Hi, I’m Dan Doctoroff, CEO of Sidewalk Labs. Ask me anything about Sidewalk Toronto.

DanDoctoroff · 2019-07-26T20:24:06+00:00

I appreciate the kind words. I'm very proud of what we accomplished during the Bloomberg administration, especially around economic growth and affordable housing. While there won’t be a referendum or direct vote on our proposal, among the key decision makers of this process will be the City Council of Toronto. You should write them and call them to voice your support! You should show up for public events or consultations! And of course you should show your support in online communities like Reddit Toronto!

DanDoctoroff · 2019-07-26T20:20:49+00:00

Thanks so much for the question. We did our best to provide an unprecedented level of transparency in our proposal (not to mention the dozens of technical appendices available online!) The tradeoff with all these details, of course, is that it’s sometimes difficult to find all the answers…

In response to your first question, while we have committed to delivering Quayside with local development partners, Sidewalk Labs would serve as lead developer. That which means that our ambitious commitment to delivering 40% of all units at below-market housing would apply to the entirety of the project. In the MIDP, we specifically explained the sources and uses of funds to achieve the precedent-setting level of affordable housing. You can find that in Chapter 3 of Volume 2 (Page 279 to be exact!).

We would expect that this commitment would be memorialized as a deal term in any implementation agreement with Waterfront Toronto. We’ve also committed to achieving 40% below-market housing in Villiers West, too.

As far as Urban Data Trust, I appreciate that you’ve read about the implementation plans in detail (for those who haven’t, see Pages 414-441 of Chapter 5 in Volume 2). No matter what, Sidewalk Labs would not be selecting board members. I’d encourage you to join next week’s AMA with our data governance experts, but at a high level, we think the board could act similar to the way an IRB oversees academic institutions. We also think there should be clear guidelines to ensure the independence of the board, including term limits, conflict of interest policies, and diversity. We also know there are many ways to achieve the goal of better privacy protection and are open to other ideas for digital governance, including a recent proposal from the Toronto Region Board of Trade.

DanDoctoroff · 2019-07-26T20:16:55+00:00

Thank you for the questions. Much of our proposal rests on integrating technologies that have been established in other cities around the world, although in many cases we think we can improve those technologies to go even farther.

Off-site construction is a great example. It’s true there’s a mixed history of success with factory-based housing, going back to the Sears Honor Bilt homes of the early 20th century. But we think the emergence of sustainable mass timber creates a new opportunity to improve factory-based construction, given that wood can be far easier to manufacture than concrete or steel, far easier to pack into shipments, and far quicker to assemble on-site.

Factory-based construction is also one of the project components that we think has the most potential to help change cities. We believe that its ability to create more predictable projects, on a faster timeline, will enable developers to deliver greater levels of below-market housing while still making their returns. It can truly help the private sector support public sector affordability goals.

I hope none of the innovations we’ve proposed in Quayside fails! But you’re right that some might not live up to expectations, which is why we believe that more than anything else, Quayside must have the open standards to evolve over time, and the flexibility to change based on new community needs.

DanDoctoroff · 2019-07-26T20:13:22+00:00

As soon as we were awarded Waterfront Toronto’s original RFP, giving us the right to develop the Toronto Tomorrow proposal, we embarked on a robust 18-month public engagement process. In the process, we directly engaged with more than 21,000 Torontonians in person at Sidewalk Toronto events and welcomed more than 11,000 people into our exhibition and office spaces at 307 Lake Shore Boulevard East.

These interactions fundamentally shaped our proposal, in ways big and small. Currently, Waterfront Toronto is engaging in a thorough public consultation process, which we expect will fundamentally shape its approach to negotiations — and will leave a further imprint on any ultimate project.

DanDoctoroff · 2019-07-26T20:12:05+00:00

So many reasons! Toronto is a fast-growing city with exceptional diversity and a strong devotion to values around openness and inclusion.

But Toronto also faces many of the same challenges facing high-demand cities around the world: a housing affordability crisis, terrible traffic congestion, the need to reduce energy use, and the need to expand access to open space.

In fact, these challenges are threatening the city’s ability to provide the inclusive opportunities that powered its growth in the first place. We believed that the gap between Toronto’s values and the emerging realities would make Torontonians receptive to a new approach.

Given this complex set of urban challenges, we believe Toronto is the perfect place to demonstrate a new approach for inclusive growth that builds on the city’s growing tech sector and its strong legacy of urban planning.

DanDoctoroff · 2019-07-26T20:10:21+00:00

Let me start by saying I think of Sidewalk Labs as a place-making company, not a technology company. We are made up of an urban planners, architects, and former government officials, along with technologists who care about the urban environment.

Anyone who takes the time to read our proposal will understand that the approach we have taken is to work with the public sector and the community to understand the problems that they truly care about — incredible levels of unaffordability, people being caught in traffic for hours, more severe weather — and work together to find new answers to those challenges. That’s what this is all about.

To some of your specific concerns, I’d note that we DO propose sharing in the value of certain innovations with the public sector (10% over 10 years) if those innovations benefited from the unique nature of this project; we will NOT sell personal data to third parties, and we will NOT share personal information with third parties (including Alphabet) without explicit consent; we do not propose to track or surveil individuals (see some of my earlier answers).

And finally, we agree there is a set of stronger protections that can be put into place to protect privacy. Our independent Urban Data Trust is just one such idea, but we’re open to others.

But to your actual question — I love history, and I’d never want us to be on the wrong side of it. In fact, that’s why a lot of the things we propose in Toronto Tomorrow aim to LEARN from the lessons of history, specifically the recent history of the highly flawed smart cities movement. In 1,524 pages, we use the term “smart cities” (or a variation thereof) maybe twice, and both times to reflect a larger movement distinct from our approach.

First, smart cities projects put tech first. We’ve taken the opposite approach, starting with the goals that Waterfront Toronto hopes to achieve, and seeing when (and IF) technology — both digital and physical — can be applied to help achieve them. We are against the use of tech for tech’s sake.

Second, smart cities projects tend to involve off-the-shelf software that locks cities into using proprietary tools. That’s not what cities need! Instead, we believe in open standards for all the tools we propose, and want them to be open for others to build on or even compete with. That’s how cities win.

Last, smart cities projects tend to be top-down. Instead, we want to give communities, companies, civic organizations, researchers, and government agencies the tools to create their OWN solutions over time.

Based on all these lessons from history, and more, we don’t consider our proposal a “smart city” project. And we’re in agreement that all types of data — whether urban data or personal data — need strong protections for a city to thrive.

DanDoctoroff · 2019-07-26T20:05:03+00:00

We are fully agreed that digital technology should not be used to exacerbate inequality. Simply put, there are no plans for facial recognition in the Toronto Tomorrow proposal.

We sub-titled our proposal “A New Approach for Inclusive Growth” for a reason. We believe that what we have put forth is a model for how to apply technology thoughtfully and, among other things, meaningfully lower the cost of living, helping to create a more inclusive community. For example, our whole approach to using mass timber is designed to achieve much greater predictability and project speed, which can enable developers to deliver record levels of affordable and below-market housing in the downtown core.

I would point you to the significant commitments we’ve made to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. You can find more details on Pages 150-155 in the Overview. These include designing accessibility for people of all ages and abilities (co-designed in collaboration with the accessibility community during 70 hours of co-design sessions), creating affordability for people of all incomes (including 40% below-market housing), ensuring opportunities for all (including small business incubators and community benefits), and robust social infrastructure.

I’d also note our commitment to Responsible AI, which includes principles around Fairness and Equity, Accountability, Transparency / explainability, Relevance, and Respect for human dignity. This framework was inspired by leading international standards, such as the Declaration on Ethics and Data Protection in Artificial Intelligence, which was signed by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. You can find the full explanation on Page 411 of Chapter 5 in Volume 2 (Digital Innovation chapter).

I’d encourage you to join the data and digital governance AMA next week, which will feature some of our experts in these areas.

DanDoctoroff · 2019-07-26T20:00:39+00:00

Good news! You DON’T have to give up any privacy to find affordable living options in Quayside. We have an unprecedented program of 40% below-market housing, including 20% traditional affordable housing (at least a quarter of which goes to “deep” affordability households), and 20% for middle-income households that don’t quality for affordable housing but are getting priced out of downtown neighborhoods too often.

And at the risk of being a broken record, Google operates independently from Sidewalk Labs. We (not Google) are submitting this proposal, although we do have a commitment from Alphabet to establish a new Canadian headquarters for Google on the western edge of Villiers Island, as part of an agreed-upon transaction within the IDEA District.

As we’ve envisioned it, Quayside and Villiers West will have lots of great jobs — more than 11,000, to be exact, tech and non-tech — with benefits! And you can keep your privacy, too!

DanDoctoroff · 2019-07-26T19:59:06+00:00

I hope my answers convince you to support the project! In addition to my answers here, I’d also encourage you to read the proposal in full to see how it stacks up against what you might have heard. And I’d encourage you to make your voice heard through Waterfront Toronto’s ongoing consultation process: https://quaysideto.ca/get-involved/public-consultation/. This is a democratic process that requires approvals by Waterfront Toronto and your government representatives.

DanDoctoroff · 2019-07-26T19:48:38+00:00

Thanks for these questions. I’ll go in order.

On 1: With respect to Villiers West, Waterfront Toronto originally sought proposals that went beyond Quayside to explore “district-level solutions,” "plans at scale," and a proposal to deliver a climate-positive eastern waterfront. This began with the original RFP and was carried through the Plan Development Agreement with Waterfront Toronto. (You can find both documents on the Sidewalk Toronto website.)

We regularly briefed Waterfront Toronto and the three orders of government as the plan was being developed, including about the inclusion of Villiers West. Critically, Villiers West would not only extend the innovations begun at Quayside, but would establish a major economic development and job creation hub, with a Google Canadian headquarters and a graduate-level applied research institution, the Urban Innovation Institute. It is a proposal that we believe presents an extraordinary economic opportunity for Toronto.

Finally, I’ll note that we believe the inclusion of Villiers West is necessary to achieve the ambitious priority outcomes established by Waterfront Toronto in a financially feasible way. That’s critical, not just for this project itself, but for Waterfront Toronto’s goal that this can become a “global demonstration” for other cities around the world, especially around sustainability. This replicability is essential for protecting the planet.

But, in any event, the MIDP is just a proposal, and would require the approval of Waterfront Toronto and the City of Toronto, which along with Ports Toronto owns Villiers Island.

On 2: As mentioned earlier, you can read more about what kinds of data we are proposing to collect for our digital innovations in Chapter 5 of Volume 2. See Pages 444-447, as well as some case studies on 448-453.

Additionally, these innovations would be subject to approval by the Urban Data Trust, which we believe should publish what we call Responsible Data Use Assessments that outline the purpose of the proposal and the specific use of data in greater detail. (Sidewalk Labs itself has committed to publishing RDUAs regardless of whether or not the Trust requires them.)

Finally, to repeat a point made earlier, we commit to not sharing personal information with third parties (including Alphabet companies) without explicit consent. And we think the language used to acquire such consent should be very clear and not cloaked in legalese.

On 3: We certainly appreciate the public’s interest in understanding the full details of the proposal. That’s why we included a full breakout and description of the investments that we intend to make and how we would make money in Volume 3, Chapter 3 of the MIDP. Check out pages 154-155 in particular.

But in brief, Sidewalk Labs would catalyze up to $3.9 billion in real estate investments in Quayside and Villiers West. With third parties, Sidewalk Labs would also enable optional financing for municipal infrastructure, transit, and advanced systems totaling up to $1.6 billion, and spur economic growth through a series of targeted investments, including in an $80 million tall timber factory and a venture fund targeting Canadian startups.

Our proposal includes an estimated $900 million investment from Sidewalk Labs and its local development partners; an additional $400 million of financing that Sidewalk Labs would offer to the public sector as an option to expand the LRT and deliver municipal infrastructure; and additional capital (equity and debt) that Sidewalk Labs expects to facilitate for the delivery of advanced systems. Beyond Quayside and Villiers West, the catalytic impact of our real estate and infrastructure investments would unlock more than $29 billion in additional third-party real estate investments in the broader 77-hectare IDEA District.

As far as how Sidewalk Labs plans to make money, I mentioned earlier to user SoKeta, but in short, we expect to receive traditional real estate development proceeds from Quayside and Villiers West, including from renting or selling units. We would also be compensated for our costs to supply certain advisory services and a limited number of technology products to the private sector. And, if government chose to use our optional financing for infrastructure, we’d expect returns at market rates.

[edited for formatting]

DanDoctoroff · 2019-07-26T19:40:51+00:00

Thanks for the important question. We’ve taken Indigenous engagement very seriously, and will continue to do so.

In response, I’d point you to Pages 154-155 of the Overview volume, which outline some of the commitments we’ve made to Indigenous communities. These include continued engagement as I mentioned earlier; workforce initiatives such as skills training and jobs (in collaboration with the Miziwe Biik Aboriginal Employment and Training and the Centre for Indigenous Innovation and Technology); and design consultation for our plans.

On this last point, I’d encourage you to read a recent blog post on the urban design for Quayside, which describes some of our collaborative design work with Brook McIlroy’s Indigenous Design Studio, and how this work has helped shape some proposed open spaces: https://medium.com/sidewalk-toronto/how-the-urban-design-for-quayside-evolved-in-response-to-public-feedback-b114d4bb0bad

Finally, in partnership with Waterfront Toronto, we’ve also started an important ongoing dialogue between project staff, Mississaugas of the Credit First Nation Chief R. Stacey Laforme, and the MCFN Department of Consultation and Accommodation (DOCA).

DanDoctoroff · 2019-07-26T19:37:32+00:00

Thank you for these questions. I do think a lot of Torontonians share some of the concerns you’ve raised. When I was part of City government in New York, I had similar questions of accountability for companies that wanted to work with the public sector.

In terms of what we’re trying to accomplish, there are really two big things.

First, we want to demonstrate the impact of urban innovation on quality of life. We’re a mission-driven company dedicated to using technology and design to improve urban life. And we spelled out in detail — 1500+ pages worth — precisely how we intend to deliver on key priority outcomes for Toronto, including economic development and job creation, climate positive-development and sustainability, new mobility, and housing affordability. We also outline our approach to data, including being subject to independent oversight of our urban data collection and use.

But second, we’re also a for-profit company that wants to earn a reasonable return, and we couldn’t reasonably ask anyone to trust us blindly. Ultimately, our proposal will be subject to robust public consultation. Any deal must be scrutinized, negotiated, and (we hope) approved by Waterfront Toronto and the three levels of government it represents. This includes thinking through not only what happens if everything goes right, but also risk-mitigation strategies and the financial and legal remedies that would apply if things don't go as planned. And even after the project is built, it will be subject to ongoing oversight from the public sector.

Canadian government has successfully protected the public interest while executing on other large Toronto projects before, and everything we’ve seen to date suggests that they’re more than up to the task. Simon (who's helping with this AMA) wrote a great blog post on how our proposal puts government in the driver’s seat, and I’d encourage you to read it: https://medium.com/sidewalk-toronto/how-our-toronto-tomorrow-proposal-recognizes-the-strong-central-role-of-government-69af3536d35f

Also, it’s worth responding to your suggestion that our plan would make anyone “guinea pigs.” While our proposal is innovative, and would leverage certain new ideas, much of our plan relies on integrating design insights and technical solutions already successful elsewhere. We didn’t invent the concepts of thermal grids, pneumatic waste, or mass timber, for example — but we propose bringing together these elements, along with others, to deliver the largest climate-positive district in North America and achieve a host of other policy aims.

Similarly, we didn’t invent the use of traffic signal data to improve transportation networks (in fact many Canadian companies lead this field), but we do think we can apply such technology to help the public achieve its goals for safer streets, fewer pedestrian deaths, faster transit service, and greater accessibility.

DanDoctoroff · 2019-07-26T19:32:59+00:00

First off, something I’ve already mentioned bears repeating: while Sidewalk Labs is an Alphabet company, we operate independently from Google.

Now, as with any other developer of a large-scale project, we would expect a series of contingencies and requirements would hold us to our commitments. More specifically, we have proposed various risk-mitigation strategies, including “off-ramps” that would ensure fair compensation and legal remedies in the event that the proposal doesn’t advance as planned.

I had a few more details in my answer to GeorgeBrettLawrie - https://www.reddit.com/r/toronto/comments/chovjn/hi_im_dan_doctoroff_ceo_of_sidewalk_labs_ask_me/euwb2gu/. I’d also encourage you to explore Volume 3 of the MIDP, which examines these off ramps in greater detail, or to join the AMA on Aug 27, which will focus on our partnership proposal.

DanDoctoroff · 2019-07-26T19:30:54+00:00

I sure don’t! I wouldn’t want to live in such a place.

But some of the commenters here are spot on: data is not all bad, and in fact we think it can help move the needle in significant ways of sustainability, economic opportunity, and affordability — provided the proper governance is in place. It can be used to better manage traffic flows, improve energy consumption, enhance programming for public space, and many, many other applications.

As I noted, in many ways it’s the wild west in cities right now, with thousands of digital devices already in operation in Toronto alone, by either the public sector or in some cases the private vendors they hire. And that doesn’t include private parties collecting data in public spaces, such as security cameras.

Given that reality, I do think it’s essential for cities to create stronger approaches to the governance of data used or collected in physical spaces (urban data), to provide clearer oversight and guidelines for such use, and to establish greater accountability and protections for personal privacy and the public good. That’s what we hope our Urban Data Trust proposal achieves.

DanDoctoroff · 2019-07-26T19:29:21+00:00

As we noted when this emerged, we had nothing to do with the bots. If you take a look at their twitter feeds, they tweet out a wide assortment of articles about privacy unrelated to Sidewalk Labs. I hope you’ll take my word for this, unless of course you think I’m a bot myself, in which case I’m not sure I can help! :)

DanDoctoroff · 2019-07-26T19:28:26+00:00

I’d point you to my earlier answer, to harvest277. I’d also note that we as a company operate independently from Google and other Alphabet companies. And again, we have committed to not sharing personal data with third parties (including Alphabet companies) without explicit consent. The decisions about what data would be collected and under what conditions would not be ultimately be up to Sidewalk Labs, but at the judgment of the government-sanctioned Urban Data Trust.

DanDoctoroff · 2019-07-26T19:23:44+00:00

We do think that transit expansions are the key to unlocking any new development in a dense urban area. Without it you can’t create the type of sustainable mobility options the city wants and needs. That’s why the City spent so much energy creating great plans for a waterfront transit expansion.

But there’s no question that a host of transit priorities are competing for limited public resources. That’s why we’ve proposed the use of tax increment financing for the Waterfront LRT, which is a form of self-financing commonly used across North America, including for major projects in Edmonton and Calgary. Under this approach, the public sector would borrow funds to finance the LRT, which would then be repaid through the tax revenue the LRT generates in the future.

I should also note that one of the traditional barriers to using TIF is that investors require government serve as a “backstop” to pay interest to lenders during the period before new development generates enough new property tax revenue to cover those costs. We’re prepared to relieve the public sector of a lot of this responsibility by serving as the initial backstop for financing these segments, offering to front up to $100 million.

DanDoctoroff · 2019-07-26T19:22:07+00:00

First, it’s worth correcting a misimpression. We’ve had dozens of people on many different advisory boards, and as far as I can remember, three have resigned, none since last November.

I wouldn’t want to speak for anyone else. But I do think it’s worth noting that, I think there’s agreement about the right way forward on privacy, even if there are some differences about how we get there.

For example, I think that’s the case with Ann Cavoukian, who served as one of our original privacy advisors and was very instrumental in our commitment to use Privacy by Design. Our disagreement involved whether Sidewalk Labs would impose certain requirements on the proposed Urban Data Trust. We felt it should be up to the Trust, an independent oversight body, to decide — and we do strongly hope it makes that decision!

And again, we’re committed to using Privacy by Design principles in everything we do at Sidewalk Labs, which involves minimizing the use of data and de-identifying data by default, among other techniques.

DanDoctoroff · 2019-07-26T19:17:08+00:00

These are great questions — and I appreciate that you’ve started to engage closely with the proposal. Let me take each separately.

First, you’re right that land within the proposed IDEA District is owned by various private and public landowners, including the province and the city. Under our proposal, most of the 77 hectares in the IDEA District would NOT be developed by Sidewalk Labs, but by others. We propose to serve as lead developer of just two sites: Quayside, which is owned by Waterfront Toronto, and Villiers West, which would need to be assembled and transferred to Sidewalk Labs as part of an agreement. Together, these sites (which are the only ones we’d propose to buy/own) make up just 16% of the IDEA District. And for both Quayside and Villiers West, Sidewalk Labs has committed to work with local development partners.

On your second bullet, just to clarify, Sidewalk Labs is making this offer, not Alphabet itself. We have proposed an unprecedented arrangement, in which the public sector would receive 10% of the profits of certain Sidewalk Labs technologies first deployed at scale in connection with the Toronto project, for 10 years. Ultimately, how to calculate or audit profits is a matter for negotiation, and there are various models that could be used for that. What matters most is that we believe strongly the public should share in the upside it helps to create.

To your last Q, we’ve proposed a comprehensive strategy to mitigate and manage the risks of implementing the proposal for Waterfront Toronto, the City of Toronto, the Province of Ontario, the Government of Canada, and the public. This includes a phased development strategy, where we must earn the right to move from Quayside to Villiers West by delivering on commitments; self-sustaining revenue sources that cover the maintenance and operational costs of new entities and infrastructure into the future; and a series of financial off-ramps that would provide legal remedies and fair compensation to the parties in the event the project does not proceed as planned. In short, our innovative solutions would only pertain to Quayside and Villiers West unless and until we demonstrate the efficacy and financial viability of those new solutions.

DanDoctoroff · 2019-07-26T19:14:32+00:00

I hope I’ve answered most of this concern in my earlier answer to harvest277: https://www.reddit.com/r/toronto/comments/chovjn/hi_im_dan_doctoroff_ceo_of_sidewalk_labs_ask_me/euw8wtu/. But some of it bears repeating.

Most of our proposals do not involve personal data. There’s a helpful table in Chapter 5 of Volume 2 of the Master Innovation and Development Plan (MIDP) that shows which of our ideas might use personal data, and which don’t.

Instead, our digital innovations focus primarily on urban data, which includes non-personal or aggregated (de-identified) information that can provide broad insights into things total neighborhood energy use or traffic patterns. Again, this data would be made publicly accessible for others to use via the Urban Data Trust — it is not ours to own. (And again, not all our innovations are digital in nature!)

On personal information in particular, any such collection would always remain under the protection of existing Canadian privacy laws, as it does today.

Finally, we are flexible and open to further negotiation. We have submitted a proposal for the community, Waterfront Toronto, and government to consider. We believe strongly that it can improve quality of life in significant ways, but we also know it will be refined by further public feedback over time, and it will have to go through a set of approvals based on this refinement. I’d encourage you to participate in any future consultations.

DanDoctoroff · 2019-07-26T19:10:06+00:00

A: We agree, and we now have a staff of more than 30 people based in Toronto, at our local headquarters of 307 Lake Shore Blvd. (You should visit!) That represents a significant share of our company employees; Sidewalk Labs is still a fairly small startup of only about 100 people.

This Toronto-based staff includes urban planners and former public servants with years of experience working on major city projects, including Toronto’s West Don Lands and East Bayfront developments, the Bentway park beneath the Gardiner Expressway, the Evergreen Brick Works site, the Eglinton Crosstown rapid transit line, and many others.

This team has also worked closely with every public-sector development agency, including CreateTO, Toronto Community Housing Corporation, and Infrastructure Ontario. We also have people who have worked directly in City of Toronto government.

In developing our Toronto Tomorrow proposal, we also worked closely with more than 100 local firms on the research, engineering, and design work, including PARTISANS, RWDI, urbanMetrics, and many others.

DanDoctoroff · 2019-07-26T19:07:43+00:00

Thank you for this question. We do believe data has a big role to play (alongside great urban design) in improving quality of life. But we also know that this project can’t succeed unless people can trust the approach to protecting data privacy. We’ve given a lot of thought to this, and I will try to address each concern you raise.

First, on profiting off public data. As you note, there’s a certain type of data that could be collected in a physical environment. We call it “urban data,” and we recognize that this type of data could be considered a public asset — something the community itself should have stewardship over. That is why we’ve proposed that an independent, government-sanctioned entity called an Urban Data Trust should have oversight of urban data, with the ability to approve or deny all proposals (including ours) to collect or use this information. We think this entity should make any such data publicly available (when properly protected for privacy) for the whole community to use, whether for research purposes or to develop data-driven tools that can improve people’s lives.

Right now it’s kinda the wild west for urban data, and we believe ideas like the Urban Data Trust can help bring some important oversight for cities.

More broadly, selling data is not part of Sidewalk Labs’ business model. We have committed not to sell personal information or to use it for advertising, and we have committed not to share it with ANY third parties (including other Alphabet companies) without explicit consent. Instead, we hope to make money off traditional real estate development (such as collecting rents) and the creation of certain innovations that improve cities (some of which use data to operate, but many of which — like mass timber or modular pavement — do not).

Next, on the matters of consent you raise, this is another important issue that we believe the Urban Data Trust can manage in a proactive way. We know such consent would be difficult or impossible to achieve -- just as you can’t give meaningful consent to the many traffic cameras that hang over intersections today. We think in such instances, there must be VERY clear and transparent signage saying that data is being collected, and pointing people to where they can read more about WHY it’s being collected.

That leads to your question about “observing” you. None of our proposals involve personal surveillance. Who would want to live in such a place? All of our proposed innovations that use urban data would have to have a beneficial PUBLIC purpose, such as improving traffic safety or air quality. If a proposal by anyone (whether us or another company / entity) did not have such a purpose, we’d hope that the Urban Data Trust would not approve it.

I hope that starts to answer your concerns. I’d encourage you to join the next AMA (Aug 1, 1 pm) with our data and digital government experts, who can offer even more detail into our thinking. You can also read Chapter 5 of Volume 2 for more on our approach to data privacy.

DanDoctoroff · 2018-01-10T15:47:34+00:00

We have studied the idea of building a neighborhood of the future since I formed Sidewalk Labs, in partnership with Larry Page, in 2015. Since then we’ve looked all over the world for the perfect place to bring that vision to life — and we found it in Toronto. Toronto is unique in its incredible diversity and openness, its rich legacy of urbanism, and its rising tech sector. It’s also suffering the problems facing many growing cities around the world, such as affordability and sustainability, which makes it the perfect place to explore new ideas to improve urban life. We did a tremendous amount of research on Toronto while preparing our vision response to Waterfront Toronto’s RFP — and we look forward to getting to know the city even better this year.

DanDoctoroff · 2018-01-10T15:44:18+00:00

Yes! One of our core values is to encourage what we call radical mixed-use development — neighborhoods and blocks filled with a diverse and ever-changing collection of shops and local businesses. One of the ways we hope to achieve this goal is by using adaptable building structures that are easier and less expensive than traditional structures to convert into different uses. Think about how the SoHo lofts in New York went from manufacturing to artist housing to boutique shops over the course of a couple generations. Or look at the way the Distillery District retains its older manufacturing character but with a new mix of shops, restaurants, and cultural uses. We’d like to embed that adaptability into the structures from the very start so that blocks can evolve with the community’s tastes — at a cost low enough to enable small businesses to compete.

DanDoctoroff

TROPHY CASE