16
GREEN BUILDING GUIDE
Governments have a large store of data at their
fingertips, but collecting data in itself is not useful.
Data is only useful if it can be applied to create
better outcomes.
As we put sensors on buildings, cars, trams and other
fixed infrastructure such as desk lights, thermostats
and power outlets, we are able to assess a staggering
array of metrics, from pollution levels to the
movement of people. But the difference between a
smart and a dumb building or city is what you do with
the information you gather. With the right analytic
tools, we can find patterns, identify correlations and
address the causes of malfunctions.
Speaking at Green Cities, AECOM’s chief digital
officer Colette Munro argued that the problem with
GOVLINK » ISSUE 2 2017
data is that it “shows some inconvenient truths” –
whether that’s buses running 60 per cent empty or
buildings missing the mark on energy efficiency. We
must all face up to those truths if we are going to
create greener cities, Munro said.
Data may paint a picture contrary to accepted
wisdom. Or it may show up systemic failures.
But when we are able to identify the systemic
challenges, we can devise systemic solutions.
Chris Pyke, chief strategy officer for Aclima, a
technology company using environmental sensing
tools to promote health and wellbeing, says that data
will help “turn our ideas, planning and architecture
into testable real world hypotheses”. Designers,
planners and architects will be the “hypothesis