TOPP Labs needs a new name

For the past year or so, the group at TOPP that I manage has been known as TOPP LabsTOPP Labs was originally chosen not because it was the best or most compelling name, but because as we were dialing back work on the OpenCore project, we needed a name that was better than “The Team Formerly Known as OpenCore,” or “Non-geo TOPP” (since OpenGeo is TOPP’s other main software group).  Without a whole lot of thought, we settled quickly on TOPP Labs, as it was better than nothing and it generally evoked the spirit of experimentation and innovation we were hoping to embody after working for a long time on a single, large project.

Since then, TOPP Labs has come a long way.  We’ve re-imagined ourselves as an incubator for new enterprises and initiatives that make cities work better, and have taken off down several paths: information systems for public transit (under the OpenGeo Transit brand); tools to facilitate citizen engagement, such as FixCity and Community Almanac; and initiatives to help public agencies get on board with “open,” such as Open311, OpenMuni, and the NY Transit Data project.  We’ve been busy connecting with the open government, open cities, and progressive planning communities, and have been documenting our progress on our blog, The Civic Hacker.

But now, the time has come for us to choose our grown-up name.  This was spurred in large part by our new Executive Director, but I fully agree that the time is come, and that we should have a name that does a better job describing what it is that we do, and perhaps more importantly, what we can offer.  As I’ve written before, I’ve always been conflicted about the “TOPP” acronym, as it’s not self-evident what it means, and of course the same goes for TOPP Labs.

Of course, I’m not just writing this for my own good, I’m writing because I need help.  Please help me choose a new name for TOPP Labs.  Let’s make it a good one.  Thank you in advance for your thoughts here.  To help this along, here are a few things that should inform the choice of a new name:

First, what we’d like the name to evoke:

  • Technology, innovation, and creativity
  • A strong commitment to civic issues and the goal of making cities work better
  • A serious, competent organization that can deliver quality products & services

Second, here’s what we’d like to avoid:

  • Terms or phrases that could easily become cliche or dated (for example, Labs, or e, or i)
  • Anything that sounds overly silly and not business-y enough (e.g., the Super Awesome Group)
  • Anything that sounds overly business-y and not creative enough
  • Open Abuse — there’s only so much “open” people can handle

Lastly, it should be informed by the things that we actually do, such as:

  • Find opportunities for software and technology to help make cities more
    livable, communities more engaged, and government more effective.
  • Develop open source software products that accomplish the above, selling our services to government agencies, foundations, and other partners.
  • Cultivate communities of open source developers and other civic technologists.
  • Help liberate data for the public good.

So far, the strongest contenders for names have been something like the Civic ____ Group, where the blank is “tech,” “dev,”  “data,” or something similar.  I’m not opposed to those approaches, but I still haven’t fallen in love-at-first-sight with a name, which I’m hoping is still in the cards.

Other names I’ve noticed lately that I like are the Office of New Urban Mechanics, which is Boston’s new office for civic technology innovation, led by their innovation director, Nigel Jacobs.  Also, I dig John Tolva‘s title at IBM of Director of Citizenship and Technology.  We could go the city-analog route and name ourselves the Department of Public Networks or the Department of Civic Hacking (I could be Commissioner), but that’s almost certainly too cheeky.

So, that’s where I’m at.  The clock is ticking, as I need to make a decision by the end of the day tomorrow, Friday 2/19.

What do you think, intertubes?

100 thoughts on “TOPP Labs needs a new name

  1. For those of you who I didn’t go to middle school with, Theological Underdogs of a Metaphysical Society (TUMS) was the name of our seventh grade band. We produced one “studio” (aka my basement) album and one live album, each of which consisted of the same three songs. @John is now busy making real music over at Brownstone Megaphone.

    Like

  2. For those of you who I didn’t go to middle school with, Theological Underdogs of a Metaphysical Society (TUMS) was the name of our seventh grade band. We produced one “studio” (aka my basement) album and one live album, each of which consisted of the same three songs. @John is now busy making real music over at Brownstone Megaphone.

    Like

  3. Following up on the idea of “urban software laboratory” — one of the suggestions that Michael gave me the other day was this:

    Maybe just Civic _____ where the goal is to choose a second word that avoids an analogy to something out of our industry that will become dated, like Labs, or Foundry, or Studio. Does software have a place associated with it in its past that we could draw on for a name. Something like a lab or a workshop but not…

    Which begs the question: what is the natural habitat of Software?

    Like

  4. Following up on the idea of “urban software laboratory” — one of the suggestions that Michael gave me the other day was this:

    Maybe just Civic _____ where the goal is to choose a second word that avoids an analogy to something out of our industry that will become dated, like Labs, or Foundry, or Studio. Does software have a place associated with it in its past that we could draw on for a name. Something like a lab or a workshop but not…

    Which begs the question: what is the natural habitat of Software?

    Like

  5. ACE – is fracking slayer doods!

    AWESOME? too easy. i’ll even throw in a “the” so you can say “the awesome.”

    the

    Agency
    With
    Experimental or Experiential
    Software
    Of
    Managed
    Engagement

    Like

  6. ACE – is fracking slayer doods!

    AWESOME? too easy. i’ll even throw in a “the” so you can say “the awesome.”

    the

    Agency
    With
    Experimental or Experiential
    Software
    Of
    Managed
    Engagement

    Like

  7. /me shakes his head

    The key thing to naming for me is it should answer “What is it?” for the user. To me “what it is” is the TOPP team that works on civic solutions. So either:

    TOPP Civic
    or
    TOPP Civic Solutions
    or
    Civic Solutions

    Almost anything else listed (I admit it, I’ve only scanned) is actually a distraction from answering that key question from the user. It may be fun, but does it actually tell the user what they need to know?

    Like

  8. /me shakes his head

    The key thing to naming for me is it should answer “What is it?” for the user. To me “what it is” is the TOPP team that works on civic solutions. So either:

    TOPP Civic
    or
    TOPP Civic Solutions
    or
    Civic Solutions

    Almost anything else listed (I admit it, I’ve only scanned) is actually a distraction from answering that key question from the user. It may be fun, but does it actually tell the user what they need to know?

    Like

  9. Municipal Media Lab
    Society For Hacking Society
    Hacked Cities
    Rethinking Cities
    Civic Enablers
    Solved Cities
    New Citizenry
    Civic Labs
    Center for Civic Innovation
    Civic Innovation
    Re-centered Cities
    Center for Social Innovation
    Center for Civic Engagement
    Empowered Civics
    Citizens Empowered
    Internet
    CyberCitizens
    Cyber Civics
    Center For Cyber Civics
    Connected Cities
    Center for Connected Cities
    The Civic Accelerator
    Social Accelerators
    Cyber City Labs
    Reimagined Ciites
    Electronic Engagement
    Intercity Labs
    New Cities Network
    New City Network
    New City Labs
    Mediated Civics
    City Media Mentors
    Civic Media Makers
    CyberSpace Planning
    CyberSpace Cooperative
    Cyber City Coop
    New Civics Network
    Social Engineering Services
    Internetworked Cities
    Connected Conscience

    Like

  10. Municipal Media Lab
    Society For Hacking Society
    Hacked Cities
    Rethinking Cities
    Civic Enablers
    Solved Cities
    New Citizenry
    Civic Labs
    Center for Civic Innovation
    Civic Innovation
    Re-centered Cities
    Center for Social Innovation
    Center for Civic Engagement
    Empowered Civics
    Citizens Empowered
    Internet
    CyberCitizens
    Cyber Civics
    Center For Cyber Civics
    Connected Cities
    Center for Connected Cities
    The Civic Accelerator
    Social Accelerators
    Cyber City Labs
    Reimagined Ciites
    Electronic Engagement
    Intercity Labs
    New Cities Network
    New City Network
    New City Labs
    Mediated Civics
    City Media Mentors
    Civic Media Makers
    CyberSpace Planning
    CyberSpace Cooperative
    Cyber City Coop
    New Civics Network
    Social Engineering Services
    Internetworked Cities
    Connected Conscience

    Like

  11. Tech Forward
    Tech Public
    Tech Publica
    Civic Corps
    Tech Civic
    Open Progress


    Just brainstorming. I like “corps” – I keep thinking you’re a modern-day army corps of engineers…Better infrastructure, but built by the brain. And, so funny that CFA already exists.

    Like

  12. Tech Forward
    Tech Public
    Tech Publica
    Civic Corps
    Tech Civic
    Open Progress


    Just brainstorming. I like “corps” – I keep thinking you’re a modern-day army corps of engineers…Better infrastructure, but built by the brain. And, so funny that CFA already exists.

    Like

  13. These are all really helpful ideas, so thanks everyone for the suggestions. I have some thoughts about how the name fits into the larger organization:

    Many of these names could be surrounded with The _____ Group or something like that, but I’d highly recommend we don’t do that again (eg The Open Planning Project versus just Open Plans). Words like “group” or “project” are largely meaningless and immediately invite acronyms which then make the other parts of the name near meaningless too. I think this is also the problem with giving ourselves a long and extremely explicit name, it will inevitably become an acronym that is not explicit whatsoever. We should either be giving ourselves a name that makes us stand on our own (eg OpenGeo) or we don’t give ourselves a name at all and just float within the larger body of Open Plans. Otherwise, what’s the point of going through this effort to name and brand us as a unique entity?

    If we want to be explicit about being a division of Open Plans, then maybe we can be _____ at/of Open Plans but only when necessary, eg “The Civic Agency of Open Plans” or “CivicForge at Open Plans”

    My personal preference is that we stand on our own and only clarify our presence within the larger organization when necessary. I think this will help clarify our messaging and focus as a Civic Software entity. OpenGeo and Livable Streets have done this extremely well within their own audiences. If we always express our division as part of a larger entity, then we always have to explain the nuances of the larger entity and I think that often leads us to lose focus on the messaging of our specific niche.

    Like

  14. These are all really helpful ideas, so thanks everyone for the suggestions. I have some thoughts about how the name fits into the larger organization:

    Many of these names could be surrounded with The _____ Group or something like that, but I’d highly recommend we don’t do that again (eg The Open Planning Project versus just Open Plans). Words like “group” or “project” are largely meaningless and immediately invite acronyms which then make the other parts of the name near meaningless too. I think this is also the problem with giving ourselves a long and extremely explicit name, it will inevitably become an acronym that is not explicit whatsoever. We should either be giving ourselves a name that makes us stand on our own (eg OpenGeo) or we don’t give ourselves a name at all and just float within the larger body of Open Plans. Otherwise, what’s the point of going through this effort to name and brand us as a unique entity?

    If we want to be explicit about being a division of Open Plans, then maybe we can be _____ at/of Open Plans but only when necessary, eg “The Civic Agency of Open Plans” or “CivicForge at Open Plans”

    My personal preference is that we stand on our own and only clarify our presence within the larger organization when necessary. I think this will help clarify our messaging and focus as a Civic Software entity. OpenGeo and Livable Streets have done this extremely well within their own audiences. If we always express our division as part of a larger entity, then we always have to explain the nuances of the larger entity and I think that often leads us to lose focus on the messaging of our specific niche.

    Like

  15. It’s a pity that ‘open’ is somewhat a showstopper, because I think it embraces a lot of ideology behind your organization and perhaps the community-at-large.

    ‘Open Civic Technologies’ kind of has a ring to it, but if you didn’t want to keep the tech then how about ‘Open Civic Collaboration’?

    @Philip’s CivicForge evokes sourceforge and other foundations of the open source community. It’s a good one!

    You could also follow the Code for America convention but narrow it like ‘Code for Cities’ or ‘Code for Counties’. That might also imply a relationship between your organizations that goes beyond being peers, though.

    Like

  16. It’s a pity that ‘open’ is somewhat a showstopper, because I think it embraces a lot of ideology behind your organization and perhaps the community-at-large.

    ‘Open Civic Technologies’ kind of has a ring to it, but if you didn’t want to keep the tech then how about ‘Open Civic Collaboration’?

    @Philip’s CivicForge evokes sourceforge and other foundations of the open source community. It’s a good one!

    You could also follow the Code for America convention but narrow it like ‘Code for Cities’ or ‘Code for Counties’. That might also imply a relationship between your organizations that goes beyond being peers, though.

    Like

  17. Wow, thanks everybody, this is great.

    @Phil’s suggestion is perhaps the most radical, and maybe also the least exciting for non TOPP-ers on this thread. But it is possible that simply fading back into the TOPP umbrella and letting each of our projects stand on its own might be the right approach, and might best embody the “TOPP as an incubator” idea.

    @Andrew – I don’t think “open” is necessarily a showstopper, I guess I’m just trying to be careful w/ it, since we use it in so many of our initiatives. However, that might actually be a reason to just double down and go w/ it. I do agree that “open” is a critical part of our message and our work, so I wouldn’t want to take that all the way off the table re: names.

    Maybe something like Open Civic Enterprises captures the spirit of TOPP(labs) as an incubator for new social enterprise initiatives?

    @Brad, you are an animal.

    At the end of the day, though, it’s going to be hard to pass up being known as “The AWESOME”. Nice work, @Noel.

    Like

  18. Wow, thanks everybody, this is great.

    @Phil’s suggestion is perhaps the most radical, and maybe also the least exciting for non TOPP-ers on this thread. But it is possible that simply fading back into the TOPP umbrella and letting each of our projects stand on its own might be the right approach, and might best embody the “TOPP as an incubator” idea.

    @Andrew – I don’t think “open” is necessarily a showstopper, I guess I’m just trying to be careful w/ it, since we use it in so many of our initiatives. However, that might actually be a reason to just double down and go w/ it. I do agree that “open” is a critical part of our message and our work, so I wouldn’t want to take that all the way off the table re: names.

    Maybe something like Open Civic Enterprises captures the spirit of TOPP(labs) as an incubator for new social enterprise initiatives?

    @Brad, you are an animal.

    At the end of the day, though, it’s going to be hard to pass up being known as “The AWESOME”. Nice work, @Noel.

    Like

  19. Actually, by describing my preference to “stand on our own” I meant that Labs as a division would stand on it’s own (like OpenGeo and Livable Streets). The point I was trying to make was that name would not be tied to the larger organization, eg “TOPP Labs”

    As a way to maintain a clear message, I would prefer something like Civic Agency rather than “The Civic Agency of Open Plans”

    Like

  20. Actually, by describing my preference to “stand on our own” I meant that Labs as a division would stand on it’s own (like OpenGeo and Livable Streets). The point I was trying to make was that name would not be tied to the larger organization, eg “TOPP Labs”

    As a way to maintain a clear message, I would prefer something like Civic Agency rather than “The Civic Agency of Open Plans”

    Like

  21. Keep it simple: Civic Software, Inc. Civicware.org. Civic is a great word.

    Maybe Citizenware.org. You build citizenware.

    Or consider doing something with this nice, under-used term:

    Polis.

    The ancient Greeks used Polis interchangeably to describe both the city/state and its citizens. Polis harkens back to the roots of democracy and self-governance, to my ear it has a slightly techy ring to it, and I haven’t really heard any big entity using it in the urban development or civic web space.

    Polisware
    Polisworks

    You might also consider doing something with the word Agora, also another roots-of-democracy kind of term. The Athenian Agora was, literally, the social, political and material market place. It’s the original place for open assembly, discussion and exchange of goods, services and ideas. It’s literally the place where democracy started. Lower on my list, but…

    Agora Software.
    Agora Development
    Agoraware
    Agora Solutions

    Also seriously consider that you guys have already come up with an outstanding brand name for yourselves: “Civic Hacker” is a great concept. TOPP already owns it in Google. Why not double down and build on that? Be the Civic Hackers Group. Or Civic Hacker, Inc for a little more of a businessy twist. The kinds of government agencies that are going to be willing to hire you in the first place aren’t likely to be scared away by that name. Talented do-gooder software developers will want to be part of that group. The public and press will be intrigued by that name. You get to define what it means to be a “Civic Hacker.”

    Then, of course, you could also go with something like, “Developers Working on Whatever Mark Happens to Want to do This Month.org.” That might be the most accurate name to this point.

    Like

  22. Keep it simple: Civic Software, Inc. Civicware.org. Civic is a great word.

    Maybe Citizenware.org. You build citizenware.

    Or consider doing something with this nice, under-used term:

    Polis.

    The ancient Greeks used Polis interchangeably to describe both the city/state and its citizens. Polis harkens back to the roots of democracy and self-governance, to my ear it has a slightly techy ring to it, and I haven’t really heard any big entity using it in the urban development or civic web space.

    Polisware
    Polisworks

    You might also consider doing something with the word Agora, also another roots-of-democracy kind of term. The Athenian Agora was, literally, the social, political and material market place. It’s the original place for open assembly, discussion and exchange of goods, services and ideas. It’s literally the place where democracy started. Lower on my list, but…

    Agora Software.
    Agora Development
    Agoraware
    Agora Solutions

    Also seriously consider that you guys have already come up with an outstanding brand name for yourselves: “Civic Hacker” is a great concept. TOPP already owns it in Google. Why not double down and build on that? Be the Civic Hackers Group. Or Civic Hacker, Inc for a little more of a businessy twist. The kinds of government agencies that are going to be willing to hire you in the first place aren’t likely to be scared away by that name. Talented do-gooder software developers will want to be part of that group. The public and press will be intrigued by that name. You get to define what it means to be a “Civic Hacker.”

    Then, of course, you could also go with something like, “Developers Working on Whatever Mark Happens to Want to do This Month.org.” That might be the most accurate name to this point.

    Like

  23. No, there’s more — it was just so deep that I’m still processing it… Seriously though, I think you make a good point about simplicity and also about the “Civic Hacker” brand. Polis and Agora are spot on in terms of meaning, probably a bit of a stretch for us in this case.

    Tick, tock.

    Like

  24. No, there’s more — it was just so deep that I’m still processing it… Seriously though, I think you make a good point about simplicity and also about the “Civic Hacker” brand. Polis and Agora are spot on in terms of meaning, probably a bit of a stretch for us in this case.

    Tick, tock.

    Like

  25. Just recently struggled with the naming problem for City Forward, which, granted, is a project rather than an organization — but I think some of the challenges are similar.

    Have you considered uses of “metropolitan” or “metro”? Downside: sometimes too-closely associated with transit. Upside: can imply regional coverage greater than the city proper.

    I’ve seen the word “collaboratory” tossed around — mostly in academic working groups. Bit buzzwordy, but it does condense a few ideas.

    I like the “[project name] at [possibly rebranded organization name]” formula, but my concern is that “planning” and “plans”, while very meaningful to the folks here, is not immediately associated with urban planning to broader audiences. There are lots of kinds of planning and god forbid you associate yourself with the world of certified project management. (I kid, I kid, because I fear.)

    What about bubbling up projects via descriptive, specific names and then qualifying that with an “at” non-specific, aspirational, more brand-like name for what was TOPP Labs? Best of both worlds. It’d be relatively easy to understand what the project is and who it comes from — but frees the-organization-formerly-known-as-TOPP-Labs from needing to define itself too narrowly. Room for future growth.

    No matter what, this is a fun exercise. And a useful way of asking ourselves collectively just what the hell we think we’re doing.

    Like

  26. Just recently struggled with the naming problem for City Forward, which, granted, is a project rather than an organization — but I think some of the challenges are similar.

    Have you considered uses of “metropolitan” or “metro”? Downside: sometimes too-closely associated with transit. Upside: can imply regional coverage greater than the city proper.

    I’ve seen the word “collaboratory” tossed around — mostly in academic working groups. Bit buzzwordy, but it does condense a few ideas.

    I like the “[project name] at [possibly rebranded organization name]” formula, but my concern is that “planning” and “plans”, while very meaningful to the folks here, is not immediately associated with urban planning to broader audiences. There are lots of kinds of planning and god forbid you associate yourself with the world of certified project management. (I kid, I kid, because I fear.)

    What about bubbling up projects via descriptive, specific names and then qualifying that with an “at” non-specific, aspirational, more brand-like name for what was TOPP Labs? Best of both worlds. It’d be relatively easy to understand what the project is and who it comes from — but frees the-organization-formerly-known-as-TOPP-Labs from needing to define itself too narrowly. Room for future growth.

    No matter what, this is a fun exercise. And a useful way of asking ourselves collectively just what the hell we think we’re doing.

    Like

  27. @fkh While Civic Code Crucible is clearly the strongest, most heavy metal of all the suggestions, I think Civic Works is my favorite so far, but…

    @Andrew Nicklin’s point about the value of Open is important, so what about Open Works?

    Like

  28. @fkh While Civic Code Crucible is clearly the strongest, most heavy metal of all the suggestions, I think Civic Works is my favorite so far, but…

    @Andrew Nicklin’s point about the value of Open is important, so what about Open Works?

    Like

  29. @John I think we are definitely leaning towards some sort of [meaningfully-named project/product] -> [aspirational group/org name] kind of model. I think the biggest question is how many layers are appropriate — given the current arrangement, it would be [project] -> [new-topp-labs-as-incubator-group] -> TOPP. IMO, that’s probably too many layers. Even if that describes our internal structure, that’s probably not how we’d want to present it publicly.

    I like the idea of having a quasi-public identity for [new-topp-labs]: less public than the present arrangement (i.e., no entire dedicated website), rather more of a translucent layer on top of individual initiatives.

    So for example, I could see the Civic Hacker blog moving to http://civichacker.org, with light branding somewhere that says: The Civic Hacker. A project of [Alpha Code Werkz / New TOPP Labs] at The Open Planning Project. Then, the link to new-topp-labs goes back to an overview page at http://openplans.org/new-topp-labs. This is still the three-layer model, I guess, but one that frames [new-topp-labs] less as an organization in its own right, and more of an internal program.

    Just thinking out loud here; I don’t have this totally figured yet. What feels most comfortable at the moment is a neither-black-nor-white approach to whether [new-topp-labs] is an outward facing initiative or just an internal group.

    Like

  30. @John I think we are definitely leaning towards some sort of [meaningfully-named project/product] -> [aspirational group/org name] kind of model. I think the biggest question is how many layers are appropriate — given the current arrangement, it would be [project] -> [new-topp-labs-as-incubator-group] -> TOPP. IMO, that’s probably too many layers. Even if that describes our internal structure, that’s probably not how we’d want to present it publicly.

    I like the idea of having a quasi-public identity for [new-topp-labs]: less public than the present arrangement (i.e., no entire dedicated website), rather more of a translucent layer on top of individual initiatives.

    So for example, I could see the Civic Hacker blog moving to http://civichacker.org, with light branding somewhere that says: The Civic Hacker. A project of [Alpha Code Werkz / New TOPP Labs] at The Open Planning Project. Then, the link to new-topp-labs goes back to an overview page at http://openplans.org/new-topp-labs. This is still the three-layer model, I guess, but one that frames [new-topp-labs] less as an organization in its own right, and more of an internal program.

    Just thinking out loud here; I don’t have this totally figured yet. What feels most comfortable at the moment is a neither-black-nor-white approach to whether [new-topp-labs] is an outward facing initiative or just an internal group.

    Like

  31. as a govie/govvy/gov-ee, i hate to say this, but you need to be careful with “hacking.” it’s like branding yourself as an insurgent, it WILL cut both ways and it will hurt at times. if you do go that route, make sure you have full body armor and a solid helmet.

    Like

  32. as a govie/govvy/gov-ee, i hate to say this, but you need to be careful with “hacking.” it’s like branding yourself as an insurgent, it WILL cut both ways and it will hurt at times. if you do go that route, make sure you have full body armor and a solid helmet.

    Like

  33. @Noel – I agree with that. I don’t see us having “hacking” or “hacker” in the official name. Do you think maintaining the Civic Hacker blog would have the same effect? I kinda think not, and I like it for its dev cred.

    Like

  34. @Noel – I agree with that. I don’t see us having “hacking” or “hacker” in the official name. Do you think maintaining the Civic Hacker blog would have the same effect? I kinda think not, and I like it for its dev cred.

    Like

  35. Was thinking that we need to open up the language a little here. What you guys do is to make the city easier to use. Sorta turbocharge access to it.

    WARNING: Unedited brain dump coming..

    – Civic Layer Lab
    – Urban Upcoding Project
    – Hyper Planning LTD
    – Urban Coding
    – The Functional City Project
    – Code to Action
    – Coding the City
    – Coding for a New City
    – Civisimplify
    – CivicCode
    – ThinkCity
    – MakeCity
    – Urban Data Insitute
    – SimpleCivic
    – AHHHH! I can’t think of any more
    – Civic Idea Center
    – PlaceCoders
    – CivicInfo
    – Urban Information
    – Urban Layer Makers
    – EasyCiv
    – The Layered City Project
    – The Community Layer Lab
    – Unicorn Rainbow Code Nursery.
    – I’m out.

    Jeff

    Like

  36. Was thinking that we need to open up the language a little here. What you guys do is to make the city easier to use. Sorta turbocharge access to it.

    WARNING: Unedited brain dump coming..

    – Civic Layer Lab
    – Urban Upcoding Project
    – Hyper Planning LTD
    – Urban Coding
    – The Functional City Project
    – Code to Action
    – Coding the City
    – Coding for a New City
    – Civisimplify
    – CivicCode
    – ThinkCity
    – MakeCity
    – Urban Data Insitute
    – SimpleCivic
    – AHHHH! I can’t think of any more
    – Civic Idea Center
    – PlaceCoders
    – CivicInfo
    – Urban Information
    – Urban Layer Makers
    – EasyCiv
    – The Layered City Project
    – The Community Layer Lab
    – Unicorn Rainbow Code Nursery.
    – I’m out.

    Jeff

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s