I was intrigued by the theme of the conference because I work in the real estate field
and also with IT, so a mix of of the two – City 2.0 was highly interesting
the first thing I did was to look up all the definitions. I won't repeat them, Rodislav's already done it
the definitions of a city, of the Web 2.0 technology have already been given several times
thanks to the previous speakers. I'll pay more attention to paradigms, the paradigms of a city
from the point of view of the value that each city represents.
Naturally, when we talk about cities, all the more if we do it within the scope of a financial paradigm
it's important to define who the city is for – for the people, of course
that's why I will give a very short speech about how cities emerged to answer people's needs
there's a very good definition from the point of view of human way of thinking and dreaming
there's an approach according to which a human brain has 3 parts
the first part is called somewhat coarsely the reptile part and is responsible for our instincts
then we get cities of the instinctive type, fortress-like cities
a city in which you can hide by definition. Surely, when we speak about a City 2.0
we mustn't forget about the cities that already exist and what there is in them, their values
in a fortress our main concern is safety, so it is the post primitive type of a city
it appeared when people began to gather in tribes and even now in some places such cities prevail
and the value they represent is very important. As a financier and an estate agent
I have to evaluate where real estate prices are the highest and what cities are the most expensive
And strange as it may sound, the closer a city is to a fortress, the closer to the Kremlin
the more expensive real estate is, so our lives are based on our instincts
but then by the Renaissance palace-like cities of a more creative type began to appear
the most important value, or financial paradigm, there is not safety, the need to hide
to protect yourself, the paradigm there is different: you have to attract, to be super-attractive
you have to be aesthetically superior in your appearance and then people will come there
and it will be a super-value. Nevertheless, after the industrial revolution came cities
of a new kind that we are continuing to develop although no one has said no
to the elements of fortress and when Bart told us about the ways cities are formed
the module way and the designer way, in the first one the module is created first
then we build high fences and those fences and barriers become our value
cities of the designer type that Bart said we have to make our preference
they are closer to palace-like cities, but on the whole, today we build cities of the aggregation kind
they are urban, complicated systems in which the main criterion is comfort and functionality
here a new notion comes along – a City 2.0. What is it?
I've run an experiment with Alexandra and after a short brainstorming session we came to the conclusion
that this city is a place people and ideas are concentrated, where innovations are born
and where we can communicate efficiently. What kind of cities are they?
surely, it's not the place we live in. what do these cities look like?
social networks. Today it's highly important to build a City 2.0 that would be more capitalized than
modern corporate giants that produce actual products and that's why we
move and communicate not with our neighbours – sometimes we don't even know them
we work in social networks, we make friends, exchange ideas there
that's why I've raised a few cases. Today in Moscow, and not only here, thanks to Yandex...
the element of a City 2.0 that we all live in today – who of those present uses the Yandex Probki application?
and if we add those who drive here, who don't live in Moscow then the number of the City 2.0 residents
is bigger than the number of residents of the old-fashioned city. There are fewer people in a fortress
people move out of Venice, they leave their palace-like city
cities of the urban type are not so attractive to us either, we suffocate there
so we create the conditions that would allow us to move slowly to a new type of cities
what do we get then? Then we get a city in which the main value will be the number of people
this letter P here that stands for population – the more people there are, the more valuable is the city
resources and scale will remain as values, of course, but just compare how much our beloved Yandex costs?
12 billion and this number increases by 4 billion every day. Why? Because we live there
because we go there and leave our ideas, create new services, create our own spaces
and in the nearest future... Boris has told us about the crystal ball – well, those crystal balls are our heads
and by putting our heads in social networks we can create brand new values
this is actually happening, and if today you sum up the costs of all social networks
and of their infrastructures like Google, Apple Store and everything else it will turn out
that maybe the virtual space we live in is more expensive than the real one
Thank you.