At first blush, Amsterdam, Stockholm, Masdar and Singapore might not seem to have a lot in common. But they are among the seven cities that can serve as models for the smart urban centers that are needed as more and more of the worlds population become city dwellers.
Today 52 percent of global population lives in cities. By 2050, that percentage is projected to grow to 70 percent, placing demands on cities that far outstrip the current capabilities of most urban centers.
"Technology will play a central role in determining whether future cities are harmonious, vibrant and sustainable or discontented, wasteful and unsustainable," says a recent report from Lux Research. "Efficient future cities will integrate technologies to reduce their environmental impacts while sustainably coping with growing populations."
GreenBiz Group calls that vision of connected, smart urban centers VERGE cities.
The Lux report identifies eight development frameworks for smart cities of the future, singles out seven towns that best illustrate those models and notes the tech companies that have worked with the urban centers.
Those cities and some of their business partners are:
This city is "parlaying its position as an IT hub for over 200 multinational IT firms into being a leader in intelligent and sustainable urban infrastructure, led by its green buildings, traffic, water and smart grid programs," the report said. Companies working with Singapore include Siemens, Accenture, Daimler, Mitsubishi, Schneider Electric, Oracle, IBM, HP, JTC Corporation and Philips.
In addition to setting a series of bold sustainability goals, Amsterdam began its quest to become the first smart city in the European Union in 2009. IBM, Cisco and Philips are among the firms working with Amsterdam.
"(L)ong established as a leading eco-city ... Stockholms flagship initiative is Hammarby Sjostad, a sustainable district with integrated energy, water and waste management for 35,000 people in one of the citys central industrial areas," the report said. Companies working with Sweden include IBM, Ericsson, Echeleon, Landis & Gyr and Acumentrics.
This was smart city demonstration project in Boulder, Colo., chiefly involving the public utility Xcel Energy. Accenture, whose initiatives include establishing an intelligent city network, also worked on the project.
The $22 billion green city envisioned by the Abu Dhabi government also gets attention in the Lux report, which notes that the building code for Masdar is "roughly equivalent to LEED-Platinum design." Masdars business partners include Siemens, Abengoa Solar, BASF, General Electric, Schneider Electric, Mitsui, Mitsubushi Heavy Industries and 3M.
Incheon Free Economic Zone -- This zone is located in Incheon, South Korea, and is made up of four hubs -- a business center, an IT and biotech research center, an airport and shipping center and a tourist zone. The zone also includes Songdo, a greenfield city built on reclaimed land. Cisco is a business partner for the initiative.
Being developed in northern Portugal, PlanIT Valley is expected to be home for some 225,000 people when it is complete in 2015 and will serve as a living lab for a variety of innovations, the report said. Partners in the plan include Cisco and Microsoft.
The report examines each of the models, lists their pros and cons and describes strategies for participation.
With technology being key to the success of tomorrows cities, "technology companies need to understand the variety of models under which future cities develop so they can tap the widest channel to market in each case, and should understand the pros and cons of each model to find their fit in this daunting and confusing space," wrote Lux Research Analyst Ryan Castilloux, the reports lead author.
An excerptof the report, "Technologies for Future Cities: Integrating Efficiency, Sustainability, and Environmental Concerns," is available from Lux Research Inc. The full report is available to Lux clients.
Photo of Stockholm via Shutterstock.com.

In the latest winning installation proposed by emerging architects for the courtyard of Long Island Citys famed MoMA PS1 gallery, a large spiky sculpture -- nicknamed "Wendy" -- will clean the surrounding air using special nylon fabric.

MoMA PS1s Young Architects Program, now in its thirteenth year, selects architects to create a temporary summer installation that will provide shade, seating and water. According to the press release, the 70 x 70 x 45 "Wendy" proposal by HWKN (Matthias Hollwich and Marc Kushner) was selected due to its innovative treatment of social and sustainability issues (in addition to being equipped with a water cannon that will spray visitors):
Wendy is composed of nylon fabric treated with a ground breaking titania nanoparticle spray to neutralize airborne pollutants. During the summer of 2012, Wendy will clean the air to an equivalent of taking 260 cars off the road. Wendys boundary is defined by tools like shade, wind, rain, music, and visual identity to reach past the confines of physical limits. Wendy crafts an environment, not just a space. Spiky arms made of the nylon fabric mentioned above will reach out with micro-programs like blasts of cool air, music, water cannons and mists to create social zones throughout the courtyard.

It looks something like a huge crystal funhouse that one can enter, but made out of off-the-shelf component and nano-tech fabrics. Besides providing an anchor of activities in the gallerys courtyard, the gigantic structure will act as a backdrop to MoMA PS1s "Warm Up to Summer" musical performances. The installation is slated to go up in June; more information on the PS1 website.

Tags: Architecture | Urban Life

While some see the threat of climate change as pitting the needs of the planet against those of progress and business, some brave entrepreneurs will seize the opportunity that efforts to build a more sustainable future will create.
Even those who question the scientific consensus around global warming may quickly find themselves on the wrong side of history -- arguing in favor of pollution because, in addition to water vapor, combustion exhaust includes large amounts of nitrogen and carbon dioxide. It also contains carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, ozone and particulate matter (like soot). Even as some remain skeptical about the impact of these on the environment at a macro-level, we can all agree that these are not healthy things to breathe.
Sir Richard Branson, billionaire-adventurer-entrepreneur know something about making money and about seizing opportunities. He founded the Carbon War Room because he sees the opportunities created by the threat. "I have described the increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere as one of the greatest threats to the ongoing prosperity and sustainability of life on the planet," he says. "The good news is that creating businesses that will power our growth, and reduce our carbon output while protecting resources is also the greatest wealth-generating opportunity of our generation."
History seems to bear witness to his point. A high percentage of the wealthiest people in history -- excluding despots and conquerors -- have made their fortunes in the areas of energy, transportation and construction. The Rockefeller fortune was based on oil (energy), Andrew Carnegie (steel), and Cornelius Vanderbilt saw the revolution from wind to steam engines and built an empire in shipping and railroads. Henry Ford ushered in the basis for decades of industry as he took the automobile from the purview of the wealthy to a staple of the average American by increasing production efficiency thereby reducing costs for consumers and creating an entire industry much as Bill Gates did for the personal computer. Andrew William Mellon went from banking to construction, energy and transportation (lumber, oil, steel, shipbuilding, and construction).
Indeed many of these changes in industry and transportation have followed the evolution from individual power (feet or paddles), to animal power (horses and horses and buggies) to steam (initially powered in the U.S. by wood and then coal) and finally to internal combustion and electricity. It is important to note that in addition to increasing speed and efficiency, many of these changes were furthered by the desire for more environmentally friendly alternatives; streetcars and buses in New York were seen as a solution to the manure that was lining the city streets. The progression for shipping (in the cases of our military submarines) has progressed on to nuclear power.
Electricity is generated by a combination of means, including hydroelectric, wind, solar, nuclear, and coal-fired power plants. In Germany, government subsidies and programs have helped support the expansion of solar and other efforts. The recent decision to eliminate nuclear from that nations portfolio is an interesting experiment in progress. In the U.S., the vast majority of our power is generated by coal-fired plants. These plants are a lot cleaner than in decades past, and mining techniques have improved, but this remains an environmentally intensive way to power our myriad of electronic devices.
If fortunes are to be made by the bold who seize the innovation high ground (and those who invest in those individuals and technologies) the need to address climate change (whether the fears are real, exaggerated or unfounded), energy independence, and meet the needs of a population that has reached seven billion worldwide combine to demand action to build a sustainable world economy.
For those who ask what the role of government is in all this, I turn again to Branson: "Governments can encourage the change in direction and help to create the right framework and conditions," he offers, "but it will be the entrepreneurs who will seize this opportunity, make the fortunes of tomorrow and ensure there is a future for our children."
So where are the opportunities? If we look at the traditional sectors, energy, construction and transportation one of the biggest things that leaps out to me is the idea of substituting and replacing raw materials using one thing that humans seem to be able to produce in abundance -- waste.
For example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that more than 50 percent of global methane emissions are related to human-related activities such as fossil fuel production, animal husbandry, food production, biomass burning, and waste management. These activities release significant quantities of methane to the atmosphere. Tapping these sources is a win-win because it prevents greenhouse gas emissions and can provide fuel for power plants to generate electricity.
Synthetic gypsum has been used to make wallboard in the United States for more than 20 years. Electric power plants that burn coal are required to have scrubbers that trap emissions. The result is a very pure synthetic gypsum that is being used to create wallboard. Since 2000, enough gypsum to finish the interior of more than 7 million American homes has come from this waste product.
The future belongs to the innovators and the clever and the bold.
Next time: How to carry the torch for sustainable business without burning down the village in the process.
This Bloggers Books from
Follow John Friedman on www.twitter.com/@JohnFriedman

"When our political leaders cant agree on whether climate change is a threat, the majority of people cant either. The public is divided because our political leaders are polarized."
This is the upshot of a recent study on U.S. public attitudes towards climate change according to one of its lead authors, J. Craig Jenkins of Ohio State University.
The research suggests it was no coincidence that Americans were most concerned about the threat of climate change at a time when at least some leaders in both parties strongly advocated action. I suspect that if the same study were done in other countries, the findings would be similar.
But I cant help wondering if polarization between political parties is the only determining factor -- what about the inconsistent behaviour of climate champions themselves? Countless leaders recognize the threat of climate change and call for action to reverse it, yet continue to implement policies which do the opposite.
Take the EU Fuel Quality Directive for example. In a few days time, Europe will vote on a law which would formally designate (and thus penalize) tar sands oil as excessively carbon-intensive in comparison with other fuels. The UK, Netherlands and France -- often considered climate leaders within Europe -- are under pressure from petro-lobby interests and are thought likely to block the decision. If tar sands interests win out, it will be a significant setback for the fight against climate change.
Creative Commons: Greenpeace, 2010
But if Europe caves on tar sands this week, it will be a breathtaking display of climate schizophrenia, given the massive showdown its facing on aviation policy. As of January 1, all flights to and from Europe are now subject to the EUs Emissions Trading Scheme, and the rest of the world doesnt like it.
Starting tomorrow a 26-member "coalition of the unwilling" is meeting in Moscow to plot strategy and prepare counter-moves against Europe.
Who are the 26 members? Amongst others, China, India and Brazil, all of whom place the responsibility for greatest action on Europe and other developed countries in the context of the climate negotiations. But isnt this precisely what Europe is trying to do with its aviation legislation?
The additional cost for a ticket to Europe amounts to only a few dollars difference, and anyone with enough money to buy the ticket in the first place will not be unduly disadvantaged. So whats the problem here?
Forget logic, its just climate schizophrenia.
The U.S., another fully paid-up member of the coalition of the unwilling, launched a coalition of its own last week. The six countries participating in the Climate and Clean Air Coalition will work to reduce short-lived climate pollutants such as black carbon, the soot from cookstoves used in developing countries. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said at the launch:
Climate change is one of the most serious and complex problems facing our world. We know its impacts. It impacts global security, the global economy, global food and water supplies, and the health and well-being of people everywhere. And we know that in the principal effort necessary to reduce the effects of carbon dioxide, the world has not yet done enough. So when we discover effective and affordable ways to reduce global warming -- not just a little, but by a lot -- it is a call to action.
The New York Times reported that the motive for launching the initiative was "impatience with the slow pace of international climate change negotiations."
Ironically (or schizophrenically) enough, the U.S. is one of the countries most responsible for the slow pace of those negotiations.
It gets even better. Canada, which formally reneged on its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol in order to fully develop the Alberta tar sands, is a founding member committed to providing $3 million over the next two years. Dont get me wrong, its a great initiative, but its not a substitute for the urgent need to massively reduce CO2 emissions.
There are many other examples of climate schizophrenia. Remember when the World Bank approved a multibillion-dollar, highly controversial loan for the Medupi coal-fired power plant in South Africa in 2010? The U.S. was one of several countries which opposed the project on climate grounds, yet failed to stop it by choosing merely to abstain. Germany, climate champion extraordinaire, actively voted to approve it.
Climate schizophrenia is not even limited to countries. As leaked documents revealed last week, 19 public corporations fund the climate change-denying Heartland Institute, some of whom scrambled to distance themselves from Heartlands climate program. Of all the companies named, I was most disappointed to see Microsoft on the list, albeit only for the provision of around $60,000 worth of free software. Bill Gates the philanthropist is very worried about climate change, but not enough for his company to cut off support to a climate-denial group.
The public looks to its elected representatives for leadership. A cynic would point out that its precisely because of our polarized political discourse that unity around any issue would be something to stand up and take notice of. Not being a cynic, I would argue that the consequences of climate change are so far-reaching that anything less than a serious, well-considered plan of action based on the best available scientific information is a violation of the public trust. Is it too much to ask for that our leaders take this responsibility seriously and stop using climate as a political football?
And at the end of the day, the scale of the response should match the scale of the rhetoric. If Hillary Clinton really believes that climate change impacts security, the economy, health, food and water supplies, why on Earth is the U.S. throwing up so many roadblocks on the pathway to climate salvation?
We need an urgent cure for climate schizophrenia. As Robert Fulghum, author of All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten said, "Dont worry that your children never listen to you: worry that they are always watching you." The climate movement is indeed watching.
Follow Kelly Rigg on www.twitter.com/kellyrigg