inclusivity in all of our projects. And rather than end this on a pitch, we’ll recommend instead a couple of books we like for further reading: an award-winning compendium of Queer Spaces by Adam Nathanial Furman and Joshua Mardell, published last year, which looks at everything from the Museum of Transology to the use of raves in Brazil as a means to occupy and explore the city, and The Gentrification of the Mind, Sarah Schulman’s memoir of displacement in New York’s Lower East Side.

A behavioural science perspective on consumer barriers to self-driving tech

Last week, we welcomed our new Behavioural Scientist, Emily King to the team. No sooner had she said hello than she was off downriver to Woolwich to a workshop Ed Houghton was chairing at the Smart Mobility Living Lab. The subject was consumer barriers to the adoption of CAV (Connected and Autonomous Vehicles). We’ll be a hearing a little more about Emily’s background and experience so far in another piece soon, but first, she breaks down the different factors at play in the application of the COM-B behavioural model to a self-driving future…

In my first week as the new Behavioural Scientist at DG cities, I was fortunate to attend an event on the consumer barriers to commercialisation of connected autonomous vehicles (CAVs) at the Smart Mobility Living Lab (SMLL). The event was attended by a range of industry professionals, researchers, and policymakers and explored the user perspective of self-driving technologies.

The opening presentation for the event highlighted that public trust and acceptance of self-driving technologies need to be in place before CAVs can be commercialised. Public acceptance of CAVs is currently low, as evidenced by findings from project Endeavour that only a quarter of the UK public (27%) would be comfortable using autonomous vehicles tomorrow if it was possible to do so.

Commercialisation is a behavioural challenge

This indicates that commercialisation of CAVs is a primarily behavioural challenge: how can people be encouraged to accept and ultimately to use self-driving technologies? It is clear from the discussions at the event that behavioural science has a crucial role to play in shaping how we communicate with the public about CAVs, and how to design self-driving services in a way that will be accepted by the public.

A key stage in any behavioural science research project is to identify the specific barriers and drivers to the behaviour of interest. In this instance, identifying the barriers to using CAVs amongst different potential user groups is the first step in understanding why this hesitancy to use autonomous vehicles exists. This provides a useful starting point to exploring how policymakers and industry can encourage engagement with this emerging technology and ensure that it works for society.  

Discussions at the SMLL event shed light on some potential barriers to consumer adoption of connected autonomous vehicles, which can be summarised through the lens of the COM-B model.

A recap of the COM-B model

The COM-B model is a well-established behaviour change framework which suggests that for an individual’s motivation to engage in a behaviour to translate into actual behaviour change, they need to have both the capability and the opportunity to engage in the behaviour. [1]

Examining the potential underlying capability, opportunity and motivational factors can help to highlight how best to build perceptions of safety and trust, to achieve public acceptance and the opportunity for commercialisation of CAVs.

Capability factors

Capability means that an individual has the knowledge, skills, and abilities required to engage in a behaviour. 

The SMLL event highlighted a need to continue educating the public about autonomous vehicles, including building knowledge of how the technology works and what the potential benefits of using self-driving vehicles might look like.

Educating about how the technology works and the specifics of existing safety measures is important to help to build perceptions of safety and trust in AVs, which in turn can increase acceptance. One successful method for educating people about AV technology is via conducting trials in person or via virtual reality, which allow individuals to experience riding in a self-driving vehicle first-hand. Discussions at the SMLL event highlighted positive examples of trial participants perceiving AV technology as much safer once they had the opportunity to experience it for themselves.

There are numerous potential benefits of AVs, from improving mobility options for disabled people through to decarbonising the transport system. For autonomous vehicles to be accepted, it is vital that the public are also clearly educated on these specific benefits and how using CAVs can help to achieve them. Individuals tend to (either consciously or unconsciously) weigh up the potential costs and benefits before deciding how to behave, meaning that for people to decide to use CAVs that any perceived costs such as reduced feelings of safety or anxiety about AI need to be outweighed by the perceived benefits.

“Individuals tend to (either consciously or unconsciously) weigh up the potential costs and benefits before deciding how to behave, meaning that for people to decide to use CAVs that any perceived costs, such as reduced feelings of safety or anxiety about AI need to be outweighed by the perceived benefits.”

Opportunity factors

Opportunity factors are the external factors which make a behaviour possible. Opportunity factors encompass all aspects of the CAVs technology and service offer which might influence whether people are willing or able to use them.

The workshop included discussions about the specific use cases and opportunities within the user journey where CAVs could play a useful role. For example, introducing self-driving services in rural areas where there are currently limited transport options could provide more benefit than in major city centres.

Self-driving services also need to be designed so that they are usable for the groups which need them most. As those with disabilities and reduced mobility are a key group expected to benefit from self-driving services, it is vital that they are included in conversations to ensure that CAV technologies are meeting their needs and ensuring they have sufficient opportunity to use CAV services. If these groups are unable to access CAV services in the first place, then this potential benefit of the technology cannot be realised.

Motivation factors

Even when capability and opportunity factors are in place, this does not guarantee that people will be motivated to engage with CAVs.

Motivation is also dependent on factors such as values and emotional states, which can differ vastly between individuals and even within the same individual depending on their current circumstances.

Understanding these more subjective, emotional aspects of CAV acceptance was mentioned at the SMLL event as a necessity going forward. This is an area where behavioural science research can play a useful role. Existing research in the field suggests that acceptance of autonomous vehicles is influenced by an individual’s levels of innovativeness (a general willingness to try new things) and general anxiety about technology, as well as levels of hedonic motivation (valuing enjoyment and sensation seeking) and utilitarian motivation (valuing rationality and effectiveness). These findings point to some potential options for increasing consumers’ motivation to engage with AV technologies, which link to discussions at the SMLL event. [2]

Hedonic motivation was the greatest predictor of intentions to use AVs overall, suggesting that making vehicles fun to use could be a route to increasing adoption of the technology. Workshop discussions at the event highlighted some ideas for increasing the ‘fun’ element of AVs such as giving vehicles faces to ‘anthropomorphise’ them, or including customisable elements so that they could be personalised.

“Hedonic motivation was the greatest predictor of intentions to use AVs overall, suggesting that making electric vehicles fun to use could be a route to increasing adoption of the technology.”

— Emily King, Behavioural Scientist

Meanwhile utilitarian motivation was found to be a predictor of intention to use AVs amongst innovative consumers only. This suggests it is important to educate more innovative consumers on the specific benefits of AV services. For those who are technologically anxious, there is a need to address broader concerns about AI before addressing specific concerns about CAVs.

It is important to note that these are hypotheses based on discussions from the event and existing research in this area. Much more extensive research is needed to identify the full range of behavioural barriers and drivers to build a full understanding of how to support acceptance and use of CAVs.

Read more of our research into self-driving services and consumer trends.

---

[1] West, R., & Michie, S. (2020). A brief introduction to the COM-B Model of behaviour and the PRIME Theory of motivation [v1]. Qeios.

[2] Keszey, T. (2020). Behavioural intention to use autonomous vehicles: Systematic review and empirical extension. Transportation research part C: emerging technologies, 119, 102732.

EV charging: what if I live in a flat with limited parking?

One of the great features of the DG Cities team is our mix of public and private sector experience, and the insight this gives us into the realities of implementing technological solutions in housing estates, particularly when it comes to transport. Our Head of Smart Mobility, Kim Smith has been leading transport strategy and delivery for more than 25 years. Here, she draws on this knowledge and the latest analysis to consider different perspectives on a key challenge for EVs: what if I don’t have anywhere to charge one?

We know that transport emissions represent a major hurdle in the move to a zero-carbon future. We know that part of the government’s strategy to address this is to set an end date for the production of diesel and petrol driven vehicles. The uptake of new electric vehicles is growing rapidly, so we can also assume the second-hand market in EVs will also blossom over the next five years or so. We are at the point where EVs are no longer just for early adopters and there is mainstream take-up, but this means that the practicalities for many consumers are coming into sharper focus. One of the key issues: where do I charge it?

If you have your own dedicated parking space where you can charge your new EV, whether at home or work, then certainly, unless you’re heading off on a trip or covering exceptionally long distances, how and where to charge is relatively straightforward. However, work we have done at DG Cities shows that a high proportion of us don’t have off-street parking. Important to note, our research tells us this isn’t just a city problem – it is equally evident in both urban and rural areas. Figures vary by location, but around a quarter to a third of households don’t have a space at home to charge off-road.

“...do we really need to cover our footways with charge points? Is that not simply an evolution of the car-dominated planning policies of the 60s and 70s?”

— Kim Smith, Head of Smart Mobility

Is the solution to fill our streets with EV infrastructure?

There are planning and accessibility issues when it comes to infrastructure on the street: do we really need to cover our footways with charge points for those of us who need to rely on public charging? Is that not simply an evolution of the car-dominated planning policies of the 60s and 70s?

It’s an interesting thought, as we transition away from fossil fuels and the experience of popping to a garage to top up our tank, how our lifestyles and the places we live will adapt to this change. As proponents of the technology, how can we help to ensure that not having a dedicated charger and the associated range anxiety isn’t seen as a deal breaker? One way is to look at the data…

We don’t always drive as far as we think

Battery technology is moving ahead, and vehicle range is increasing, certainly with the more expensive EV options. In theory at least, range anxiety should be decreasing. Additionally, most of us drive far fewer miles than we imagine. Work done recently by our friends at Field Dynamics, looking at data on 140 million records from annual MOT tests over the last four years, shows that, on average, mileage is dropping: pre-Covid average annual mileage has fallen year-on-year since 2019, to 5,506 miles per year for 2021. There are outliers – high and low mileage drivers – however, when broken down further, 57% of vehicles travel less than 100 miles per week, 87% of vehicles travelled less than 200 miles per week.

The anomaly tends to be in the growing market of vans, where higher mileage, combined with (currently) less range, means multiple charges per week are needed. We also need to consider those who are either buying less expensive vehicles with more limited range, or second-hand vehicles whose older battery technology may require more frequent topping up.

What if you live in a flat with no parking?

For residents of flats, especially older blocks, where parking may not have been a consideration for early planners or developers, traditional parking pressure is already a concern. Garage blocks are often used for storage rather than vehicles. The lack of – or in some instances, lack of knowledge about – an accessible, affordable and efficient public charging network is a huge consumer issue and barrier to EV uptake.

As part of our work aiding the transition for council residents, DG Cities is working with colleagues in the Royal Borough of Greenwich to look at charging needs in housing estates. These are often a mixture of high- and low-rise buildings with limited parking. The approach must be holistic, and this project forms part of a wider piece of work looking at Mobility Hubs on estates, and how councils can offer residents a mix of sustainable transport options (watch this space for more news!) However, to ensure tenants and leaseholders in council properties are prepared for the transition to EVs and not left behind, public charge point provision in or close to the estate is being looked at as a priority.

As with all things, the solutions we are seeing are complex, influenced by continually evolving shifts in behaviour and attitudes as much as technology. Consumer confidence comes with education and experience adapting to EVs. This confidence comes from the provision and placement of an appropriate smart public charging infrastructure at a level sufficient to meet demand. But this infrastructure shouldn’t needlessly clutter the environment with more street furniture that prioritises private vehicle owners and harks back to the ‘car is king’ ethos of previous planning regimes. This is the balance that DG Cities is working to strike, in designing and implementing successful strategies that work for everyone that uses our roads and pavements, whether on foot or wheels.

If you are a local authority or land owner looking to identify where to prioritise EV charging infrastructure, watch our film and get in touch to learn how we can help. You can also read insights from our government-commissioned survey into smart EV charging, and a snapshot of some of the data we gathered on the link between a council’s EV strategy and overall take-up.

Iona Norton: from private to Public Practice, new-build to retrofit, heat pumps to… heat pumps!

As is customary, we are delighted to introduce our newest member of the team, Iona Norton, on our blog. Iona is Housing Energy & Sustainability Manager at the Royal Borough of Greenwich, and has been working with us at DG Cities on decarbonisation projects. Here, she tells us about her background, the experience of moving from the private to public sector, and her reflections on their different challenges and priorities.

It has been six months since I became a Public Practice Associate. This is the programme that led me to the position of Housing Energy and Sustainability Manager at the Royal Borough of Greenwich, and incidentally, into DG Cities…

Public Practice recruits placemaking professionals to forward-thinking local authorities. The programme aims to increase built environment skills in the public sector, while easing the transition for private sector professionals that want to work in a local authority. They match applicants with positions in local authorities that best match their skills, and then organise a learning and development programme that runs alongside day-to-day work in the new role.

I’m a chartered mechanical engineer, with a background in energy strategy, building physics, building services engineering, and specifically, in heat network and heat pump design. In my previous role, I undertook detailed design of energy centres for large masterplans, contributed to best practice heat pump design guidance and worked as a resident engineer during construction.

I wasn’t at all sure how this experience would translate to my new role, or really, what the new role would turn out to be! But I was hoping that the programme would teach me more about the political, economic and social context in which my designs were being built.

In Greenwich, we have approximately 22,000 social rent homes, approximately 13% of which are considered to be in fuel poverty (and this figure is increasing). My role is to develop and deliver a strategy to decarbonise these homes to meet the Borough’s carbon neutral targets, drawing on my private sector experience. It has therefore been interesting to consider some of the differences between my previous and current role – some of these are perhaps obvious, but have really hit home…

1. As an engineer, a typical project existed inside a red-line boundary set by the client (what building, where, how big, how much). We then had the freedom to design the buildings and systems however we thought best to achieve the perfect outcome within that boundary. As a client in the public sector, the problem is ‘how to spread limited jam across a lot of toast’ (while trying to understand exactly what kind of toast you have, and trying to stop the toast being too cold, too hot, or get mouldy). The focus must be less on the perfect solution for one site, and more on the best outcome for a whole Borough.

2. The time for a design process is a luxury, but it is increasingly important – especially for existing buildings. Council housing asset management has historically been focused on reactive repairs and maintenance, and much of this work hasn’t required the need for the iterative design process I’m used to. However, the issues of sustainability, fuel poverty, overheating and damp and mould present a complex set of challenges that can’t be solved without simultaneous consideration of building fabric, heating systems and behaviour change. This requires a significant change in asset repair and maintenance programmes, and puts pressure on programmes, supply chains and cost.

3. Many decisions are not just about the right design, or the right technology, but in what order they should be implemented, and when. A new boiler can make short term carbon savings, reduce fuel bills and solve an immediate repair problem, but doesn’t make a home heat-pump ready and probably isn’t the right long-term climate solution.

“As a client in the public sector, the problem is ‘how to spread limited jam across a lot of toast’ (while trying to understand exactly what kind of toast you have, and trying to stop the toast being too cold, too hot, or get mouldy). ”

— Iona Norton

It feels like I have entered this sector just as it is being reinvented and is making a huge shift - not just in technology and design, but also in outlook and strategic priorities, while set against an uncertain economic climate and cost of living crisis. Hopefully we can work out how to get at least a few bits of toast just right.

Refurb, redevelop or dispose?

Should we be reframing the challenge of decarbonising the UK’s homes? Just as post-war necessity prompted a golden age of social housing, can today’s climate emergency lead to more than incremental improvements – could it be the catalyst for wider transformation across housing; the development of new systems, partnerships and technologies, along with growth in retrofit jobs and skills, to change the way social housing is conceived and managed?

Today, our Head of Research and Service Design, Ed Houghton is in Brighton to speak at the Chartered Institute of Housing conference. He’s joining an expert panel asking: ‘Refurb, Redevelop or Dispose?’ The session will consider what to do with those homes that are hard to insulate or switch to low-carbon heating. Is the answer to replace them with more energy-efficient buildings? Or to commit to finding and implementing new solutions to the challenge?

This is more than a technical equation. While the panel discusses the embodied carbon of existing buildings, equally important is the less tangible metric of ‘home’ and what that means to individuals. As we see from campaigns to save council estates from demolition, it is vital to work with the people that live in these ‘difficult’ buildings, and to understand the emotional and cultural significance of the neighbourhoods they are part of.

Hard to Treat Homes

The UK’s housing stock is uniquely diverse, encompassing buildings of almost every era and type, from timber-framed Tudor mansions to brutalist concrete towers. Our ‘hard to treat homes’ project for the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (formerly BEIS) is developing an evidence base of approaches to homes that are hard to decarbonise by conventional means. Working with The Bartlett School of Architecture at UCL, our team has been conducting interviews with a range of specialists in different fields, from architects and construction firms to housing trusts, community groups and manufacturers, to gain the broadest possible perspective. The research is ongoing, but it’s clear that given the breadth of stakeholders across the sectors involved in the study, there is undoubtedly a need for holistic thinking and deep collaboration

While there are no ‘one size fits all’ solutions to decarbonise social housing, there are common themes. One is the age of properties. The majority of today’s council housing was built between 1945 and the late 1970s, [1] so there are ongoing repair and preservation issues to consider, alongside the challenges of insulation and home heating. As our projects with local authorities on different aspects of net zero show, the balance between capital projects and routine maintenance can be hard to simultaneously address.

This is where our role is particularly useful. DG Cities works as a council’s innovation partner, developing strategies, trialling, implementing and evaluating new solutions and technologies that can save money, energy and make a positive difference to people’s lives. At the moment, we’re working on a range of net zero projects across housing, transport, energy and services for a local authority. They include identifying where to install electric vehicle chargers, designing a new generation of green mobility hubs, and an innovative pilot to share renewable energy across an estate.

“the residents of these ‘hard to treat’ homes are not passengers on the route to net zero; we all play an active role through our individual choices in the way we travel, recycle waste or use energy”

People-centred innovation

Technology has a role to play in every aspect of retrofit, from insulation and smart heating systems, to renewable energy sources. However, technological solutions alone are not enough – they must be designed with people in mind. It's important to recognise that the residents of these ‘hard to treat’ homes are not passengers on the route to net zero; we all play an active role through our individual choices in the way we travel, recycle waste or use energy in the home. Work by our partners at UCL shows that social factors and behaviour play a critical role in shaping how hard-to-treat or hard-to-decarbonise properties can be transitioned to net zero. [2]

At DG Cities, we are particularly interested in the potential benefits of combining new technology with a carefully designed behaviour change programme. An example of this is our trial with Sense energy monitors in Greenwich, where we are helping residents understand and reduce their own energy use. An IoT smart monitor allows them to see the relative energy consumption of different devices and activities. The residents are then supported by an Energy Saving Community, where they can get advice on energy reduction and share tips. One of the social challenges of decarbonisation is to ensure that the most vulnerable and low-income households are part of a just transition. This applies equally to the public and private sector, where the costs of retrofitting homes can be significant, and those who are already struggling to make ends meet may be left behind without adequate support.

A new golden age for social housing?

When we look at the numbers, the scale of the retrofit challenge can seem daunting, but it also represents a huge opportunity. If we approach the issue holistically, the UK can deliver more than upgraded buildings – today’s urgent imperative of climate change can be the spur to strengthen communities and create better, healthier places to live and work. There are also economic opportunities; the government has committed to creating thousands of green jobs, and retrofitting homes can play a crucial role in this effort. If we can conjure a little of the vision of that golden age of social housing, this necessary transition could make a positive impact on the lives of millions.

The heart of the net zero challenge, then, is a simple but powerful idea: that everyone deserves a safe, energy efficient and comfortable place to call home. By sharing best practice across local authority boundaries, harnessing technology and the power of communities, we can create a future in which the UK’s council housing is low carbon, high quality and accessible to all.

Read more about our research project on ‘hard to treat homes’.

[1] Municipal Dreams, John Boughton: https://www.versobooks.com/en-gb/products/332-municipal-dreams

[2] http://shura.shu.ac.uk/30320/

"Trust me, I'm a robot” - Why asking isn’t enough

Trust is complicated. It can be hard to define why we trust certain people or information, as so much of that decision-making process is instinctive. How do those human cues and feelings translate to our interactions with robots? It’s not such a far-fetched issue to consider, as Head of Research and Service Design, Ed Houghton explains.

Midjourney AI urban robot

Increasingly, we are being asked to consider trusting new and emerging technologies in our towns and cities. AI and machine learning have a range of urban applications, from connected self-driving vehicles to smart refuse systems and IoT-based security cameras. But, however inventive, well intentioned or well-funded the technology, the major limiting factor in its successful rollout and adoption is trust. Are we prepared to trust these systems that have been designed to support us? If we don’t, the technological solution could fail – and when trust is broken, reputational damage can be difficult to shake.

“Are we prepared to trust these systems that have been designed to support us? If we don’t, the technological solution could fail – and when trust is broken, reputational damage can be difficult to shake. ”

— Ed Houghton

DG Cities approaches projects by putting people at the centre of any innovation, and making sure services are useful, accessible and could improve people’s lives. That’s why, before we get carried away with the many potential benefits and uses of AI, we need to start from first principles and consider what makes us trust (or distrust) a new technology.

Research shows that to build trust, it’s important to think about five connected concepts:  

Reliability

Robots are seen as more trustworthy if they are reliable and present. In one study, a virtual and physical AI model were tested together to understand which was deemed more reliable when presenting the same information. The study found that physical robots are considered more intelligent than virtual systems such as chatbots, even when sharing the same information. [1]

Transparency

Seeing how technology works can help to build trust. Research shows that explaining how AI-based processes work can help to improve trust in their use, but only for simple procedures. One military wargame example showed that experienced staff developed trust when they could understand how AI-based decisions were being made, and were able to interrogate it. [2]

Personality

Appealing to the user and their unique needs can help to build trust, so tailoring more unique, personalised information can produce greater trust in a system. However, too much ‘personality’ can have a negative effect on trust in the tech, particularly for virtual AI. We like to see our own characteristics reflected. One experiment with virtual AI showed that mirroring different AI personalities (e.g., extrovert vs introvert) elicited positive trust outcomes when they matched the characteristics of the user [3], and these personalised responses were considered more persuasive.

Presence

AI systems with a physical presence, for example a robot based on an AI model, tend to garner higher levels of trust than virtual AI systems, like chatbots. Physical characteristics like human forms and characteristics can build trust, but it can be a hard balance to strike – too similar and they can create feelings of unease. [4]

Demonstrating trust is key, so simple design changes that take into account these principles can help to build valued services. It could mean creating a physical presence, such as a robot assistant instead of a digital chatbot, or simply ensuring that new tools and services are completely reliable before they hit the shelves.

Building trust will be an important outcome for technology developers, as well as those looking to use their services, like local authorities and developers. Whether designing a chatbot service to make customer services more efficient, or trialling a sophisticated self-driving system, evidence shows that it isn’t enough to simply ask people to trust you. Instead, it’s important to demonstrate that you can be trusted – because even in the fast-paced world of AI, trust can only be earned.

To find out how we have been exploring trust in the context of smart city tech and AI, take a look at some of our research into public attitudes to self-driving technology.

---

[1] Bainbridge et al, 2011. [Bainbridge, W.A., Hart, J.W., Kim, E.S., & Scassellati, B. (2011). The benefits of interactions with physically present robots over video-displayed agents. International Journal of Social Robotics, 3(1):41–52.]

[2] Fan et al, 2008. [Fan, X., Oh, S., McNeese, M., Yen, J., Cuevas, H., Strater, L., & Endsley, M.R. (2008). The influence of agent reliability on trust in human-agent collaboration. ECCE’08: Proceedings of the 15th European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics: The Ergonomics of Cool Interaction, ACM International Conference ProceedingSeries,vol.369:1–8.]

[3] Andrews, 2012. [Andrews, P.Y. (2012). System personality and persuasion in human-computer dialogue. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems, 2(2):1–27.]

[4] Chattaramanetal, 2014. [Chattaraman, V., Kwon, W.-S., Gilbert, J.E., & Li, Y. (2014). Virtual shopping agents. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing,8(2):144–162.]

Networked heat pumps: a primer

To meet net zero goals, local authorities are looking for innovative solutions to decarbonise transport, housing, waste, energy and a range of other services. For our latest blog, we want to focus in on the benefits, potential barriers and opportunities of one solution to low carbon heating – networked heat pumps. Balazs Csuvar, DG Cities’ Head of Delivery and Wouter Thijssen, Managing Director of Kensa Utilities, a leading UK heat pump manufacturer, explain.

What are networked ground source heat pumps?

Networked heat pumps replicate the gas grid model, whereby you have an individual heating appliance in your home (in this case, a ground source heat pump instead of a gas boiler), connected to a shared communal loop of pipework in the ground that supplies energy to this appliance (an ambient temperature heat network, as opposed to the gas grid).

Low-temperature heat can be sourced from the ground all year round. Networked heat pumps absorb this sustainable and constantly replenished heat source through pipework under the street. In each home, there is a heat pump, which is connected to this ground loop. The heat pump uses electricity to upgrade the heat from the ground and provide heating and hot water to homes.

“Compared to various air source, electric, gas and combined heat and power configurations, shared ground loop arrays are the most efficient and lowest carbon heating and hot water solution currently available for homes.”

— DG Cities & Kensa

How efficient are they?

On average, the overall energy efficiency of this system is four times greater than using direct electricity for heat, and five times more when compared to gas boiler efficiencies – for every 1kWh of electricity consumed to power the heat pump, approximately 3-4kWh of free energy is gained from the heat stored in the ground.

In effect, the system creates a district heating network. As generations of district heating systems have evolved, the temperatures circulating the district network have also been reduced, further improving efficiency – in networked heat pump systems (often called fifth generation district heating), an ambient temperature flow of below 20°C is possible. This enhances efficiencies and reduces heat losses, whilst still delivering the heating and hot water the end user needs. Ambient temperature loops are also an excellent source to capture waste heat and further improve the efficiencies of networked heat pumps.

The feasibility of a networked heat pump system has been proven; they have been rolled out commercially across the UK in a range of new developments, multi-storey social housing blocks and other, non-domestic, building types. The next boundary is to implement this system at scale in medium density urban areas, such as the residential terraced streets that make up a large proportion of the country’s towns and cities. These are areas likely not dense enough for traditional high-temperature district heating, but in lots of places, too dense for individual air-source (due to noise issues) or individual ground-source heat pumps (due to limited external space).

As part of a recent project, DG Cities and Kensa looked into the feasibility of such a system for a residential neighbourhood – here are some of the key takeaways from our study:

1. Do they work on terraced streets?

Yes. The technical and financial feasibility of the system depends, to a great extent, on the density of homes that will be connecting to the ambient temperature heat network. With a utility provider funding the ground array infrastructure, costs to householders are the same, if not lower, than for air source heat pump installations. Clustered sign-ups over time make this solution viable for the utility provider.

2. How do you design a consumer journey?

The scale of the challenge is massive. To meet 2050 targets, we need to decarbonise 28 million homes in 27 years. That is more than one million per year, or 20,000 homes per week. With that in mind, we need a scalable approach that tackles streets and regions at a time, rather than individual houses one-by-one. Clustered solutions like heat networks and networked heat pumps are great for this. The key, therefore, is to design a consumer journey that engages whole neighbourhoods at a time – a locally-driven transition. This is what DG Cities, Kensa, SELCE and the rest of the Heat Pump Ready Greenwich consortium developed together.

Initial surveys showed what we suspected: heat pump awareness in the UK remains low, with less than half (42%) of survey respondents knowing about heat pumps to varying degrees. Heat pump installation can also be a technical and unfamiliar process for homeowners, as with any new technology.

To address this, we built a ‘funnel’ approach to the consumer journey. This focused on engaging locally and starting very wide; first building up an awareness and understanding of the technology, before giving more specifics and detail about the system to enable people to make an informed decision.

 The diagram highlights the phases of the marketing funnel:

• awareness: making consumers aware of the energy debate, net zero and potential solutions, including networked ground source heat pumps. This includes site visits to existing heat pump sites where residents can talk to those who already have heat pumps, as well as demonstration heat pumps in the local area that they can see and ask questions about.

• consideration: providing consumers with more information to help them decide which technology offers are right for them. This is through 1:1 discussion (e.g. through scheduled ‘coffee hours’) where residents can ask all their questions.

• conversion: allowing people to deploy new technologies in their homes – if a networked heat pump is relevant, providing them with guidance on how to sign up to a scheme. This starts with surveys and quotes specific to their home and situation, giving them the specific details they need to make a decision.

• loyalty and advocacy: once customers have enrolled in the heat pump scheme, the focus moves to making sure customer service is positive, then using their experiences as a success story to recruit more consumers.

3. How can policy accelerate progress?

While we coordinated the key industry players to deliver the best possible consumer journey, we see several policy tweaks that could help fast-track this journey to much more rapid decarbonisation. First, rebalancing electricity and gas levies to avoid unfairly taxing the cleaner fuel of electricity. Second, going from heat network zoning to heat zoning, so that each local authority has the power to designate streets and regions ‘most suitable’ for a certain heat decarbonisation solution, based on local conditions. Third, granting statutory rights to ambient temperature heat networks to enable easier in-road deployment; matching the rights granted to electricity, gas and water utilities.

We believe these three tweaks can significantly speed up coordinated solutions, and would be a great example of a successful partnership between industry and policy to achieve decarbonisation.

Are you a local authority looking to trial a networked heating system?

Our feasibility study showed that current technologies can already make a huge difference to the decarbonisation of many terraced homes. However, for this to work, it will take significant commitment and large-scale behavioural change, along with trials and further evaluation. We are looking for local authorities that are interested in starting this journey with us – to harness a transformative, UK-leading innovation to deliver on decarbonisation goals. Please get in touch if you’d like to discuss this further.

DG Cities in Westminster: presenting self-driving research to the Transport Select Committee

Last week, our Head of Research & Service Design, Ed Houghton was invited to give evidence to the Government’s Transport Select Committee on self-driving vehicles. There are significant consumer barriers to be overcome to shift gear from car ownership to usership, let alone to new self-driving models. For our latest blog, Ed suggests we consider what driving means to people – and how evolving trends and technologies could shape this in the future, but only if the public are at the heart of developing any new service.

Last week, I had the honour of presenting DG Cities’ research to the UK Parliament Transport Select Committee’s investigation into self-driving vehicles. Over several years, the team at DG Cities has been working hard to help government and industry better understand how self-driving services can be designed around the needs of diverse communities, and exploring if and how acceptance of self-driving services can be made more likely. Our work has looked closely at the major barriers facing the technology, and last week we were able to share and explain in more detail some of the key findings from our evidence submission in 2022. In a field of significant hype and excitement, our research has looked to ground technology in the realities of people’s daily lives, and to make what is often the preserve of sci-fi films more tangible.

“In a field of significant hype and excitement, our research has looked to ground technology in the realities of people’s daily lives, and to make what is often the preserve of sci-fi films more tangible.”

— Ed Houghton

Self-driving services are expected to deliver many benefits, including safer roads and a shift towards shared, more sustainable mobility. But direct engagement with consumers over several years has shown us there are several significant barriers that are likely to slow the pace of the technology’s adoption. Safety, trust, and accessibility all top the list of concerns for consumers – only a quarter (26.8%) say they would use a self-driving car tomorrow if they could. Consumers don’t yet see self-driving as part of their mobility.

Why is this important?

We know that mobility, and driving in particular, is an important aspect of many peoples’ lives. It might be the way they get to work – for some, it might be needed to unlock opportunities for better paid work. For those in the countryside with little or no access to buses due to impoverished public transport, driving might be the only way a family can get their children to school.

Not only is driving often economically beneficial, whether we like it or not, it also forms a large part of many people’s identity. Whether it’s the freedom that comes from learning to drive at 17, buying a car to accommodate a growing family, or losing the opportunity to drive due to ailing health, the act of driving, and the feelings related to it, can be associated with key stages in our lives. The 20th century saw the UK’s cities and wider society become increasingly car-centric, and research has shown that people place significant financial and non-financial value on their cars.[1] This makes moving from human-driven to AI-driven vehicles, and shifting away from single or even multiple car ownership, incredibly challenging to advance.

Ed Houghton, Head of Research & Service Design

Where do we go from here?

This sets the stage for a difficult, but potentially transformative, transition for communities. We already see the concept of vehicle usership increasing in popularity, as young urban dwellers change their spending habits and look to micro-mobility and public transport to get about, with the occasional option of renting a shared vehicle. Car ownership declined for the second year running in 2022 – the first time this has happened in over a century.[2] And many expect this to continue.

The systems in which self-driving technologies are being deployed are complex. Infrastructure, regulation, public attitudes, insurance, data security and connectivity – all these components must be managed and maintained to enable acceptance and safe use of self-driving technology.

To overcome the many challenges ahead for industry and government, we will need to continue deep engagement with the public. We need to fully understand their perspective, and then design technologies and services around their needs. For a technology that plays such a central role in people’s lives, it would be hugely negative to not take account of the public’s ideas in developing new services. Failure to do so won’t just limit the chances of services being successfully adopted – at stake are also the many potential benefits of autonomy, which would remain unrealised.

Watch DG Cities’ formal submission to the UK Parliament Transport Select Committee.

[1] Haustein, S. (2021). The hidden value of car ownership. Nat Sustain 4, 752–753.

[2] SMMT (2022) UK Motorparc Data 2021. Accessed online: https://media.smmt.co.uk/uk-motorparc-data-2021/

International Women’s Day 2023: “What we do is really valuable – I wouldn't let anyone be put off, by anything.”

For International Women’s Day this year, we want to focus on the sectors we know and work in, which are still, to a great extent, dominated by men. What’s it like to make your voice heard on transport infrastructure or technology as the only woman in a meeting? Watch our EV Infrastructure Specialist, Ash Burton explain her role and the net zero projects she’s involved in, and read our blog on urban innovation, and why it’s vital for women to be at the heart of shaping policy, services and the places we live and work.

In many of our projects, DG Cities acts as the glue that brings together different groups – public and private, tech firms and local communities – to turn a great idea or innovation into something that works in practice, for people. This means that day to day, we collaborate with specialists in a range of industries, from the built environment to transport and technology. Most of these sectors are still male-dominated.  

“One impact of this underrepresentation is the absence of visible role models, which contributes to an unvirtuous cycle of training and career progression: “78% of students can’t name a famous female working in tech.” ”

In the UK, the percentage of women across all levels in the construction workforce, for instance, is just 14%. In architecture, the figures are slightly better but still low, with women making up around 35% of the profession. The situation is similar when it comes to technology. According to PwC’s Women in Tech report, 23% of the people working in STEM roles across the UK are female, with only 5% of leadership positions held by women. One impact of this underrepresentation is the absence of visible role models, which contributes to an unvirtuous cycle of training and career progression: “78% of students can’t name a famous female working in tech.”

We see evidence of these statistics in our own projects. We’re currently working with the government and UCL to develop an evidence base of housing that is hard to decarbonise. As part of this study, we’ve been conducting interviews with a wide range of experts in the built environment, heating engineering and energy sectors. Stakeholder research has given us an insight into the gender balance across many of these organisations.

Our Economist, Leanne Kelly has been looking at the data: “Anecdotally at least, we’re seeing that those in influential positions to deliver retrofit work are quite male dominated, especially on the practical delivery side. But in policy, academia and roles with a sustainability focus, it does seem more mixed and there are key female leaders.” While this reinforces the headline statistics, sustainability roles represent a vital, influential and growing area of expertise - the trend toward greater parity here is a reason to be hopeful when it comes to identifying new paths into these industries for women.

To meet people’s needs, we need to understand them

Ash Burton, DG Cities

At DG Cities, the approach to urban innovation is people-centred; our aim is to make places and services work better for everyone. To do this, we draw on a wide range of perspectives, in our research and in our own team. It’s vital that women’s voices are heard in the development of any new technology or service, particularly when it comes to issues such as safety. As Head of Research, Ed Houghton explains: “When it comes to self-driving cars, for example, the analysis we did for Project Endeavour highlighted a difference in perceptions of trust between men and women. Men were, statistically, significantly more likely to state that they believed self-driving cars were more trustworthy, whilst women were more cautious either for or against.”

Through surveys and workshops, we went on to explore related issues: how perceptions of safety in a self-driving car change according to the time of day or location, for example, or whether the vehicle is in the city or a rural area. In developing behavioural interventions, we also need to understand the extent to which safety is the driver for a particular transport choice. With this in mind, how do we develop safe, accessible ride-sharing services? How might we harness the potential of IoT to make a housing estate feel safer? What spaces do teenage girls want to see in a city? These are just a few of the questions that highlight the vital role of women in developing any policy, place or service.

(From left) Hiba Alaraj, our expert in the management of net zero, social sustainability and mobility projects; Economist, Leanne Kelly; and Communications Lead, Sarah Simpkin

International Women’s Day 2023

There are two things we want to do to mark International Women’s Day this year. First, we want to celebrate the fantastic women of DG Cities who are leading the way in their fields. Our small but mighty team bucks the trend of the industries we work in – our female/male ratio is currently 50:50. We also bring together a range of disciplines: transport, planning, engineering, behavioural science, communications, economics, project management and research.

It isn’t always easy to be the only woman in an all-male meeting, whether you’re discussing the tech behind self-driving cars or calculating the electricity needed to charge a council’s vehicle fleet. We’re proud of those in our team that go out there and do it, regularly and fearlessly – not least our leader in Smart Mobility, Kim Smith, who has been working on transport planning, project delivery, policy and high-level strategy for more than twenty-five years.

Second, by continuing to support and encourage women to enter these arenas, we can create a more diverse and inclusive industry that benefits everyone. We want to play our part in that. So, if you’re a woman thinking of a career in urban innovation, we’re always open to a chat. And as for making role models more visible, here’s an interview with one of the inspiring women in our team working to help deliver Net Zero, our Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Specialist, Ash Burton: “Every day is exciting, it's new, and what we do is really valuable. I wouldn't let anyone be put off, by anything.”

Launch of Digital Greenwich Connect: “We are a progressive, innovative council with big ambitions for our borough.”

Last week saw the launch of Digital Greenwich Connect, a new partnership set to deliver next generation connectivity in the Royal Borough of Greenwich. Teams from DG Cities, our technology partner, ITS and the Council, led by Councillor Anthony Okereke, joined residents, business leaders, community groups and media to inaugurate the £2m joint venture to deliver ultrafast digital infrastructure within the borough.

Leader of the Royal Borough of Greenwich, Councillor Anthony Okereke gives the inaugural speech

Almost every technological innovation, from electric vehicle charging to smart energy meters, relies on fast, reliable and affordable digital connectivity. A new partnership has been launched that aims to make the Royal Borough of Greenwich one of the most digitally connected areas in the country.

The new company, Digital Greenwich Connect Ltd, has been incorporated to design, build, maintain and commercialise a 21 km full-fibre, gigabit-capable network infrastructure. The venture was formally launched by Leader of the Royal Borough of Greenwich, Councillor Anthony Okereke at a packed event in Woolwich Works in south-east London on Thursday 23rd February.

This new digital highway is a £2m joint venture between DG Cities and full-fibre provider ITS Technology Group. Each company has invested £1m into the programme. Digital Greenwich Connect will substantially improve connectivity in the area, at an affordable price, while enabling public service transformation and an improvement in digital skills. This aligns to the Council’s ambitious new corporate strategy: ‘Our Greenwich’.

“This is one of a number of innovative steps we are taking to ensure our residents and businesses have access to fast, reliable and affordable digital connectivity and to support the delivery of modern Council services. It underpins our ambition for our communities set out in ‘Our Greenwich’ and reinforces our position as a forward-thinking, innovative council.”

— Councillor Anthony Okereke

Innovative new deployment techniques are being used as part of the network, minimising the impact on the environment and on local residents and transport users by utilising existing public infrastructure wherever possible. Internet service providers using the network will be able to offer speeds of 1,000mbps and beyond, providing a highly reliable service for businesses, public services and residents.

In its initial launch phase, the network will cover a 21km area within Woolwich, with further expansion planned. It will provide a full-fibre, ultrafast, gigabit-capable network infrastructure and will equip businesses, schools, residents and students with access to internet speeds that underpin modern working and modern living. It is conceived in a true area-wide, inclusive approach, for residential and business users. It has been designed to ensure that social housing and community centres are included in the strategy, so that those on the front line of providing support and care in the community will not be held back by connectivity issues.

Tony Hughes, Daren Baythorpe and Trevor Dorling

“Fast, reliable connectivity is vital to businesses, attracting investment, supporting innovation and improving services for local residents - particularly as many more people now rely on high-speed broadband to work at home. ”

— Daren Baythorpe, CEO of ITS Technology Group

After the launch speeches came two lively panel discussions, one focusing on business, the other on the opportunities for residents. President of the South East London Chamber of Commerce, Helen McIntosh highlighted the diversity of businesses of all scales and industries in Greenwich, from submarine telecoms to international names in film production. The panel underscored the importance of fast connectivity across sectors, and its role in building economic resilience, growth and attracting investment.

In the residential discussion, the panel looked at connectivity as the cornerstone of achieving digital inclusion aims. Jamie Carswell, Director of Housing and Safer Communities in Greenwich made a valuable point about embracing the wider, less direct benefits of digital inclusion initiatives, such as the opportunities to bring different generations together. Guests also had the chance to see some of the technology close-up, thanks to a display of the fibre and junctions by the ITS team.

“Today is the culmination of many years’ work to ensure that Greenwich has the digital infrastructure that is essential to a modern economy – one that reflects the needs and aspirations of businesses and residents, and supports the delivery of the next generation of public services. ”

— Trevor Dorling, Managing Director DG Cities

Find out more: digitalgreenwichconnect.com

More cupboards, fewer orbs: visualising the smart city

For our latest piece, we’re looking at the way we communicate aspects of our work – specifically, the images we use to illustrate the smart city and the applications of IoT tech. Communications Lead, Sarah Simpkin, proposes we move away from waves of light and flying numbers and focus instead on showing the tangible difference an innovation could make to a place, and to the lives of people that live and work there.

Smart city images suggested by Midjourney AI

What comes to mind when you think of a smart city. A web of blue and white orbs against an evening sky? Maybe some icons floating above the rooftops, or a wave of binary superimposed on a cityscape? A turquoise infographic or two? Search ‘smart city’ and you can see just how uniform this visual shorthand has become.

Motion blurs and flying numbers over the city are supposed to signify an efficient flow of systems, data, energy and information. According to colour theorists, blue is the colour of trust and clarity, as opposed to red, used in a similar context to signify risk or data security. The web or net symbol is a very literal way of making visible the idea of connectivity, of linking nodes. But technology has moved on from the telephone line – it isn’t so linear. In a way, these images are drawing on analogue concepts to try and visualise today’s dispersed, wireless networks. They pretend to map sensors and data points of various city systems, but are mostly sci-fi really.

Early ideas of the smart city didn’t draw on the same visual references. In 2008, IBM launched their Smarter Planet vision, which proposed exploiting the interconnectivity of power grids, food, water, traffic and healthcare systems, enabled by “sophisticated analytics and algorithms that could make sense of it all.” The concept was by Ogilvy & Mather and IBM, and the visual language was developed by San Francisco agency, Office. There were no webs of light, but instead, colourful motifs that illustrated the project’s objectives. As Office wrote in their case study, it was “a graphic language that could illustrate these complicated solutions in a way that was visually arresting and distinctive, yet simple and approachable enough to be easily understood around the world.”

IBM Smarter Planet advert in an airport © Office: “Inspired by the creative vision that designer Paul Rand developed for IBM several decades ago, we adopted his boldness and “wink” in a way that’s unusually approachable for big tech.” https://visitoffice.com/work/ibm

Somehow, from the singular idea that connected technologies could improve urban life, tech firms ended up with a much more nebulous way of expressing this connectivity. You could argue that the resulting imagery has distanced useful technological advances from their purpose, and from the people that could stand to benefit. And just as these illuminated webs are a bit of a turn-off, so are many visualisations of future transport - I’m thinking of the ones that show beatific couples spirited around in shuttles between futuristic towers in a perpetual golden hour. There is a lie in their two-dimensional promise of the future, because it doesn’t see the city as a holistic, complicated whole. A world with self-driving services may not be so far away, but they won’t necessarily be the defining element of our streets. Some of us will probably still ride old bikes, there will be people walking, wheeling, signposts, deliveries, litter, trees – all the chaotic, unplanned details that give a city life.

What do the components of a smart city really look like?

For a while now, I’ve been asking the DG Cities team to send me site photographs of any new installations – “no image too boring” – and they have delivered. IoT, ultrafast connectivity, damp monitors: none of these announce themselves with a beam of light, the reality is much more prosaic. In fact, much of the action is buried underground or in a cupboard. A camera on a lamppost, a small white box on the side of a brick wall, easily mistaken for a meter cabinet. But what that box represents is the ability to easily switch broadband supplier – the contents of that box help council tenants get a better deal. And that camera, connected to a monitoring app that alerts the maintenance team to issues, makes life harder for fly-tippers, gathers evidence more efficiently and helps to improve the neighbourhood.

There’s perhaps a reason why mobile masts and boxes aren’t overtly shown – in my view, much could be done to improve their urban presence. But picturing technology as an ominous urban forcefield can’t do much for public engagement either, particularly when it comes to connecting with those sceptical of big data, 5G and most recently, the idea of the 15-minute city. What’s more, the sophisticated new AI imaging tools we have at our disposal may just generate more of the same. As these models learn from existing visual references, we could find ourselves bathed in binary, in an echo chamber of ever more clichéd imagery.

But it’s easy to grumble. What should we be trying to show instead? I think we should be focusing on the outcome, on what we anticipate a new service or solution could deliver. Not to oversell it, but to illustrate what it’s supposed to do. If we’re looking at the potential impacts of some of our IoT, electrification or connectivity projects, for example, the picture is very different.

It might just look like a child doing their homework, or streaming a game. It could mean interviewing for a job without the screen freezing awkwardly. It might be the quiet rounds of an electric bin lorry, a safe journey home from a night out in a shared mobility service, or a new way to gather a community’s views on local issues. Or it could be a lifeline – a health alarm, a home free of mould and damp, an accessible link to vital services. Technology touches so many aspects of life, from the mundane to the extraordinary, and it is these human interactions that DG Cities is most interested in.

So, when we’re choosing an image for our own communications, we’re going to try not to default to the industry standard. No more retro futuristic webs of light, because for DG Cities, the future of the smart city is about people – and understanding what technology can do to make their lives better. Even if that really looks like a box in a cupboard.

Where would you charge an EV? Taking a holistic look at mobility across Greenwich housing estates

We have talked a lot about decarbonising buildings and heating in our recent blogs, so now some news of a transport project we’re excited to be getting started on. Our Head of Smart Mobility, Kim Smith introduces our latest work with the Royal Borough of Greenwich on the next generation of mobility hubs, assessing the impact of new transport solutions on the shared spaces of a housing estate.

For some time now, DG Cities has been working on projects that seek to understand the decarbonisation challenges that transport, in all its forms, brings. Transport is more than a service, it is the glue that binds together social cohesion and complex aspects of people’s lives; it facilitates access to life’s necessities, from work and admin to recreation and education. Whether you live in a city with good public transport links, or in a car-dependent rural spot, there are nuanced decisions to be made about getting from a to b.

With the phasing out of the sale of new petrol and diesel vehicles getting rapidly closer, a large part of our mobility work has been looking at the infrastructure required to support the transition to electric vehicles, whether for individuals or industry. In all our research, a primary concern flagged by those we have interviewed and surveyed has been access to a reliable and fairly priced charging network.

Work done with some of our partners, including Field Dynamics as part of Project REME, has helped us look at charging solutions for the large number of people who lack access to off-street parking in rural locations. Our latest work with the Royal Borough of Greenwich (RBG) takes us back to an urban environment, looking at the complexities of parking and charging on the Borough’s housing estates, and exploring ways to support residents in their transition to zero-carbon vehicles.

We have benefited from the insight gained through our work with developers, particularly where we have helped them future-cast transport trends and understand the changing wants and needs of their residents over a 15 or 20 year phased build out. This helped us create a picture of changing behaviours and the flexible approach which can be applied to supporting transport requirements.

Initially, our discussions with RBG Housing were centred around supporting the transition to electric vehicles for council tenants by identifying opportunities and delivery models for siting charge points on housing estates. DG Cities takes a whole-city approach to understanding the diversity of needs – and understanding that change in one area can impact many others. The project has now developed into a more holistic look at modal choices and offers on different estates, and what could be delivered to widen access, not just to electric vehicles, but to other sustainable and active travel solutions.

Would residents want to look at identifying space in the estate for cycle schemes, e scooter trials, car club vehicles? How does this impact on the public realm and shared spaces around the estate? From these lines of enquiry, we began thinking about a bespoke mobility hub designed with the specific wants and needs (and physical limitations and opportunities) of the borough’s differing types of estate and its residents.

We’re at the very beginning of this exciting piece of work. Initially, we’re looking at different estate typologies, spread across the Borough, to develop pilot designs. Working with colleagues from Greenwich Council, we have identified five estates which fit one or other of these categories. Our research and project development approach is always human-centric, and the estate mobility hub pilots is no different – over the next three months we’ll be working with residents and Council officers to create a template for a model which could then be rolled out across Greenwich.

Watch this space…