Tyler Spitzer-Wu


// University of Michigan
// B.S. Urban Technology
// Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning
// Minors in Computer Science and Entrepreneurship
// Class of 2027

I am interested in the use of technology in the built environment to improve the quality of life of those who interact with it. I am fascinated with cities as centers of innovation, culture, and economy with unparalleled vitality. I aspire to use my programming skills, design intuition, and entrepreneurial attitude as a practitioner creating positive and meaningful change within and between cities and communities.


tylersw@umich.edu
Résumé
LinkedIn

FOR CEDAR

Urban Analyses

UT 102: Anatomy of the City
JUN 2024

// critical analysis, problem-solving, futurismThese are essays written for a class in which we focused on the human, built, and natural systems that make up cities. The content is supported by information I obtained through three class trips to Detroit, Cleveland, and Chicago, in which we learned about parks, land use, and transportation, respectively.

In these writings, I develop ideas about the primary problem that all cities face and the use of technology in urban problem-solving.



We have been encouraged by one of our speakers to "fall in love with the problem, not any one solution." What is, in your judgment, "the problem" of the city?


“The problem” of the city is its people: specifically that people don’t like change, and everybody will always want something different. Conflicting perspectives and desires are part of what makes urban living and urbanism in general so vibrant, productive, and good for society, but also what makes urban change so difficult. This problem of people exercising their innate desire to voice their opinions and have their own way has always and will always exist in cities around the world.

When it comes to systems within cities, as long as the system works well enough and doesn’t have any apparent issues that are overly serious, people will generally accept and want to preserve the existence of that system. Human nature makes it easier to cling to what is familiar and instinctively deny what is new, rather than consider a new way of thinking or especially living. The negatives of this are especially apparent in regards to a city’s transportation and mobility systems. Because the method with which people get from place to place is such an integral part of daily life, people are generally very hesitant to give up or change their movement habits.

In North America, this stubbornness manifests itself in many cities’ commitment to life and urban form revolving around the personal automobile. Because the land use of many cities has historically dictated that the automobile reigns supreme, many Americans are content with continued reliance on personal cars. This is apparent in Atlanta, where transit exists but is deprioritized, as their plans for the future provide significantly more funding for car infrastructure than transit. It’s hard to pinpoint singular reasons why most people in Atlanta (and many other cities) commute by car and are okay with that, but it could be because the transit system is insufficient, the supposed problems with individual car travel aren’t immediately apparent (environment, personal health), and/or there’s simply not enough reason to modify a ritual within their daily life that they’ve always practiced. This causes a lack of political pressure on the government to make change.

This issue of car loyalty in North America is present on a smaller scale as well. When new developments are presented in neighborhoods, a primary concern is often parking. Even in places with transit-oriented development, such as Shaker Square in Cleveland, potential users of the proposed development instinctively become concerned with the availability of parking, rather than considering that parking may not even be needed, as explained by local designer David Jurca. This is another example of people having difficulty conceiving of a major change in their city’s systems and their personal daily life, which is understandable, but it results in less important issues being discussed.

To combat this stubbornness, governments can attempt to convince people to change their ways through incentives. For example, Barcelona offers three years of free public transit if a resident promises to make the uncomfortable change of giving up their car. In this case, Barcelona is betting on the strength of its transit system and hoping that the transit lifestyle makes a positive enough impression on each person that they make a permanent change. However, could such a move be made in places like Atlanta or Cleveland? This method requires that the transit system is robust enough in the first place, which it likely isn’t in Atlanta nor Cleveland. This caveats the idea that humans are hesitant to change; why should anyone buy into a change in mobility if the transportation systems in their city that form their perception of public transit are poor?

Unwillingness to change in cities expands beyond just transportation. The fact that wealthier residents in Logan Square moved out after the affordable housing was built is emblematic of this idea that many people want to maintain the status quo. Despite the fact that affordable housing is a beneficial introduction, because the introduction of it changed the urban fabric of the neighborhood, some people didn’t like it. In this case, people found such difficulty in dealing with the initial unfamiliarity of the change that they decided to reject the change altogether.

It is human nature to want certain things in life to stay the same. However, a main benefit of cities and urban living is that cities provide the opportunity for constant change and consistent vibrancy. Therefore, when positive change is possible, governments, community organizations, other institutions, and even individuals must work hard to show those who need it that the change will have positive impacts, despite the initial discomfort it might bring.



To what extent and in what way is technological change a promising avenue for a brighter urban future; what can it do and what can't it?


Emerging technologies can serve to help people and governments avoid problems and therefore save money, resources, and time within cities. The complexities within the urban landscape make for an environment with many potential problems that span all facets of humanity and society, but technology can help mitigate these. Furthermore, thoughtfully designed technology can improve the user experience of people attempting to make sense of the often chaotic city, therefore reducing stress in a potentially uncomfortable environment.

Technology’s ability to help us better understand the physical environment within cities is vital to understanding cities as a whole. Technologies of these types can be used by both advanced urban researchers and the common person with just a mobile phone. One example of technology that has greatly increased the common person’s ability to understand the city is digital mapping, such as in apps like Google Maps. In cities where wayfinding is not super robust, digital maps are almost vital for getting around. In Chicago, we relied on Google Maps to get to where we needed to go on our transit activity because the city itself did not have ample wayfinding infrastructure. With tools like Google Maps, it becomes less necessary for cities to have that type of infrastructure because the digital tool makes the user experience good enough.

On a more advanced level, technologies help developers and governments collaboratively avoid major problems when making changes to the systems already in place. A poignant example of this is the underground mapping technology presented to us by David Leopold of Microsoft in Chicago, a city that provides precise mapping of underground utilities that diggers must work around. This specific technology prevents potentially catastrophic errors from occurring, such as hitting a water or gas pipe, which would cost major money and delay the timeline of the project. Apart from this more obvious benefit, the existence of this technology also incentivizes multiple parties and stakeholders within the city to collaborate, as utility companies, developers, the government, and many more all agree to use and contribute to the technology because doing so is mutually beneficial. Furthermore, emerging technologies can help future-proof a city’s physical systems by increasing their environmental resilience and sustainability. In cities like Barcelona, Hanoi, and Nairobi, where electric buses are being introduced, electrification of public transit makes the system more environmentally friendly and directly impacts each person in the city by reducing air pollution. It also reduces these cities’ reliance on finite resources, which is increasingly important as climate change worsens. This all means that the city and its individuals enjoy environmental and economic benefits. Both of these technologies provide for long-term problem-avoidance and are beneficial to everyone.

However, technology is not the answer to all problems; it is usually just an assistive tool within a larger solution. The most useful technology is specific to the city it is helping, meaning that the creators of the technology must have a comprehensive understanding of what the city and its people need. To find this out, community engagement is needed, which is something technology cannot do. Hearing about community engagement in Cleveland from David Jurca and others emphasized the importance of human-to-human interaction when trying to see how the community really feels. While technology like AI can help in this process, such as by creating visualizations, technology will never be able to replicate genuine conversation. Furthermore, many urban problems just aren’t technology problems. For example, Mumbai could throw whatever technology it can find at its transportation system, such as electric buses or a unified digital system, but it won’t change the fact that its roads are completely unruly. In this case, the problem just doesn’t necessitate advanced technology– they just need to find a way to bring order to their streets. Almost every city, in countries that are the least developed to the most developed, has some issue that is simply infrastructural, or policy-related, or culture-related, that cannot be solved by technology, and instead requires economic funding, or political pressure, or cultural change, likely sparked by human outreach.

Cities and urban change-makers should use technologies to optimize problem-solving and protect against mistakes. However, they must remember that the soul of the city is the people within, and human connection cannot be replaced by technology (at least not yet). Therefore, cities must use a multi-faceted approach that includes the use of technology and community engagement when attacking any urban problem.

home  next -->