188体育

Welcome to this session on smart cities.

Before we turn to the panel, I鈥檇 like to speak briefly about why what we鈥檙e discussing today is so important to us all.

There鈥檚 a saying you may have heard that 鈥榙emography is destiny鈥�. In the long run, big demographic trends dwarf most of the day-to-day issues governments spend their time thinking about.

Well there鈥檚 no bigger trend in the world today than the move to urbanisation. By 2050, it鈥檚 expected three-quarters of the world鈥檚 people will live in cities.

It鈥檚 easy to forget how new this is, but for hundreds of thousands of years we humans have been rural. It is no longer true, and we haven鈥檛 even begun to get used to it.

This change is especially significant in China - Shenzen, across the bay, had 30,000 people 40 years ago. Now its daytime population is 18 million.

Even in long-urbanised countries like the UK, city living is back. From the 1930s to the 鈥�80s London, like many cities, experienced a long, slow population decline as people moved out and commuted in.

Most commentators thought this was permanent, that it was inevitable. The so-called 鈥榟ollowing out鈥� of major cities in this period is where the negative stereotype of inner cities took hold.

But now London鈥檚 population is bigger than ever, and those who do live in London are more likely to live towards the centre. The inner city is now wealthier than ever before. This is a pattern repeated right across the world.

It鈥檚 very clear city living presents unique opportunities and unique challenges. People who live in them are healthier and wealthier than those who don鈥檛. And smart cities - the melding we have now of that digital technology and data science to improve our urban environment - is what we will need to harness those opportunities.

We in Britain are genuine believers in the power of smart cities. We鈥檙e early adopters: Manchester鈥檚 MediaCityUK is, as I would call it, a 40-acre sandbox, testing in miniature what the smart cities of the future might look like.

We鈥檝e supported our belief with significant funding - we recently created a 拢1.7 billion Transforming Cities Fund.

Importantly, we understand that smart cities don鈥檛 just need funding - they need data. London now releases 700 separate types of datasets to help developers and entrepreneurs create solutions to London鈥檚 problems.

And for those of you who were here for Professor Dame Wendy Hall鈥檚 speech earlier you will have heard that that access to information is fundamental to city development.

We鈥檝e already seen tangible benefits from this: the CityMapper App, which helps users navigate with real-time data, began when London鈥檚 transport authority published datasets they already held for internal planning. It鈥檚 now available in 33 cities around the world, including here in Hong Kong.

They鈥檙e continuing to innovate: quite a few transport companies have launched their own apps, but CityMapper must be the only app to launch its own bus service.

But we鈥檙e not just here today to talk about smart cities. I am sure all of us here agree on the benefits. We鈥檙e specifically here to discuss how we make sure the smart cities of the future are based on the individual and improving the lives of individual citizens.

Earlier, I talked about how predictions of London鈥檚 population decline had been wrong. We should be humble about our power to predict the future and foresee every consequence: because we cannot relive the mistakes of the urban planners of the 1950s and 鈥�60s.

That means starting with the individual citizen and what they actually want and need. That鈥檚 easier said than done, and I鈥檓 sure the fantastic panel will offer insight and suggestions.

But let me give you 2 thoughts, to kick off the discussion.

One: technology is not the solution, it really is only part of the solution.

Improved technology only works if it鈥檚 part of an improved process.

In Britain we鈥檝e been lucky, because citizen-centred technology has come exactly at the right time for us.

Since 2010 we鈥檝e had a big drive to make every public service 鈥榙igital by default鈥�.

But because there鈥檇 already been a strong desire to redesign public services around users, since at least the early 鈥�90s, digitalisation came as a natural, organic outgrowth of something we were already doing, not something we just bolted-on.

Two: as the saying goes, when you have a hammer, every problem is a nail. But technology should always be a solution to a problem, it should not be a solution looking for a problem to retrofit.

In the UK we look at the practical, day-to-day problems people face - is their bin collected on time; is their train overcrowded at rush hour - and we see how technology can help.

For example, every city lacks space. But Ordnance Survey, and I know the team is here today, is releasing its geospatial data, so we can make better use of the space we have.

Every city suffers from congestion. But Northern Ireland鈥檚 Seesense has developed a bike light that flashes more brightly at junctions. That makes cycling safer, so more people cycle - so we can make better use of the infrastructure we already have and lead healthier lives.

And every city is more polluted than the countryside around it. That鈥檚 why in Bristol and Milton Keynes we鈥檙e using sensors to monitor air pollution, and why Glasgow is pioneering smart grid technologies.

Urbanisation is one of the most important trends in the world today. We need to see this trend as an opportunity, not a threat. But it鈥檚 only by making our cities smart, understanding how we can apply that technology that we can take full advantage.

In Britain we鈥檙e already taking advantage - and our technology companies, consultancies, architects and planners can help you take advantage too.

But we should always remember: smart cities are not about making our cities 鈥榝it for the future鈥� - they鈥檙e about making the future fit, for the future of our citizens.