12 FINNISH ENERGY PoLICY IN TRANSITIoN
133
co-designed with citizens with the slogan ‘to save one hour of residents’
time per day’. The idea is that Kalasatama is a real-life testbed for new
services to be scaled up elsewhere. This is done by providing a platform
to co-create smart urban infrastructures and services.
Smart Kalasatama is based on the utilization of different technologies and
solutions that all use ICT and open data. Several hundred participants—
large and small companies, research, public sector, and citizens—are already
involved in developing Kalasatama as a smart district. Helen, together with
partner organizations, develops smart grid technologies and services such as
an electric car network and battery energy storage. The focus is on experimenting with new solutions at varying scales in real life with residents
(Mustonen et al. 2017). The Developers’ Club gathers city administration,
resident associations and businesses in the area together four times a year
to discuss the development of Kalasatama. This way of working represents a
novel way to cooperate at the city district level in Finland.
The Smart Kalasatama case shows how energy considerations are
increasingly embedded in wider urban planning targets. And on the
other hand, urban planning—at its best—is not seen merely as physical infrastructure planning. It is also about a redistribution of power,
where conventional ways of infrastructure development are challenged,
new networks among diverse players are forged, and new solutions are
sought for via experimentation. on the other hand, in such a diverse
‘smart city’ context, energy and resource conservation may have to
compete with other agendas, such as the development of new technology and commercial services. In this sense, Smart Kalasatama is a typical
case of such developments, with the same strengths and weaknesses. For
example, there might be a need for more assessment of whether ‘smart’
solutions—or new technical solutions in general—deliver the promised
environmental benefits, as well as the issue of the extent to which they
are scalable (Heiskanen et al. 2017).
An important policy implication from the Finnish cases in general, and
the Smart Kalasatama case as an illustration, is that local governments are
close to citizens and can influence many of the conditions for sustainable consumption and quality of life. However, local governments might
lack the resources, expertise and also the power to innovate, to evaluate projects, and in particular, to scale up innovative practices. Because
of this, central governments and the EU might offer more funding for
such innovative projects, but also require more and better evaluation and
diffusion.
133
co-designed with citizens with the slogan ‘to save one hour of residents’
time per day’. The idea is that Kalasatama is a real-life testbed for new
services to be scaled up elsewhere. This is done by providing a platform
to co-create smart urban infrastructures and services.
Smart Kalasatama is based on the utilization of different technologies and
solutions that all use ICT and open data. Several hundred participants—
large and small companies, research, public sector, and citizens—are already
involved in developing Kalasatama as a smart district. Helen, together with
partner organizations, develops smart grid technologies and services such as
an electric car network and battery energy storage. The focus is on experimenting with new solutions at varying scales in real life with residents
(Mustonen et al. 2017). The Developers’ Club gathers city administration,
resident associations and businesses in the area together four times a year
to discuss the development of Kalasatama. This way of working represents a
novel way to cooperate at the city district level in Finland.
The Smart Kalasatama case shows how energy considerations are
increasingly embedded in wider urban planning targets. And on the
other hand, urban planning—at its best—is not seen merely as physical infrastructure planning. It is also about a redistribution of power,
where conventional ways of infrastructure development are challenged,
new networks among diverse players are forged, and new solutions are
sought for via experimentation. on the other hand, in such a diverse
‘smart city’ context, energy and resource conservation may have to
compete with other agendas, such as the development of new technology and commercial services. In this sense, Smart Kalasatama is a typical
case of such developments, with the same strengths and weaknesses. For
example, there might be a need for more assessment of whether ‘smart’
solutions—or new technical solutions in general—deliver the promised
environmental benefits, as well as the issue of the extent to which they
are scalable (Heiskanen et al. 2017).
An important policy implication from the Finnish cases in general, and
the Smart Kalasatama case as an illustration, is that local governments are
close to citizens and can influence many of the conditions for sustainable consumption and quality of life. However, local governments might
lack the resources, expertise and also the power to innovate, to evaluate projects, and in particular, to scale up innovative practices. Because
of this, central governments and the EU might offer more funding for
such innovative projects, but also require more and better evaluation and
diffusion.