"OpenUrban is the first open source user–generated web map and forum focusing on current and proposed urban development. It is a web platform for civic collaboration, a venue for debate, and an outlet and archive for information on urban development. We embrace crowd sourcing technology as a means to inform and empower. By combining written media with spatial information OpenUrban creates a powerful tool for people to understand how their cities are changing and supports their active participation in that change."
"The draft Central City Plan has been developed and written from the 106,000 ideas shared by our community during the six–week Share an Idea campaign.
This includes all ideas shared through the website, the two–day Community Expo attended by 10,000 residents, the public workshop series 450 residents participated in, meetings with various key stakeholders and discussions with councillors, interest groups and professional institutes. The draft plan also takes into account the work Council had already done to revitalise the Central City and other relevant Council policy."
(Christchurch City Council, 2011)
[The Christchurch City Council have published a draft Central City Plan to invite further commentary on Christchurch's rebuilding process. This stage of the consultation process begins on the 16th of August 2011.]
"Fifteen urban designers, business leaders, arts and tourism representatives, geo–tech experts, architects, environmentalists, students and a Central City resident for 57 years will share their ideas for Christchurch's Central City in the Speakers' Corner at this weekend's (14 and 15 May) community expo."
(Rebuild Christchurch, 14 and 15 May 2011)
[It's not very often that whole cities are re–designed as is the case with Christchurch in Aotearoa New Zealand. While earthquakes continue to shake the region Christchurch residents are making plans for the future. The Christchurch City Council invited key stakeholders to present their perspectives as part of their public consultation process. In doing so Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology (CPIT) Dean Dr. Jane Gregg and Creative Industries Faculty Stakeholder Manager Martin Trusttum explain their vision for a "Creative Christchurch" based on the concept of precincts.]
"The most striking result is the difference between the manipulability of the Hare [IRV] system and the other systems. Because the [IRV] system considers only 'current' first preferences, it appears to be extremely difficult to manipulate. To be successful, a coalition must usually throw enough support to losing candidates to eliminate the sincere winner (the winner when no preferences are misrepresented) at an early stage, but still leave an agreed upon candidate with sufficient first–place strength to win. This turns out to be quite difficult to do."
(Chamberlin, Cohen and Coombs, 1984)
John R. Chamberlin, Jerry. L. Cohen and Clyde H. Coombs (1984). 'Social Choice Observed: Five Presidential Elections of the American Psychological Association.' The Journal of Politics 46(2): pp. 479–502.
Fig.1 Chair Judge Geraldine Sell, green sweater, sorted ballots with dozens of others during the first day of hand–counting in Minneapolis, Wednesday, Nov. 4, 2009. The hand–counting is required in Minneapolis because of the instant runoff voting process. (MPR Photo/Jeffrey Thompson)
"MIT technology specialist Nicholas Negroponte prophecies the emergence of 'the Daily Me'––a communications package that is personally designed, with each component fully chosen in advance . Many of us are applauding these developments, which obviously increase individual convenience and entertainment. But in the midst of the applause, we should insist on asking some questions. How will the increasing power of private control affect democracy? How will the Internet, the new forms of television, and the explosion of communications options alter the capacity of citizens to govern themselves? What are the social preconditions for a well–functioning system of democratic deliberation, or for individual freedom itself? ...
A large part of my aim is to explore what makes for a well–functioning system of free expression. Above all, I urge that in a diverse society, such a system requires far more than restraints on government censorship and respect for individual choices. For the last decades, this has been the preoccupation of American law and politics, and indeed the law and politics of many other nations as well, including, for example, Germany, France, England, and Israel. Censorship is indeed a threat to democracy and freedom. But an exclusive focus on government censorship produces serious blind spots. In particular, a well–functioning system of free expression must meet two distinctive requirements.
First, people should be exposed to materials that they would not have chosen in advance. Unplanned, unanticipated encounters are central to democracy itself. Such encounters often involve topics and points of view that people have not sought out and perhaps find quite irritating. They are important partly to ensure against fragmentation and extremism, which are predictable outcomes of any situation in which like–minded people speak only with themselves. I do not suggest that government should force people to see things that they wish to avoid. But I do contend that in a democracy deserving the name, people often come across views and topics that they have not specifically selected.
Second, many or most citizens should have a range of common experiences. Without shared experiences, a heterogeneous society will have a much more difficult time in addressing social problems. People may even find it hard to understand one another. Common experiences, emphatically including the common experiences made possible by the media, provide a form of social glue. A system of communications that radically diminishes the number of such experiences will create a number of problems, not least because of the increase in social fragmentation.
As preconditions for a well–functioning democracy, these requirements hold in any large nation. They are especially important in a heterogeneous nation, one that faces an occasional risk of fragmentation. They have all the more importance as each nation becomes increasingly global and each citizen becomes, to a greater or lesser degree, a 'citizen of the world."
(Cass Sunstein, 2002)
Sunstein, C. (2002). "The Daily Me". Republic.com, Princeton University Press.
Fig.1 San Liu (2004) 'Narcissism' webshots.com.