TED Conversations

Terry Torok
New York, NY
United States

Founder at Angel Producers, Founder at Live from Earth

TEDCRED 100+

TED Attendee

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

The City 2.0 according to YOU... 2 Things a City that YOU design, Must Have...

1. 2. The City that Becomes You... [ Brevity and Bravado Appreciated ]

Sort By:

Terry Torok 100+
- 0
TED Attendee

Apr 1 2012: ...

... The city you never saw coming. Thank you for your thoughts, I hope we have the opportunity to break bread, break a leg, raise a glass and raise a city... in person sometime soon.

...
Martin Butcher
- 0
Mar 25 2012: Hi Bernd, Thanks for the link. Great to see a European perspective and that the State is pushing the agenda. Just out of curiosity, how many people on your round tables? and are there processes to engage more than those on the roundtable?
- Terry Torok 100+
  - 0
  TED Attendee
  
  Mar 25 2012: I anticipate Bernd's answer and just add that at Ted U this Year, TED member Jeff Walker gave a great talk on facilitating round table discussion in a Jeffersonian style... a European import perhaps?
  
  http://jennifermccrea.com/2010/11/jeffersonian-dinners-create-transformative-connections/
  
  I would enjoy participating in a NYC roundtable action group for City 2.0
Alfonso Govela
- +1
Mar 24 2012: Can we create TED Neighborhoods? Around TED Conversations, Conferences, Tags? Places where we could gather around to continue and enrich conversations, ideas and interests. That could the reward of this year City 2.0 TED Prize: the foundation of new digital public spaces.
- Bernd Fesel 30+
  - 0
  Mar 25 2012: Sounds like a perfect idea !
  
  If you re-locate or join a new company - find the TEDies by tags and feel at home with persons of the same spirit and mission!
Terry Torok 100+
- 0
TED Attendee

Mar 24 2012: ...

Thumbs up to all of you for participating in this great conversation.... How can we best continue to communicate or gather to help develop this new City 2.0 ? I would be happy to be neighbors with each and every one of you! thank you for your thoughts, brilliance, optimism and kindness...

...
Goedjn Minnow
- +2
Mar 21 2012: All buildings that extend to certain heights (say, every 15 meters) have to provide space and hookups for a pedestrian transport network. Any time two such buildings are across the street from each other, the city connects them.
- Terry Torok 100+
  - 0
  TED Attendee
  
  Mar 21 2012: great though Groedjn - skywalks are also valuable as seen in Calgary, Minneapolis and St. Paul... keeps Pedestrians happy and moving freely...
Terry Torok 100+
- +1
TED Attendee

Mar 17 2012: What IF...
... we look to the city we live in or near, AND our favorite cities in the world... and list some best practices... as a bar to raise the City 2.0.

...
Terry Torok 100+
- 0
TED Attendee

Mar 14 2012: as Albert Einstein said "If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it." ...Wlld thoughts are great... Dan, thank you for yours... ah just thinking that your thought "Cities all act the same they all look the same". is certainly up to the observer. I find every city i visit in the world unique, by people and ideas, [or lack thereof] in any case would love to hear from the TED community on favorite cities of the world, that might, in some respect influence the City 2.0 !
Dan F 50+
- +1
Mar 13 2012: Cities need to offer more fun and romance in order to revitalize and attract people and commerce.

Cities all act the same they all look the same. Why not push federal incentives for local government to experiment with urban renewal projects? My wild thought - provide parking for standard vehicles at the edge of the urban growth boundaries that are served by public transport and cheap rentable electric super carts (top speed 10 mph) to access, navigate and enjoy specific areas that are private vehicle restricted sections of the inner city.

The new atmosphere might well transform these physically cordoned off areas into local urban hotspots that would magnetically attract visitors, consumers, and entrepreneurs by catering to our gregarious nature. The physical outdoor activities of walking, running, biking, etc., would be a more welcomed lifestyle. This restricted area from standard traffic would have a reduced carbon footprint and perhaps would also improve the quality of the inner city experience for many of us.

Incidentally, one of my favorite TV shows was "mission impossible."
Martin Butcher
- +4
Mar 13 2012: The city I'd like to live in..... will emerge as a product of designed inclusive processes that engage the population in the decisions that effect them. It will reflect their amazing creative talents, their capacity to listen and understand the others point of view, their capacity to empathise. It will be a dynamic city, for ever changing in response to new challenges and new ideas. It's structures will be the vehicles for learning, about each other, about ourselves. It will be a place for excitement and dignity, creativity and reflection, experience and learning. All in all, it will be fantastic because it will reflect our collective possibilities. The most important thing it must have is the opportunity for those that live there to be actively engaged in its creation.
- Terry Torok 100+
  - 0
  TED Attendee
  
  Mar 24 2012: beautifully articulated... agreed...
  - Martin Butcher
    
    +2
    Mar 24 2012: Many thanks, it's a pleasure. I am though left wondering how best to achieve it, even though it is the focus of my everyday work. I can think of some of the barriers, such as: that we are locked into an image of the 'developed' city that is out of date; we don't seem too keen on actually practising new concepts such as deliberative democracy; the ones that get the most out of our current cities (the well paid designers and technicians/public servants/bankers) have a vested interest in maintaining the existing. So I'm left wondering, what can be done on an every day level to overcome such barriers? Suggestions would be welcome!
    - Bernd Fesel 30+
      
      +1
      
      Mar 25 2012: Our work is somewhat of an attempt to overcome such barriers in city development. Our task as a regional institute is to set up roundtables in about 10 cities in the ruhr region of 5,5 mio. inhabitants. the topic: finding a strategy for development in problem neighourhoods which is jointly accepted by stakeholders in the quarter as well as by top-down city officials.
      
      this is funded by the state - because we learned that large infrastructure investments in housing or iconic buildings of 50 Mio. euro and more - will NOT work when local inhabitants to do care and join. so now we are building the soft infrastructure - local acceptance - before the hardware infrastructure.
      
      the motivation for the city: if they agree to a joint strategies and projects - involving the inhabitants with which they often had no dialogue for years - they get co-funding for projects.....
      
      in order to strengthen the bottom-up approach in cities we report on this - however not only in the ruhr, but throughout europe, with a special focus on culture & arts driving bottom up processes.
      
      Matin - maybe you can find other examples here you might use.
      http://www.labkultur.tv/en/citychange
Terry Torok 100+
- +1
TED Attendee

Mar 12 2012: ...

WHAT IF... we create a top 20 criteria and correlating measures of a successful city, and mine best practices of Cities throughout the world against each of these criteria ? -see if we can combine best practices, positive deviants and explore the synergy to create the City 2.0 ?

eg.1) Best sustainable public transport. 2) Best integration of creative and quiet places 3) Best sewage systems 4) Highest level of Citizen satisfaction 5) Best system of rule. 6)... 7)...
- Alfonso Govela
  - +1
  Mar 24 2012: Like your idea. How can I help you make this happen? Great conversation. Thank you for starting it.
Jonathan Fantazier
- +1
Mar 12 2012: One point would be to emphasize that the use of the city by the citizens must be as direct as possible, by which I mean that vehicles, machinery, etc. (that produce additional waste products; consume additional resources; contribute to thermal, noise; light; air; and other forms of pollution) should be minimized within the boundaries of what is considered the city proper. This moves toward an environment in which "people" are given precedence over "things," in which considerations from architecture to transportation all begin with making the healthiest and socially equitable choices possible. I'm not saying anything new in this - I believe that the late inventor of the Segue, among others, is due much of the credit.
Terry Torok 100+
- 0
TED Attendee

Mar 12 2012: ...

The City 2.0 is hard to define by design, until we do... it's up to you... Please add your two sens..ible things that would help define City 2.0

...
Bruno Carre
- +1
Mar 11 2012: i've already "used" my 2 things but I'll add 1 more: Intelligent (re)use of rain water.

Today, rain water goes directly into the sewage system, whereas it could be used for toilets, washing machines, dishwasher.

When you think of it: rain water is clean water. But this clean water goes directly to filthy water (sewage). It's a huge non sense.

Every drop of water coming from the sky is a richness that should be used in big cities. Think of cost reduction, smaller water bills for the consumers and less complicate city infrastructure to cope with big rain falls (pipes, drainage, filtering, etc.)
- Margot Omega
  - +1
  Mar 21 2012: First step towards large-scale reuse of rainwater is to have a series of natural catchment systems or reservoirs preserved or strategically built around the city. These reservoirs could also serve the community's recreational and creative centers.
Terry Torok 100+
- 0
TED Attendee

Mar 11 2012: ...

For the first time in the history of the TED prize, it is being awarded not to an individual, but to an idea. It is an idea upon which our planet’s future depends.

The 2012 TED Prize is awarded to….the City 2.0. The City 2.0 is the city of the future… a future in which more than ten billion people on planet Earth must somehow live sustainably.The City 2.0 is not a sterile utopian dream, but a real-world upgrade tapping into humanity’s collective wisdom. The City 2.0 promotes innovation, education, culture, and economic opportunity.

The City 2.0 reduces the carbon footprint of its occupants, facilitates smaller families, and eases the environmental pressure on the world’s rural areas. The City 2.0 is a place of beauty, wonder, excitement, inclusion, diversity, life.

The TED Prize grants its winner $100,000 and “one wish to change the world.” How will this prize be accepted on behalf of the City 2.0? Through visionary individuals around the world who are advocating on its behalf.

Thus an invitation for the citizen of 2.0 to gather... Live From Earth....

check it.. http://www.tedprize.org/
Comment deleted
- Terry Torok 100+
  - 0
  TED Attendee
  
  Mar 10 2012: what is the link to two things you feel the City 2.0 must have ? Please share in this thread before promoting your book and blog- thank you.
Bernd Fesel 30+
- +1
Mar 7 2012: Doug Saunders on "Arrival Cities". He names three conditions for a successful cities giving immigrants new homes: proximity, urban lay-out and - you will not believe it - bureaucracy. And a City2.0 can not do without migration - read yourself:
http://www.labkultur.tv/en/blog/deltalecture-arrival-cities-1
- Terry Torok 100+
  - 0
  TED Attendee
  
  Mar 7 2012: According to Wiki Bureaucracy is like propaganda, by definition, it's not bad, it just has a bad rap.. WIKI, : A bureaucracy is an organization of non-elected officials of a government or organization who implement the rules, laws, and functions of their institution,[1] and are occasionally characterized by officialism and red tape.[2]
  
  Thank you Bernd, for the link and conditions...
Bob Foulkes
- +2
Mar 7 2012: Like a cell in our bodies the first thing that City 2.0 must have is a skin to separate the inside from the outside and to manage the interchange between them. It can take some stuff in and spit other stuff out, but it must have a commitment to recycling everything it can and wasting nothing. It should embody the principles of the "techno-sphere" inasmuch as it exists by the continuous recirculation of the valuable products of its technology. E.g. its wastewater is as clean as its intake. It may not do every bit of recycling itself, but it must ensure that whatever wasted techno-sphere generated materials it cannot use do get recycled. In other words City 2.0 is a responsible cell within a responsible organism. The skin is its commitment and organization that makes it sustainable, the thing that defines it as intelligent.
The second thing it must have is a sense of identity, the ethos that separates the inside from the outside. Identity is what sets it apart from its "environment". To identify with City 2.0 its citizens must all identify with the ethos that makes it want to exist and persist. This ethos is its value system, the ideas that define it, the goals that move it forwards as a single entity. In any city there will be people with differing skills and abilities, varying needs and interests, and all at different stages of life. Yet each must in their own way want to contribute to and share in the common experience of the whole. It must be a community of shared and interdependent interests, not a web of random exploitative relationships. There can be commerce and profit, but within a framework of communal commitment to the well being of the whole. Individuals cannot claim to identify with the whole and then parasitize its juicy parts! Within such a framework co-operation is essential and must be conscious not blind or left to chance. Business and even military culture is no stranger to harnessing individuals to a common cause. City 2.0 is possible.
Wendell Fitzgerald
- +1
Mar 6 2012: I suggest that one of the most important elements of sustainable cities of the future will not be the technology of building or planning but taxation. All cities are built on land and the most valuable land on the planet is under cities because the proximity of people and everything people do and build has the result of making city land more and more valuable. It is a well known fact of economics that land value is created not by the owners of particular pieces of land but by the community of all people in the city and for many miles around. The value of land is therefore literally created by the community and land value is the one thing that community as a whole creates that can be measured in dollars and cents. Historically ownership of land has included the right to collect the value land comes to have but it is clear and acknowledged by all economists although they rarely speak of it that such income is wholly unearned. It is the private collection of community created land value that gives rise to land speculation, under use/inefficient us of city land for purposes of cashing in on future increases in land value and urban sprawl.

The proposal here has been on the table for over a century is to shift the property tax and eventually other local taxes such as sales and business taxes that fall on the earned incomes of labor and real capital invested in the real local economy onto community created land values. This would have the result of giving positive economic incentive to build, rebuild and improve land within cities, it would result in the building of more affordable housing, crate more local jobs, encourage massive capital investment within the existing borders of cities and curtail if not completely end urban sprawl.

I suggest that without this shift of taxation to the community created value of land that cities will always be at the mercy of conflicting values which to date have usually been trumped by the motive to cash in on unearned land value
- Terry Torok 100+
  - 0
  TED Attendee
  
  Mar 7 2012: Wendell, do you think it is feasible to create a loose sense of CitiZenship now... and create a fee or CitZen tax as to add to a development / benefits fund? potentially as a two year renewable? Self guided, if it cannot add value, citizens would drop out, but if we drive real value we should be able to grow citizens globally... [?] thoughts?
- Bernd Fesel 30+
  - +1
  Mar 7 2012: Though I am an economist I can not easily agree with the great priority you gave to taxation. While I agree that taxation needs to change from making landlords bigger and bigger to making new development bigger and bigger, I would argue on the other hand that taxation is not the key success factor.
  
  I experienced in my work in urban development that immaterial qualities of cities make cities successfull - of course not housing or well-repaired streets. Just imagine cities of high unemployment of 20 or 40 percent - how do they get up again? Historically because people living there wanted to stay and live there, mostly for not economic reasons. People with this kind of spirit you need for City2.0 also - because the City2.0 will not be a straight linear success, it will have curves and frustations, but then you need persons to continue - tax doesn´t matter at this point or does it after all?
Richard Blackburn
- +2
Mar 6 2012: Another consideration perhaps for City X.0, a cheaper way for society to begin tackling the social and local economical issues posed by moving masses of people into space or to other worlds would be to build societies on the ocean. Much of what we learn in building such cities would easily transfer to the further demands of space and planetary colonization.
- Terry Torok 100+
  - 0
  TED Attendee
  
  Mar 6 2012: interesting parallel a friend and fellow TEDster is working to get the Plastic Garbage Swirl in the north Pacific Ocean, recognized as a country... I drop off there, not clearly understanding how this might promote cleanup... other than to speculate it becomes eligible as a country for certain funds? in any case, a slight digression, but fair to keep front and center is the infra-structure and less-than-sexy- issues that must be addressed for a City 2.0 that hopes to raise the bar... even with the Tide...
Richard Blackburn
- 0
Mar 6 2012: I have always been a proponent of all personal residences being underground, having a network of underground walk ways linking them. Would it be wise to have a city 'radio station' playing in here that only does local news and music? If so it should be fairly soft so a normal volume conversation can be had without competition.

Above ground should be the commercial, industrial, and mass transit systems, all integrating public spaces for privet contemplation, shared education and activity, and Do-It-Ourselves (is that DIO?) projects. Loved the idea of automated public vehicles, each being a unique piece of art or system for displaying art would be wonderful.

Detractors of underground residence site studies about depression, but I think this could be used to encourage people to leave their homes and join the community physically.

City of Reality web-comic pointed out the idea 'interactive theaters,' some theater houses not only allowing, but encouraging people to talk during the movie and interact with the other viewers like people do at sports bars (you would also have theaters that are meant to be silent for those who just came for a quiet evening). "Movie Bars," perhaps? If this concept caught on it could push Hollywood into a new revolution of how they craft movies, not yet sure if that would be a good or a bad shift.

Similarly, public gaming areas with collaborative competition; help bring geeks back into the open.

Anyway, that's my ideas and comments on what's been said.
- Terry Torok 100+
  - +1
  TED Attendee
  
  Mar 6 2012: I think we are about to ignite the world with more socialize viewing... yes like a sports bar for interactive arenas of part passive, part competitive audiences.... fire up the second channel, mobile and of course, fantasy football moves into other venues and the arts... already happening, just beginning to be tapped... i once produced the largest arena video games competitions in the western world... it was al sampling of what really can be done, then I took it to TV and we blew it out.... and yes... we are collectively coining DIO in this thread, mark the start. great ideas for pubic boutique spaces... thanks for the 2.0 thoughts Richard Blackburn... it's all good, Terry Torok
Cathy Cawood
- +1
Mar 6 2012: Interesting conversation!
In my opinion, let it be beautiful! OK, I know we don't always agree what beauty is, but most people seem to like flowers and trees so that would be a good start.
Also, let it be social. I like the coffee house idea. There should be lots of public space for enjoying nature, for meeting each other, for resting, for art, for performance, for play.
- Terry Torok 100+
  - 0
  TED Attendee
  
  Mar 6 2012: big cracks for nature to shine through.... flowers and tree houses, tea gardens, adventure trails, rock climbing, ideation stations and daycations for day dreamers, a place of performance and play, a city for the love of art and the art of love... i'm in, let's begin...
George Kong 30+
- +4
Mar 5 2012: 1. No private vehicle usage in the CBD/primary activity zone - replaced with a comprehensive public transportation network that phases in self driving, network connected public taxis.

2. Multi-functional community use buildings that mix retail, commercial, and education, binds them together with the appropriate eateries - and institutes regular break periods to allow for social comingling throughout the building. We are simply far too demographically segregated nowadays... our work places, our schools... they're not structured in a way conducive towards interrelating towards each other, sharing and receiving the wisdom of experience and the imagination of youth.
- Janea Dahl
  - +1
  Mar 21 2012: George, I was going to add the multi-use community use buildings idea, but you beat me to it. If we shift our education paradigm away from outdated rote learning, and more toward real-life experience, students and society would benefit.
subramanyam P
- +2
Mar 5 2012: Now (4) I used the Hubs. When I said Residential hub, I mean dedicated residential area without any malls or stores or factories or offices etc., It’s purely 200% residential area. Similarly – shopping complex need to have only shopping malls, stores, eating places etc., and then educational hub, then Health care hub, Commercial / corporate hub and then if needed – industrial hub. By which the flow of traffic will be one way at particular time, another way in another time and busy all the time, closed and nil when the offices were closed. According to placing of these hubs in the proposed city – the roads can be either too-wide or just wide or small lanes. In the present day cities all these are scattered in and around the city – by which no body can plan, develop or invent or solve the traffic issues in any way.
subramanyam P
- +2
Mar 5 2012: Hi Terry - Thanks for giving me some food - to think on this: (1)Any township or newly developed city ( with my limited knowledge) is developed on a vast piece of land. This particular planned area – (however may be large or small) do have the limitations as per the government’s orders – like length and width etc. My point is at any given time and in the future – there should be total ban on expansion of any kind – whatever. By which – the citizens of this city are and would be the forefathers in future and the culture they discovered or innovated at the beginning would be carried over for few decades / centuries in the future without any adulteration or overlapping. So, you may ask me about whether I am against any development in future? Nay! If there are any innovations or plans for development – in future – do it in a different area calling it is city -3 or city X. But keep what has been done here as it is where the residents are residents who brought the plots. ( I am not sure whether I am able to articulate my idea correctly)
(3) I would like to have the residential houses with 2 or 3 floors – underground and maximum one floor towards sky. ( keep the terrorism and nuclear war-fare in mind). It is NOT to advertise about resident’s wealth in any way. When there is any huge pollution or chemical war fare – when there is any kind of other calamities – then the underground will be safer place. And I also suggest underground foot-paths – to move around in a one locality – Not the entire city. And at some locations – ( if any huge river or sea is near by to the location) in the city itself – divert the sea / river water through this city – in curves and rounds – limited to one area of the city – where underground is not done - and link it again to river or sea so the flow will be maintained. Use large boulders for the canal instead of concrete. So you will have underground walk-way, water way for transport and elevated transport.
- griffin tucker 10+
  - 0
  Mar 6 2012: i would suggest that terrorism is not a part of the future city 2.0 as building sky-rises is much less expensive than building downwards - we can't have a future without skyrises due to population expansion.
  
  perhaps i'm being overly optimistic, but i think if terrorism groups are a part of the future city 2.0 then it's not really a city 2.0, because in my view collaborations can be made to suit all groups involved including the then former terrorism groups.
  - Richard Blackburn
    
    0
    Mar 6 2012: While I agree about not needing to include overt Terrorism in the plans for City 2.0, there are other reasons to build down. Leaving more room for natural growth, tall buildings reduce windflow reducing the areas we could use for wind power, but there are also reasons to build up in some areas, increasing area for solar collection, channeling wind flow, area for large public display/collaboration.
    
    We also need to look at the various heating and cooling situations around the world. In some areas one design style would be physically preferable than the other.
    
    In summary, we need to look at more factors than just the monetary expense of construction. Not saying that's what you are meaning to advocate, but its but that's what I heard in your message.
    - griffin tucker 10+
      
      0
      
      Mar 6 2012: i did in fact use the term expensive in terms of population expansion, not in terms of monetary value, and i can see how easily that can get confused, so my apologies for not being clearer.
      
      i do believe overt terrorism would need to be accounted for, in other words, verbal plans to prevent it from occurring, not necessarily defense mechanisms, but the way technology is developing at pace i do believe safety is a priority for all people on Earth at the moment.
      
      would city 2.0 even be on earth? this only raises more questions.
Terry Torok 100+
- 0
TED Attendee

Mar 5 2012: 2 ideas for the City 2.0 designed by you... appreciate your shared thoughts...

Load more comments…

Sign In

To join or start a conversation, you'll need to sign in. Not a member? Register Now (it's free and fast).

Live Conversations

Live Conversations are hosted by TED speakers and TED Fellows. Ask your questions and participate in the discussions on the following dates and times: