Smarter Urban Planning: Match Land Use with Citizen Needs and Financial Constraints

© 2011 IBM Corporation

Smarter Urban PlanningMatch Land Use with Citizen Needs and Financial Constraints

ICCSA-CTP 2011_International Conference Santander, Spain, June 20th.-23rd.

Maria-Lluïsa Marsal-Llacuna, Professor Architecture and Building Engineering Department

Universitat de Girona

[email protected]

Ying Tat Leung Guang-Jie RenAlmaden Services Research

IBM Research

[email protected] [email protected]

Sponsors: IBM ES, IBM US

mailto:[email protected]




Smarter Urban Planning

2

OPENING



3

Cities are complex ecosystems; they rely on multiple stakeholders and core systems to meet the needs of citizens and local businesses

Observations•Local government does not necessarily own all the resources; it has a need to collaborate with other stakeholders•Citizens often hold the local government accountable for the various services they receive, regardless of providers•Public policies tend to be made in isolation; opportunities to address cross-system challenges are often overlooked

Federal/National

State/Province

Citizens and

Businesses

Core SystemsTransportation, Public Safety, Water, Utilities, Healthcare, Education, Social Services,

Culture, Economic Dev, Urban Planning, Environment, etc.

County

City GovernmentManage and Support Business Areas: Vision, Policy, Planning, Budgeting,

Revenue Collection, Finance, HR, Legal, IT, Admin, Procurement, Facilities, etc.

Fund & Administrate via agencies & programs

Create and deliver front-line services

Private/Non-profit organizations

Participate in, influence and evaluate the core systems

Fund, elect, influence and evaluate the government at all levels

Direct or Indirect influence through policies and funding

Client Challenge: How can we represent the city ecosystem in ways that encourage collaboration and help resolve challenges?



4

IBM Response: Actionable Business Architecture for Smarter Cities as an integrated approach to manage city’s transformation journey

IBM Approach Overall Design

Dire

ct

Co

ntro

lE

xec

ute

Mar keting & C ust omer Management

Consumer Segmenta tion

Customer R elations hip Stra tegy

Marke ting Stra tegy & Plann ing

Cus tom er Behav io r Mode l ing

Marke t & Competi to r Res earch

Cus tom er Satis fac tion M easurement &

Management

Segmentation Managem ent

Cliente ll ing

Ca l l Center

Campaign M anagement

Customer Servic e

Loy al ty

Customer Com munica tions

M as s M ark eting & Adv ertising

Target Mark eting

Afte r Sa les Serv ic es

Customer Repos ito ry

Pr oducts

M erc handise Strategy

Merchand ise Plann ing

Ass ortm ent Plann ing

Produc t Dev elopm ent (e .g . Priv ate Label )

Brand M anagement

Pricing Strategy

Sourcing Plann ing

Pric e / Prom otions M anagem ent

Inventory M anagem ent

Supply Terms Admin is tration & Pric ing

Produc t L i fec ycle

M anagem ent (PLM )

Al loc ations

PO & Trade Funds Managem ent

Purchas ing / Sourcing

Demand Forecas ting

M as ter Data M anagement

St ore and Channel

Multi -channel Strategy

Store & Channe l Strategy

Store Design & Lay out

Channe l Des ign & Lay out

Store & Channe l Pro fitabi l ity

Store Operations M anagement

Transaction Management

Planogram

R eplen is hment

Services De livery

Price Changing

Tim e & Attendanc e

Floor Stock ing , Back Room Task Mgt

Loss Prev ention

Workfo rce Management

POS Execution / Cash Managem ent

Multi -channe l Ca ll Center

Distrib ution & Warehou sing

Distribu tion, Warehous e, Supp ly Cha in

Stra tegy

Transporta tion Plann ing

Supp l ie r Re la tionsh ip Planning (Log istics )

Supp l ie r Perfo rmanc e Managem ent

In-bound Logistics

In tra -c om pany & Outbound Logistics

Trans portation / Fleet Management

Warehouse Managem ent

Dis tribution Center O pera tions

Yard Management

Returns & Reclam ation

Produc t Track & Trace

Transporta tion / Flee t Operations

Business Admin istr ation

Corpora te Stra tegy

Financia l M anagement & Planning

LO B Plann ing

Location Stra tegy

All iance Managem ent

Busines s Perfo rm ance Reporting

Lega l & Regu lato ry Compl iance

Rea l Esta te & Cons truc tion M anagement

Risk Management

Stock Ledger HR M anagement (Career

Deve lopment, Train ing , Rec rui ting)

HR Adminis tra tion / Payro l l

C orpora te Aud it

Corpora te Acc ounting (GL AP,

Treas ury , e tc

Sa les Aud it

Ind i rec t Proc urement

Cred it Operations

PR & Inv es tor Re la tions

IT Sys tem s & Opera tions

Dire

ct

Co

ntro

lE

xec

ute








Management


Cliente ll ing

Ca l l Center


Customer Servic e

Loy al ty



Target Mark eting



Pr oducts





Brand M anagement

Pricing Strategy

Sourcing Plann ing





M anagem ent (PLM )

Al loc ations



Demand Forecas ting


St ore and Channel








Planogram

R eplen is hment

Services De livery

Price Changing

Tim e & Attendanc e


Loss Prev ention






Stra tegy




In-bound Logistics





Yard Management







LO B Plann ing

Location Stra tegy





Risk Management




C orpora te Aud it


Treas ury , e tc

Sa les Aud it


Cred it Operations



Dire

ct

Co

ntro

lE

xec

ute








Management


Cliente ll ing

Ca l l Center


Customer Servic e

Loy al ty



Target Mark eting



Pr oducts





Brand M anagement

Pricing Strategy

Sourcing Plann ing





M anagem ent (PLM )

Al loc ations



Demand Forecas ting


St ore and Channel








Planogram

R eplen is hment

Services De livery

Price Changing

Tim e & Attendanc e


Loss Prev ention






Stra tegy




In-bound Logistics





Yard Management







LO B Plann ing

Location Stra tegy





Risk Management




C orpora te Aud it


Treas ury , e tc

Sa les Aud it


Cred it Operations



Dire

ct

Co

ntro

lE

xec

ute








Management


Cliente ll ing

Ca l l Center


Customer Servic e

Loy al ty



Target Mark eting



Pr oducts





Brand M anagement

Pricing Strategy

Sourcing Plann ing





M anagem ent (PLM )

Al loc ations



Demand Forecas ting


St ore and Channel








Planogram

R eplen is hment

Services De livery

Price Changing

Tim e & Attendanc e


Loss Prev ention






Stra tegy




In-bound Logistics





Yard Management







LO B Plann ing

Location Stra tegy





Risk Management




C orpora te Aud it


Treas ury , e tc

Sa les Aud it


Cred it Operations



Component Business Model

Actionable Business Architecture

Operating Models

City Ecosystem

Transportation Water Social Services

…Local Government Core Systems

• Public Safety• Citizen Health• Energy• Environment• Urban planning

• Economic Development• Education• Culture and Recreation• Judicial and Justice• etc.

Business of IT Finance Human CapitalPayment

…

Shared Services• Procurement• Asset Management• Tax Collection• etc.

Process Models IT Models Solutions and Projects

• Aligned with Strategy Models• Driven by Business Scenarios



5

Urban Planning is one of the domains we have chosen for deep dive in 2011

Direct

ControlExecute

City Vision and Strategy

City Performance Management

City Governance Operations

Public Safety Strategy

Crime, Fire and

Emergency Management

Public Safety Operations

City Transportation

Strategy

Transportation Service

Management

Transportation Infrastructure

Operations

Citizen Health Strategy

Health Service Management

Health Service Operations

City Utilities Strategy

Utilities Service

Management

Utilities Infrastructure

Operations

Eco-City Strategy

Sustainability Programs

Management

Sustainability Programs Delivery

Urban Planning Strategy

Development Permit

Management

Land and Buildings

Operations

City Economic Policies

Economic Programs

Management

Economic Development

Operations

Social Services Strategy

Social Programs

Management

Social Services Delivery

Education and Culture Policies

Education and Culture

Programs Management

Education and Culture

Operations

Government-wide

Administration Strategy

Administration Services

Management

Administration Services Delivery

City Strategy & Governance

Public Safety Transportation Citizen HealthEnergy &

WaterEnvironmental Sustainability

Urban Planning &

Building Management

Economic Development

Social ServicesEducation, Culture &

Recreation

Municipal Administration



6

PROBLEMS IN URBAN PLANNING



7

Our cities are having problems due to an unsuccessful planning

Problem #1Cities -as urban planning product- are not covering citizen needs

Problem #2Urban planning activity is lacking the objectivity that is needed to balance public and private interests.

Problem #3In moments of economic crisis, cities’ public realm is in danger



8

Problem #1Cities -as urban planning product- are not covering citizens’ needs

[Capsule/Parenthesis]:

Countries’ Administrative Style, Legal Tradition, Power System and Jurisdictional Structure



9

Problem #1

Cities -as urban planning product- are not covering citizen needs

How is urban planning done today?

Main instrument is the law, Urban Planning Acts. Master plans are normative graphical representation and Cities are the living result of master plansToday’s cities complexity asks for a better informed and more documented planning activity



10

Problem #1


Administrative Model of countries explains countries' Legal Tradition election as Power System explains countries' Jurisdictional Structure.

Two Styles of Law exist, Romans or Traditional (mainly Unitarian C) and Anglo-Saxon (mainly Federations)

Spain is an example of Romans Style in Unitarian Country while the US is an exception. UK is the obvious exception of Anglo-Saxon Style of Law attachment in an Unitarian Country

Styles of Law main’s difference: Law’s considerationRomans Style, Law is equivalent to a contractAnglo-Saxon model, contract is a consequence of the Law therefore it is possible to generate as many contracts as required by different situations, using the Law only as a starting point.



11

Problem #1


Urbanism out of both models is opposed: Continental (based in Romans Style of Law) leaves not much space for uncertainty, all urban parameters are ruled

Anglo-Saxon promotes it (model born in 1960), only zoning areas’ constructability and land uses are ruled

>>opposed role and Administration’s behavior: writ of tutelage in the first model vs discretional and active role in the second (initiating urban planning activity)

Continental Master Plans’ are not much flexible tools, without uncertainties.based on property rights, Master plans consolidate existing Land Uses ones and project new ones. Master Plans draw all future projects with absolute detail, main root cause of speculation in countries attached to this model. “Plan-Law”: relationship between Master Plan, Urban Project and Building is established according to the Law

Master Plans out of the New Model, in line of “action plans”, they do not constitute rights or obligations Land Use is a right of the State. State and Local Governments will discretionally take Urban decisions according to the strategic lines drafted by Master Plans. Master Plans are a model for the future but not capacitated to legally impose urban planning parameters



12

Problem #1


Urban planning normative, in any style of Law, rules what is strictly a planning competence from zoning land uses (Anglo-Saxon Style) to constructability parameters and public/private lands distribution (Romans Style)

Under this frame of responsibilities it is not possible to state that plans are concerned about population needs and, cities –overall- must be a comfortable place to live where needs are covered. Population data is only taken into account when forecasting city’s growth for the next 20 years [Masteplans standard forecasting timeline]

No information about culture, wealth distribution, age structure, towns and cities geographical isolation, etc…only in urban planners’ subjective thinking.



13

Not knowing about citizens’ needs it would be really a sort of chance that only by applying Urban Planning Acts’ mandatory principles, the city -as it’s product- fulfills residents’ expectations. After this, it is possible to affirm that urban planning’s social target is not accomplished

Urban Planning tools and processes must be more documented and informed by considering social, economical and geographical profiles.

Problem #2Urban planning activity is lacking objectivity when balancing public and private interests.

[Capsule/Parenthesis]:

how urban development’s plan deployment is paid



14

Problem #2

Urban planning activity is lacking objectivity when balancing public and private interests

A fair balance of public and private interests goes in the direction of social target’s accomplishment

Urban Planners are a sort of moderators in this big deal between private actors (developers) and the public party (local administration).

Private actors will try to get the maximum profit of their private lands by squeezing the law (there are some margins;

urban parameters are not fixed values). Administration, although it could seem the opposite, will not squeeze the law to get the maximum of public lands (also values within a range)



15

Problem #2


Proportions between public and private lands are ruled by law (some margins for adjustments exist) For instance, Catalan Urban Planning Act (DL 1/2005) 55% public in regards of new settlement’s total area, distributed as the following (some margins for combination exist)

*for each 100m2 constructed, 20 m2. will be for public space, between 10 and 20% of the total*similar for facilities, between 5% and 20% of the total*the remaining, around 25% will be for roads

55% public are “cessions” or “surrenders”: lands given free of cost to the Municipality from the investor as a counterpart to the city for it’s private profit. Cessions are given in the following status:

*Public Space urbanized. *Empty plots for facilities. *Roads fully finished (with all technical infrastructure ready: water pipes, sewers, electricity and telecommunications nets)

Thus to have the public realm completed, municipality will have to pay for facilities’ construction.

roads

facilities

green

housing

retail

parking

offices

industry

[Capsule/Parenthesis]: how urban development’s plan deployment is paid

public

private



16

Problem #2


Although urban planning has the described mechanisms to compensate citizens for the private profit that developer will obtain out of the new developed area, here, urban planner has the additional role of watchman to ensure that public and private purposes do not prioritize the private direction and public lands out of these compensation mechanisms are the maximum possible. Sometimes urban planners are the only ones in this game of public and private lands distribution that defend the public portion.



17

Problem #3In moments of economic crisis, cities’ public realm is in danger

Although the existence of planning standards, margins are too wide to guarantee enough lands stock for public purposes. An objective tool to measure citizens’ public needs would help in this –today subjective- deal of public and private lands distribution.

[Capsule/Parenthesis]: infrastructure as a “container” of services and

the problem of the unmeet planning and programming: INTEGRATE TO INNOVATE



18

Problem #3

In moments of economic crisis, cities’ public realm is in danger

When Administration sees reduced its public budget a 30% (case of Catalonia) means that “open segment” had bigger cuts to keep the overall budgeted reduction.Public realm, as a part of this “open segment” will suffer these bigger reductions.



19

Problem #3


2.technical infrastructure (or “networks”): roads/ general transport network Transport networks and supply networks are used to share the same area to provide population’s: water, electricity,

telecommunications and transport network.

Public realm (roads/transport network, public space and facilities) can be “packaged” as it follows: 1.social (or “nodal”) infrastructure : all kind of facilities and public space

9 categories/kinds of facilities:

education, sports, health, social assistance, culture, commercial, cult, transportation stations, administration and protection.

Public space, beside to be considered social infrastructure, plays multiple roles: city lungs, city density reduction, etc.



20

Problem #3


In the public realm, what is in real danger is the facility (and its services) thus Municipality will only get for free plots that later will need to be constructed (facility building) and urbanized

(outdoor/ complimentary facility’s area). Technical networks are not really in danger although budget reductions thus are paid by private parties at the moment to develop the plan.

A weak budget can lead to unconstructed facilities’ plots for a long time. Alternative solutions to new buildings’ construction must be found.



21

Problem #3


Recent investigations have demonstrated that there is no match: while towns have an expecting surplus of plots for facilities (in regards of the services provided to inhabitants); cities experience the opposite: Municipalities have to spend budget buying plots to allocate the necessary services in the corresponding facility.

There is a strong need of an integrated planning and programming of facilities and services

[Capsule/Parenthesis]: infrastructure as a “container” of services and

the problem of the unmeet planning and programming:

INTEGRATE TO INNOVATE

Infrastructures must be understood as services’ “container” and these services their “content” Focusing on the facility (“container”), we have schools buildings, hospitals buildings, swimming pools, etc.; their correspondence to services (“content”) would be, education, health care and sports.

Amounts and types of services are programmed by responsible Ministries, Education, Health, and Sports, etc. according to their targets of service’s coverage. It is nearly impossible that plots for facilities, obtained by applying mandatory urban planning parameters, match with services to be provided according to specific data of coverage.



22

PROPOSED SOLUTIONS



23

Toward a citizen-centric, systematic and analytical approach to urban planning, enabled by software tools for data collection and decision support

Problem #1: Cities, as urban planning product, they are not covering citizens’ needs Urban Planning is not accomplishing it’s main social target due to the non consideration of citizens needs. Urban Planning tools and processes must be more documented and more informed by considering social, economical and geographical profiles.

Problem #2:Urban planning activity is lacking objectivity when balancing public and private interests. Although the existence of planning standards margins are too wide to guarantee enough lands stock for public purposes. An objective tool to measure citizens’ public needs would help in this –today subjective- deal of public and private lands distribution.

Problem # 3:In moments of economic crisis, cities’ public realm is in danger. A weak budget can lead to unconstructed plots for facilities for a long time. Alternative solutions to the construction of new buildings must be found.

Solution/Target # 1: To know population needs by taking into account citizen’s opinion (surveys) and comparing these results with the existing offer. Existing offer allows to obtain values per capita that, later, on can be used as primary

indicators for gaps and critical points of coverage.

Solution/Target # 2: To synchronize facilities planning (legal values for surrenders contained in urban planning acts) with services programming (official targets of service designed by competent administrations) and, introducing –the same- geographical, economical and social correction and modeling factors to legal standards and official targets

Solution/target # 3: To find alternative ways to new facilities’ construction that –mainly- go trough consolidation of existing facilities’ stock by adding compatible services (“multiservice facilities”). Minor solutions are: “stationary facilities” and “mobile facilities”. Multiservice, stationary and mobile facilities are cost saving comparing to same services in single and/or permanent facilities.



24

Solution/Target # 1: To know population needs by taking into account citizen’s opinion (surveys) and comparing these results with the existing offer. Existing offer allows to obtain values per capita that, later, on can be used as primary indicators for gaps and critical points of coverage.

[from SERVICES PROGRAMMING]1. Service & facilities demand (base perception):1.1. Definition of a public service and facilities general catalog for health and social assistance categories. Skeleton for all data systematization ..\_pilot\criteris planifiacació_health services and facilities.xls

1.2. Elaboration of a complete inventory/census of the existing facilities and their general and detailed services. Obtaining square meters per capita..\_pilot\excels i cads\salut\tot_defin_inventari complert.xls

1.3 Comparison between cataloged and systematized surveys/(sensors) and square meters per capita of existing service offer. Finding gaps and critical points of coverage form users’ point of view. IBM Next 5 in 5 -- 2010.flv

Methodology



25

Solution/Target # 2: To synchronize facilities planning (legal values for surrenders contained in urban planning acts) with services programming (official targets of service designed by competent administrations) and, introducing –the same- geographical, economical and social correction and modeling factors to legal standards and official targets

[from SERVICES PROGRAMMING]2. Service & facilities needs (base requirement):2.1 Amount’s calculation of facilities and services needed for the next years (2020 horizon) according to official targets designed by competent administration (Ministry of Health, Ministry of Social Wealth and Family; Catalan Government)..\_pilot\criteris planifiacació_health services and facilities.xls

2.2 To recalculate previous resulting amounts (2.1 results) by applying official ‘correction factors’ proclaimed by the same competent administrations. ..\_pilot\indicadors\6.2.1 AP (RE, US)\AP_increments i reduccions.xls

3. To summarize current gaps with future needs

Methodology



26

Solution/Target # 3: To find alternative ways to new facilities’ construction that –mainly- go trough consolidation of existing facilities’ stock by adding compatible services (“multiservice facilities”). Minor solutions are: “stationary facilities” and “mobile facilities”. Multiservice, stationary and mobile facilities are cost saving comparing to same services in single and/or permanent facilities.

[from SERVICES PROGRAMMING to FACILITIES PLANNING]4. Services’ pair rules and Services pairs (existing pairing rules and potential new rules)4.1 Pairing rules based on existing combinations and logical requirements. 4.2 Relationship matrix to identify potential positive and negative synergies between health and social assistance general services ..\_pilot\excels i cads\salut\tot_SA.xls

5. Planning Facilities’ consolidations and new facilities proposal’s according to paired services (existing pairing and potential new pairs)Pending!

Methodology



27

Support Tooling for Proposed Solutions: A Solution Framework for Decision Support

Provided by Commercial Partner or Existing Open-Source

Software

Proprietary

Open Source to Universities

Other AnalysisPerformance Reporting

Services Database

Facilities Database

Map Database

Map Access Layer

Data Access Layer

Analytics Access Layer

User Interface

Multi-Purpose Facility Analysis

Other Analysis



28

Support Tooling for Proposed Solutions: Key Features of the Software Architecture

The solution framework, in the same spirit as many of the IBM industry solution frameworks, consists of• A software architecture design that can be used as a template for developing a custom-built software solution for a client• Defined objects and interfaces in and between different components of the software architecture, so that additional or

custom functions can be accommodated easily• Logical database design for services and facilities• Data for one particular analysis scenario in a sample database• Map-related interfaces compliant with existing open-source or industry standards• Basic user interface functions• Basic performance reporting functions in a sample analytic module• Multi-purpose facility analysis functions in a proprietary analytic module

The basic design of the framework is open-source to enable • Extensions developed by third parties• University research and teaching

Analysis modules are self-contained so that new or custom modules can be accommodated easily• One open-source analytic module will be provided to illustrate application of the framework• IBM proprietary modules will be developed for commercial use



29

Business Model

Framework usage scenarios

– Non-commercial use

• Open source portions used by universities for research & teaching

• Framework used as a “standard” for other open-source contributors to develop additional functions and/or analytic modules

– Commercial use

• Appliance-level instantiation of the entire framework to be sold by IBM as a turn-key solution

• Open source + proprietary portions used to develop custom versions

– As an internal-use tool for management consulting by UdG / IBM

– for specific clients in a custom development engagement & ongoing support by IBM

• Additional proprietary analytic modules developed and sold by IBM to be used by clients in their own development of a custom system using the open source portions

Potential customers

– Local Public Administrations (Municipalities); Regional and National Governments (Ministries with thematic competences such as Health, Education, etc.) in a commercial-use custom version development scenario



30

THANK YOU

Technology

Smarter Urban Planning: Match Land Use with Citizen Needs and Financial Constraints