ChapterPDF Available

Reframing, reimagining and remaking smart cities

Authors:
Creating Smart Cities; edited by Claudio Coletta, Leighton Evans, Liam
Heaphy and Rob Kitchin
Format: Royal (156 × 234 mm); Style: Supp; Font: Bembo;
Dir: W:/2-Pagination/CREAT_RAPS/ApplicationFiles
/
9780815396246_text.3d;
17
REFRAMING, REIMAGINING AND
REMAKING SMART CITIES
Rob Kitchin
Introduction
A principal aim of this book has been to critically examine the creation of smart cities
and to try and formulate new visions of smart urbanism that seek to gain the promises
of smart cities while minimizing their perils; to explore the various critiques of smart
city rhetoric and deployments and to suggest social, political and practical interventions
that would enable better designed and more equitable and just smart city initiatives. Of
course, producing a form of smart urbanism that realizes promises while curtailing
perils is no easy task and is perhaps impossible at a deep ideological level given the
many stakeholders and vested interests involved and their diering politics, approaches,
aims and ambitions. Nonetheless, trying to negotiate across these interests and ambi-
tions is necessary if critique is to transition, even if in partial and limited ways, into the
reframing, reimagining and remaking of smart cities so that they are more emancipa-
tory, empowering and inclusive. It is also required if the present adoption gap for smart
city technologies, wherein solutions are not being taken up by city administrations as
hoped and expected by the smart city advocacy coalition, is to be overcome (Kitchin
et al. 2017). In this concluding chapter, I contend that the reframing, re-imagining and
remaking of smart city thinking and implementation needs to occur in at least six
broad ways. Three of the transitions concern normative and conceptual thinking with
regards to goals, cities and epistemology; and three concern more practical and poli-
tical thinking and praxes with regards to management/governance, ethics and security,
and stakeholders and working relationships.
Recasting normative and conceptual concerns
Goals
At one level, the goals of creating smart cities are already established to improve
quality of life and create more ecient, productive, competitive, sustainable and
T&F PROOFS NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
Creating Smart Cities; edited by Claudio Coletta, Leighton Evans, Liam
Heaphy and Rob Kitchin
Format: Royal (156 × 234 mm); Style: Supp; Font: Bembo;
Dir: W:/2-Pagination/CREAT_RAPS/ApplicationFiles
/
9780815396246_text.3d;
resilient cities (see Table 1.2). At a more profound, normative level, however, the
goals of smart cities are less well dened and cogently established (Luque-Ayala and
Marvin 2015). Beyond addressing instrumental concerns (e.g., optimizing trac
ows, reducing energy consumption, lowering crime rates, making service delivery
more ecient), for whom and what purpose are smart cities being developed? Are
smart cities primarily about or should be about: creating new markets and prot,
facilitating state control and regulation, addressing their anticipatory logics (demo-
graphic shifts, global climate change, scal austerity; Merricks White 2016) or
improving the quality of life of citizens? Or are they about all of these, but with
varying emphases depending on local context? And if they are about all of these
goals, then how are these framed conceptually and ideologically?
The fundamental question of what kind of cities do we want to create and live
in?is largely reduced to the instrumental level within smart city discourse, in
which it is assumed that tackling such issues is inherently of universal benet. More
profound framings with respect to fairness, equity, justice, citizenship, democracy,
governance and political economy are either ignored or are understood in a prag-
matic way within a neoliberal framing that renders them post-political in nature
that is, commonsensical and beyond challenge and contestation (Swyngedouw
2016; Cardullo and Kitchin 2018). And yet, each of these framings can be under-
stood and practised in a variety of ways for example, there are many theories of
social justice (e.g., egalitarianism, utilitarianism, libertarianism, communitarianism,
contractarianism, etc.; Smith 1994) and which one someone subscribes to makes a
big dierence to whether a particular approach to, or action in, the smart city is
seen as being just (Smith 1994). Adopting an approach to smart cities rooted in the
notion of The Right to the City(Lefebvre 1996) will produce a very dierent
kind of smart city to one rooted in the ideas and ideals of the free market and
entrepreneurial urbanism (Hall and Hubbard 1997).
Rather than start with these kinds of fundamental, normative questions and then
formulating a strategy to realize its principles, the impression one gains from
encountering many smart city initiatives is that the starting point is the technology.
Then there is an attempt to think about what the technology might be applied to
(e.g., reducing trac) and then a move to frame the approach with respect to a
core issue (e.g., sustainability, safety, security, economic competitiveness). In other
words, the means is post-justied by ends, rather than the ends shaping the means.
In so doing, the core issue is framed and understood in a shallow, limited sense. For
example, developers might state that a technology can make a system more sus-
tainable, without saying what being sustainablemeans beyond instrumental tar-
gets. Like social justice, there are many conceptions of sustainability, and adopting
the principles of dierent positions might lead to the development of alternative
solutions.
Similarly, developers might say that the technology is citizen-focused, but as
Shelton and Lodato (this volume) have highlighted the citizen is often an empty
signier, reduced to a vacuous notion of a generic gure which is served through
stewardship or civic paternalism. This generic gure is presupposed to hold certain
220 Rob Kitchin
T&F PROOFS NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
Creating Smart Cities; edited by Claudio Coletta, Leighton Evans, Liam
Heaphy and Rob Kitchin
Format: Royal (156 × 234 mm); Style: Supp; Font: Bembo;
Dir: W:/2-Pagination/CREAT_RAPS/ApplicationFiles
/
9780815396246_text.3d;
characteristics, such as digital literacy and middle-class sensibilities (Datta, this
volume). Even as an archetypal generic smart citizen, Cardullo and Kitchin (2018)
show through their unpacking of citizen participation in smart cities that citizens
almost exclusively occupy passive positions in smart city initiatives they are data
points, users, recipients, consumers, testers and players; occasionally they provide
feedback, but are rarely creators, decision-makers or leaders. In other words, citi-
zen-focusedsimply means citizens are the target audience or supposed beneciaries
in systems designed and administered by state bodies and companies. Smart citi-
zenship, Cardullo and Kitchin (2018) conclude, is underpinned by a neoliberal
ethos that favours consumption choice and individual autonomy within a frame-
work of constraints that prioritize market-led solutions to urban issues; it is not
grounded in civil, social and political rights and the common good. A smart city
framed by alternative notions of citizenship would then be quite dierent with
respect to how they were implemented, as the recent re-orientation of Barcelona
from a neoliberal approach to one underpinned by the concept of technological
sovereignty is making clear (Galdon 2017; March and Ribera-Fumaz 2017).
Grappling with more normative questions is important because they set the
wider framework within which smart city agendas and initiatives are formulated,
deployed and run. At present, few cities or companies can coherently articulate
their smart city vision and goals in normative terms beyond technical, aspirational
statements (e.g., Dublin will be open, connected, engaged; Cork will be inno-
vating, creating, connecting). Instead, smart cities are somewhat haphazard, unco-
ordinated and opportunistic what Dourish (2016: 37) refers to as the accidental
smart city, wherein
the city becomes smart [in a] piecemeal, gradual, disparate manner little
by little, one piece at a time, under the control of dierent groups, without a
master plan, and with a lot of patching, hacking, jury-rigging and settling.
In cases where a more fully realized strategy has been formulated it can be con-
tradictory with respect to other urban policies. City administrations, in particular, as
the core bodies driving and implementing smart city initiatives need to start the
process of divining their smart city agenda and strategies by considering these nor-
mative questions, not simply by holding workshops to consider which urban pro-
blems to prioritize for smart city solutions.
Cities
For the most part, smart city advocates frame the city as a technical entity which
consists of a set of knowable and manageable systems (or system of systems) that act
in largely rational, mechanical, linear and hierarchical ways and can be steered and
controlled through technical levers, and that urban issues can be solved with tech-
nical solutions (see Kitchin et al. 2015; Mattern 2017). Moreover, the cityis
treated as a generic analytical category, meaning a solution developed for one city
Reframing and remaking smart cities 221
T&F PROOFS NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
Creating Smart Cities; edited by Claudio Coletta, Leighton Evans, Liam
Heaphy and Rob Kitchin
Format: Royal (156 × 234 mm); Style: Supp; Font: Bembo;
Dir: W:/2-Pagination/CREAT_RAPS/ApplicationFiles
/
9780815396246_text.3d;
can be transferred and replicated elsewhere. While cybernetic approaches recognize
the complexity and emergent qualities of city systems, they are still understood as
being machinic and largely closed and bounded in nature. Such a view of cities is
limited and limiting; not only does this narrow, technical view fail to capture the
full complexity of cities, but it also constrains the potential benets that smart city
technologies might produce by creating solutions that are not always attuned to the
wider contexts in which urban problems are situated. Indeed, such technical
interventions can often be sticking plaster solutions. For example, technical solu-
tions to trac congestion usually seek to optimize ow or re-route vehicles; they
do not address the deep-rooted problem that there are too many vehicles using the
road system, or provide a solution that shifts people onto public transport or
encourages more cycling and walking.
Cities are not simply technical systems that can be steered and controlled in the
same way that a car or plane can be. Nor can urban issues be simply solved with
technical solutions. Cities are complex and ever-evolving, jam-packed with a
multitude of inter-dependent, contingent and relational actors, actants, processes
and relationships. Cities have a range of dierent, often competing, actors and sta-
keholders government bodies, public sector agencies, companies, nongovern-
mental bodies, community organizations and so on that have dierent goals,
resources, practices and structures and are trying to address and manage various
issues. Cities are full of culture, politics, competing interests and wicked problems.
No two cities hold the same qualities, having dierent histories, populations, cul-
tures, economies, politics, legacy infrastructures and systems, political and adminis-
trative geographies, modes of governance, sense of place, hinterlands,
interconnections and interdependencies with other places, and so on. In other
words, cities are places not simply systems. Consequently, their messiness is not
well captured in computational logic and is dicult to model, predict, and manage
through technocratic governance.
Understanding cities from a relational, place-based perspective, it is clear that
smart city technology will not be a silver bullet to solve urban issues. Yet,
while intrinsically city administrations know that cities are complex, open,
multiscalar, contingent and relational, when they pursue a smart city agenda
they often practise a form of strategic essentialism, seeking to tackle urban issues
through narrow technical xes that ignore wider interdependencies. Likewise,
companies developing smart city technologiesperformthesamestrategic
essentialism, though they often have less appreciation of the full complexities,
processes, practices and politics of managing and governing a city (I have been
asked several times by companies to explain how cities and city administration
work). For smart city initiatives to work well they need to be conceptualized
and contextualized within a broader and richer understanding of what a city is
and how it works in practice. In other words, smart city advocates need to
recognize and accommodate a more nuanced, relational understanding of cities
andtoappreciateandtakeintoaccountthe diversity and complexity of cities
in their formulations. This also requires smart city advocates to recognize that
222 Rob Kitchin
T&F PROOFS NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
Creating Smart Cities; edited by Claudio Coletta, Leighton Evans, Liam
Heaphy and Rob Kitchin
Format: Royal (156 × 234 mm); Style: Supp; Font: Bembo;
Dir: W:/2-Pagination/CREAT_RAPS/ApplicationFiles
/
9780815396246_text.3d;
their technical solutions will not work on their own and need to be positioned
alongside and integrated with other solutions that are more social, political,
legal, scal and community-orientated, and they should articulate and promote
what that suite of solutions might be.
Epistemology
How can we know the city? To understand and explain it? And then act on this
knowledge? These are epistemological questions. In general, smart city technolo-
gies, and associated rhetoric and science (urban science and urban informatics) are
founded on big data analytics (Kitchin 2014). In short, this means algorithms are
used to process vast quantities of real-time data in order to dynamically manage a
system and to make future predictions. There are two issues with this approach.
The rst is that these data are typically quantitative and one-dimensional in nature,
limited in scope (e.g., sensor readings, camera images, clickstreams, admin records),
and do not provide a full, multispectral picture of the city. They provide a very
narrow, selective view of city systems and life, prioritizing data that are machine-
readable and excluding far more information than they include (Mattern 2013).
The second is that the scientic approach adopted for data generation, analysis (e.
g., statistics and modelling) and communication (e.g., data visualizations via urban
dashboards) is reductionist, mechanistic, atomizing, essentialist and deterministic in
how it produces knowledge about cities (Kitchin et al., 2015). It is an approach
that decontextualizes a city and its systems from history, its politics and political
economy, its culture and communities, the wider set of social, economic and
environmental relations that frame its development, and its wider interconnections
and interdependencies that stretch out over space and time. Moreover, with its
claims to objectivity and neutrality, such an approach tends to marginalize and
replace other ways of examining the city (such as through focus groups, interviews,
surveys, etc.) and other forms of knowing such as phronesis (knowledge derived
from practice and deliberation) and metis (knowledge based on experience)
(Kitchin et al., 2015).
This is not to say that this approach does not produce useful or valuable
knowledge. If it did not, I would not have co-developed the Dublin Dashboard
and Cork Dashboard for those respective cities.
1
Rather it is to recognize that such
knowledge is partial, based on a narrow realist epistemology and instrumental
rationality, and that it needs, on the one hand, to reframe its epistemology to
openly acknowledge its situatedness, positionality, contingencies, assumptions and
shortcomings, and on the other hand, to complement such knowledge with other
forms of knowing, such as phronesis and metis (Kitchin et al., 2016). Such an
epistemological move dovetails with the reframing of cities to recognize their
multiple, complex, interdependent nature. Without this change in epistemology,
the underlying scientic rationalities of smart city technologies and approach will
remain anaemic, partial and open to signicant underperformance and failure
(Flood 2011).
Reframing and remaking smart cities 223
T&F PROOFS NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
Creating Smart Cities; edited by Claudio Coletta, Leighton Evans, Liam
Heaphy and Rob Kitchin
Format: Royal (156 × 234 mm); Style: Supp; Font: Bembo;
Dir: W:/2-Pagination/CREAT_RAPS/ApplicationFiles
/
9780815396246_text.3d;
Recasting practical and political concerns
Management/governance
Smart city technologies enact algorithmic governance and forms of automated
management city systems are measured, analysed, and outcomes assessed and
acted upon in an automatic, automated and autonomous fashion (Kitchin and
Dodge 2011). Such automated management facilitates and produces instru-
mental and technocratic forms of governance and government, that is, rote,
procedural, rule-driven, top-down, autocratic means of managing how a system
functions and how it processes and treats individuals within those systems.
Algorithmic governance is a technically-mediated means to manage a city,
wherein there is a belief that the city can be steered and controlled through
algorithmic levers. For its advocates, such a data-driven, algorithmic approach
ensures rational, logical and impartial governance and optimal performance. It is
a means to objectively and impartially nudge, steer, discipline and control
people to act in certain ways.
Such algorithmic, technocratic forms of governance have been critiqued in a
number of ways. The use of algorithmic systems that generate and process streams
of big data greatly intensies the extent and frequency of monitoring people and
shifts forms of governance from regimes of discipline towards social control
(Kitchin and Dodge 2011; Gabrys 2014; Sadowski and Pasquale 2015). In control
regimes, people become subject to constant modulation through software-medi-
ated systems in which their behaviour is directed explicitly or implicitly reshaped,
rather than being (self)disciplined. Governance is modied so it is no longer solely
about moulding subjects and restricting action, but about modulating aects,
desires and opinions, and inducing action within prescribed comportments (Braun
2014; Krivy 2018). Calculative regimes of control are more distributed, interlinked,
overlapping and continuous, enabling institutional power to creep across technol-
ogies and pervade the social landscape (Martinez 2011). At the same time, the
technological systems underpinning them are narrow in scope and reductionist and
functionalist in approach; that is, they ignore wider cultural, social and political
contexts and processes and simplify complex phenomena into code rather than
taking a more holistic or negotiated approach to managing an issue (Kitchin 2014).
The smart city thus produces a particular form of governmentality, what Vanolo
(2014) terms smartmentality. Relatedly, the exhaustive and indexical nature of
data generation converts every city system adopting such technologies into a sur-
veillance machine, with the interlinking of such systems and the processing and
analysing of such data raising a number of ethical concerns (Kitchin 2016). As such,
far from being impartial and objective, smart city technologies have built-in nor-
mative values and judgements about how systems should perform, and how they
assess and manage outcomes, with these hardcoded into the underlying software.
And they have normative eects in terms of how they are deployed to shape and
modify systems, citizens, and institutional behaviour.
224 Rob Kitchin
T&F PROOFS NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
Creating Smart Cities; edited by Claudio Coletta, Leighton Evans, Liam
Heaphy and Rob Kitchin
Format: Royal (156 × 234 mm); Style: Supp; Font: Bembo;
Dir: W:/2-Pagination/CREAT_RAPS/ApplicationFiles
/
9780815396246_text.3d;
Far from creating a more democratizing landscape of governance, smart city
systems are mostly top-down, centrally-controlled and managerialist in orienta-
tion, and are produced and deployed for government by companies. For many
criticsthisraisesanumberofconcernsabout the process of introduction within
cities and the corporatization of urban governance. Within city administrations
smart city initiatives are often introduced by bureaucrats rather than elected
ocials or being developed in conjunction with local communities. Indeed,
local communities (and depending on location, politicians) are often little con-
sulted in decision-making processes concerning smart city technologies and
their form, implementation and operation (and certainly not as they would be
with respect to planning and development plans). In terms of the corporatiza-
tion of city governance there are three concerns. First, it actively promotes a
neoliberal political economy and the marketization of public services wherein
city functions are administered for private prot (Hollands 2008). Second, it
creates a technological lock-in that leaves cities beholden to particular techno-
logical platforms and vendors (Hill 2013) and creates a corporate path depen-
dency that cannot easily be undone or diverted (Bates 2012). Third, it leads to
one size ts all smart city in a boxsolutions that take little account of the
uniqueness of places, peoples and cultures and thus works sub-optimally
(Townsend et al. n.d.).
Just as cities need to be conceptualized in a broader and more synoptic way by
smart city advocates, so does city management and governance. While it is
undoubtedly the case that many smart city technologies do enable more ecient
and eective management of city systems, and provide convenience and improve
services, they are not sucient solutions on their own to the diverse range of issues
facing cities and themselves cause some concerns. Instead, they need to be intro-
duced and implemented through processes of co-creation and co-production
between city administrations, companies and citizens; be open and transparent in
their formulation and operation, including using open platforms and standards
where possible; and be used in conjunction with a suite of aligned interventions,
policies and investments that seek to tackle issues in complementary ways, blending
technical, social, political and policy responses. Not enough work has been done to
consider how best to achieve such a blended, open, and co-produced form of
urban management and governance, though the approaches being undertaken by
cities such as Amsterdam (The Netherlands), Barcelona (Spain), Bristol (UK), and
Medellín (Colombia) provide some examples.
Ethics and security concerns
Smart city technologies generate huge quantities of data about systems and people,
much of them in real-time and at a highly granular scale. These data can be put to
many good uses; however, generating, processing, analysing, sharing and storing
large amounts of actionable data also raise a number of concerns and challenges.
Key amongst these are privacy, predictive proling, social sorting, anticipatory
Reframing and remaking smart cities 225
T&F PROOFS NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
Creating Smart Cities; edited by Claudio Coletta, Leighton Evans, Liam
Heaphy and Rob Kitchin
Format: Royal (156 × 234 mm); Style: Supp; Font: Bembo;
Dir: W:/2-Pagination/CREAT_RAPS/ApplicationFiles
/
9780815396246_text.3d;
governance, behavioural nudging, control creep, data protection and data security.
Indeed, many smart city technologies capture personally identiable information
and household level data about citizens their characteristics, their location and
movements, and their activities link these data together to produce new derived
data, and use them to create proles of people and places and to make decisions
about them. As such, there are concerns about what a smart city means for peoples
privacy and what privacy and predictive privacy harms might arise from the shar-
ing, analysis and misuse of urban big data (Kitchin and Dodge 2011; Baracos and
Nissenbaum 2014; Edwards 2016; Kitchin 2016; Taylor et al. 2016; Leszczynski
2017; Murphy, this volume, Evans, this volume). In addition, there are questions as
to how secure smart city technologies and the data they generate are from hacking
and theft and what the implications of a data breach are for citizens (Cerrudo 2015;
Dodge and Kitchin, this volume).
To date, the approach to these issues has been haphazard, uncoordinated and
partial. As suggested with respect to city management and governance in general,
addressing privacy and security issues requires a multi-pronged set of interventions
that ideally are coherently aligned and implemented in conjunction with one
another. In a recent report for the Irish Governments Data Forum I outlined such
an approach, suggesting four types of intervention, each consisting of a number of
mediations (Kitchin 2016). First, market-driven solutions: including the develop-
ment of industry standards, stronger self-regulation, and the reframing of privacy
and security as a competitive advantage. Second, technological solutions: including
end-to-end encryption, access controls, security controls, audit trails, backups, up-
to-date patching, and privacy enhancement tools. Third, policy, regulatory and
legal solutions: including revised fair information practice principles, privacy by
design, security by design, and education and training. Fourth, governance and
management solution at three levels: vision and strategy smart city advisory
boards and published strategies; oversight of delivery and compliance smart city
governance, ethics and security oversight committees; and day-to-day delivery
core privacy/security teams, smart city privacy/security assessments, and computer
emergency response teams.
Using these solutions together would provide a balanced, pragmatic approach
that enables the rollout of smart city technologies and initiatives, but in a way that
is not prejudicial to peoples privacy, actively work to minimize privacy and pre-
dictive privacy harms, curtail data breaches, and tackle cybersecurity issues. They
also work across the entire life-cycle (from procurement to decommissioning) and
span the whole system ecology (all its stakeholders and components). Collectively
they promote fairness and equity, protect citizens and cities from harms, and enable
improved governance and economic development. Moreover, they do so using an
approach that is not heavy handed in nature and is relatively inexpensive to
implement. They are by no means denitive, but would enable a more ethical,
principle-led approach to the design and implementation of smart cities. Failing to
tackle these issues will undermine and curtail smart city initiatives and public sup-
port for them.
226 Rob Kitchin
T&F PROOFS NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
Creating Smart Cities; edited by Claudio Coletta, Leighton Evans, Liam
Heaphy and Rob Kitchin
Format: Royal (156 × 234 mm); Style: Supp; Font: Bembo;
Dir: W:/2-Pagination/CREAT_RAPS/ApplicationFiles
/
9780815396246_text.3d;
Stakeholders and working relationships
As detailed in Chapter 1, smart city protagonists are often divided into those who
develop, implement and promote smart city technologies and initiatives, and those
who critique such endeavours. While the former have been starting to respond to
critique, albeit in rather limited ways, and the latter have started to make more active
interventions, there is still much more work to be done to bring dierent stake-
holders into dialogue and working relationships. There is certainly a lot of learning
that needs to be done: by city administrations with respect to developing smart city
strategies and procuring and deploying smart city technologies; by companies with
respect to how cities are managed and function and balancing private gain with
public good; by communities involved in or living with smart city initiatives; and by
researchers and consultants who are seeking to understand what is unfolding in dif-
ferent cities and contexts. This learning will progress most eectively through co-
creation and co-production, with stakeholders working together.
This requires all stakeholders to be open to working and learning from one another
for the common purpose of improving the quality of lives for citizens and how cities
are managed and governed. With respect to academia, this means critical scholars have
to become more applied in orientation: to give constructive feedback and guidance
and to set out alternatives and to help develop strategies, not just provide critique. This
does not mean that critique is not valuable in and of itself. Nor does it mean dumbing
down or abandoning a critical position or emancipatory politics or getting into bed
with the enemy. It means putting principles into action to translate them into
practical and political outcomes. Our own endeavours on The Programmable City
project have demonstrated that smart city stakeholders are open to robust exchanges
and are prepared to rework initiatives and change direction, especially if we are willing
to work with them and others to realize any reframing, reimagining and remaking
involved. That said, not all city administrations or companies want such collaborations,
or it might be very dicult to align diering ideological beliefs, in which case external
critique might be the only option. However, in my view, such critique ideally also
needs to suggest alternatives whether ideological or practical and to support the
work of other oppositional groups (such as local communities or NGOs).
Conclusion
The purpose of this chapter has been to set out some of the key shortcomings,
challenges and risks associated with smart city technologies and initiatives and to
suggest how smart city thinking and implementation might be productively
reframed, reimagined and remade in six ways. The aim has not been to be deni-
tive or comprehensive, but rather to provide some initial ideas and contentions
some more conceptual and philosophical, some more practical and political that
act as provocations for discussion and debate. As such, while the six interventions
detailed oer a set of initial entry points, my hope is that they are creatively
reworked and extended by those working in smart city endeavours.
Reframing and remaking smart cities 227
T&F PROOFS NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
Creating Smart Cities; edited by Claudio Coletta, Leighton Evans, Liam
Heaphy and Rob Kitchin
Format: Royal (156 × 234 mm); Style: Supp; Font: Bembo;
Dir: W:/2-Pagination/CREAT_RAPS/ApplicationFiles
/
9780815396246_text.3d;
How likely such a recasting of smart cities is is an open question. The smart
cities epistemic community and advocacy coalition remains strong, with a reason-
ably coherent and stable narrative, and many city administrations are deploying
smart city solutions in a largely pragmatic, instrumental way rather than it being
underpinned by a strategy rooted in normative concerns and principles. That said,
there is a persistent adoption gap in the take up of smart city technologies, with
many deployments remaining at the experimental stage or being conned to smart
districtsor city centres rather than being rolled out across entire urban areas. As
outlined in Kitchin et al. (2017) there are good reasons for this gap including:
a lack of momentum, with government being somewhat like an oil-tanker and
dicult to shift direction;
an aversion to risk, with city administrations charged with providing stability,
certainty and reliability in delivery of city services not unproven disruption
with solutions that are not mature;
a lack of trust that new initiatives will work, with city administrations cognisant
of previous investments that failed;
a lack of clarity on value for money, return on investment, nance models and
when to enter the market;
a set of competing demands that all require investment, so if a proposed solution
is not aimed at a critical problem it will nd it dicult to compete for atten-
tion and resources;
a set of procedural issues concerning regulations regarding procuring services and
technologies and working with other bodies;
a body of inertia and resistance within city administrations, with already existing
practices and legacy systems and internal politics, efdoms, competing interests,
and siloed departments and systems;
weak stang and skills capacity with respect to implementing smart city tech-
nologies; and,
a fragmented local administration landscape, with cities divided up into
autonomous municipalities causing coordination and economy of scale issues.
Overcoming these issues requires exibility in approach and a more convincing
argument one that addresses the kinds of criticism detailed in this chapter and
across the entire volume that a smart cities approach is the answer to urban issues.
Corporations and cities did change their narrative in relation to critique concerning
citizen participation and focus. However, while the rhetoric shifted in tone to
declare the focus was now to create citizen-orientated smart cities, the underlying
logic, ethos and position of citizens was little changed (Kitchin 2015). In other
cases, cities have moved beyond lip-service to take a more proactive approach to
reimaging, reframing and remaking smart cities, actively engaging with deeper,
more normative notions of what kind of smart city they want to create and the
principles underpinning this: for example, Barcelonastechnological sovereignty
(Galdon, 2017) and Medellínssocial urbanism(Talvard, this volume; McLaren
228 Rob Kitchin
T&F PROOFS NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
Creating Smart Cities; edited by Claudio Coletta, Leighton Evans, Liam
Heaphy and Rob Kitchin
Format: Royal (156 × 234 mm); Style: Supp; Font: Bembo;
Dir: W:/2-Pagination/CREAT_RAPS/ApplicationFiles
/
9780815396246_text.3d;
and Agyeman, this volume). The chapters in this book collectively illuminate the
many issues that still plague the drive towards smart cities, but also suggest ways to
address them and alternative visions. The challenge is to realize these alternative
visions to create ethical and principled smart cities that serve all citizens.
Note
1http://www.dublindashboard.ie and http://www.corkdashboard.ie.
Acknowledgements
The research for this paper was funded by a European Research Council Advanced
Investigator grant, The Programmable City (ERC-2012-AdG-323636).
References
Baracos, S. and Nissenbaum, H. 2014. Big datas end run around anonymity and consent.
In Lane, J., Stodden, V., Bender, S. and Nissenbaum, H. (eds), Privacy, Big Data and the
Public Good. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 4475.
Bates, J. 2012. “‘This is what modern deregulation looks like: Co-optation and contestation
in the shaping of the UKs Open Government Data Initiative.The Journal of Community
Informatics 8(2). http://www.ci-journal.net/index.php/ciej/article/view/845/916 (last
accessed 6 February 2013).
Braun, B.P. 2014. A new urban dispositif? Governing life in an age of climate change.
Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 32: 4964.
Cardullo, P. and Kitchin, R. 2018, online rst. Being a citizenin the smart city: Up and
down the scaold of smart citizen participation in Dublin, Ireland.GeoJournal.
doi:10.1007/s107081001898459848.
Cerrudo, C. 2015. An Emerging US (and World) Threat: Cities Wide Open to Cyber
Attacks.Securing Smart Cities, securingsmartcities.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/
CitiesWideOpenToCyberAttacks.pdf (last accessed 12 October 2015).
Dourish, P. 2016. The Internet of urban things.In Kitchin, R. and Perng, S.-Y. (eds)
Code and the City. London: Routledge, pp. 2746.
Edwards, L. 2016. Privacy, security and data protection in smart cities: A critical EU law
perspective.European Data Protection Law Review 2(1): 2858.
Flood, J. (2011) The Fires: How a Computer Formula, Big Ideas, and the Best of Intentions Burned
Down New York Cityand Determined the Future of Cities. New York: Riverhead.
Gabrys, J. 2014. Programming environments: Environmentality and citizen sensing in the
smart city.Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 32(1): 3048
Galdon, G. 2017. Technological Sovereignty? Democracy, Data and Governance in the
Digital Era.CCCB Lab, http://lab.cccb.org/en/technological-sovereignty-democra
cy-data-and-governance-in-the-digital-era/ (last accessed 6 April 2018).
Hill, D. 2013. On the smart city: Or, a manifestofor smart citizens instead.City of
Sound, 1 February.www.cityofsound.com/blog/2013/02/on-the-smart-city-a-callfor-smart-
citizens-instead.html (last accessed 5 February 2013).
Hollands, R.G. 2008 Will the real smart city please stand up?City 12(3): 303320.
Hall, T. and Hubbard, P. (eds) 1997. The Entrepreneurial City. Chichester: John Wiley.
Kitchin, R. 2014. The real-time city? Big data and smart urbanism,GeoJournal 79(1): 114.
Reframing and remaking smart cities 229
T&F PROOFS NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
Creating Smart Cities; edited by Claudio Coletta, Leighton Evans, Liam
Heaphy and Rob Kitchin
Format: Royal (156 × 234 mm); Style: Supp; Font: Bembo;
Dir: W:/2-Pagination/CREAT_RAPS/ApplicationFiles
/
9780815396246_text.3d;
Kitchin, R. 2015. Making sense of smart cities: addressing present shortcomings.Cambridge
Journal of Regions, Economy and Society 8(1): 131136.
Kitchin, R. 2016. Getting Smarter about Smart Cities: Improving Data Privacy and Data Security.
Data Protection Unit, Department of the Taoiseach, Dublin, Ireland. http://www.taoisea
ch.gov.ie/eng/Publications/Publications_2016/Smart_Cities_Report_January_2016.pdf.
Kitchin, R. and Dodge, M. 2011. Code/Space: Software and Everyday Life. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Kitchin, R., Coletta, C., Evans, L., Heaphy, L. and Mac Donncha, D. 2017. Smart cities,
urban technocrats, epistemic communities, advocacy coalitions and the last milepro-
blem.it Information Technology 59(6): 275284.
Kitchin, R., Lauriault, T. and McArdle, G. 2015. Knowing and governing cities through
urban indicators, city benchmarking and real-time dashboards.Regional Studies, Regional
Science 2: 128.
Kitchin, R., Maalsen, S. and McArdle, G. 2016. The praxis and politics of building urban
dashboards.Geoforum 77: 93101.
Krivy, M. 2018. Towards a critique of cybernetic urbanism: The smart city and the society
of control.Planning Theory 17(1): 830.
Lefebvre, H. 1996. The right to the city.In Kofman, E. and Lebas, E. (eds), Writings on
Cities. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Leszczynski, A. 2017. Geoprivacy. In Kitchin, R., Lauriault, T. and Wilson, M. (eds),
Understanding Spatial Media. London: Sage, pp. 235244.
Luque-Ayala, A. and Marvin, S. 2015. Developing a critical understanding of smart
urbanism?Urban Studies 52(12): 21052116.
March, H. and Ribera-Fumaz, R. 2017. Against, for and beyond the smart city: Towards
technological sovereignty in Barcelona.Paper presented at the Association of American
Geographers, Boston. April 59.
Martinez, D.E. 2011. Beyond disciplinary enclosures: Management control in the society of
control.Critical Perspectives on Accounting 22(2): 200211.
Mattern, S. 2013. Methodolatry and the art of measure: The new wave of urban data sci-
ence.Design Observer: Places. 5 November.http://designobserver.com/places/feature/0/
38174/ (last accessed 15 November 2013).
Mattern, S. 2017. Code and Clay, Data and Dirt. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Merricks White, J. 2016. Anticipatory logics of the smart citys global imaginary.Urban
Geography 37(4): 572589.
Sadowski, J. and Pasquale, F. 2015. The spectrum of control: A social theory of the smart
city.First Monday 20(7). http://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/5903
(accessed 6 January 2017).
Smith, D.M. 1994. Geography and Social Justice. Oxford: Blackwell.
Swyngedouw, E. 2016. The mirage of the sustainable smartcity. Planetary urbanization
and the spectre of combined and uneven apocalypse. In: Nel-lo, O. and Mele, R. (eds),
Cities in the 21st Century, London: Routledge, pp. 134143.
Taylor, L., Richter, C., Jameson, S. and Perez del Pulgar, C. 2016. Customers, Users or Citi-
zens? Inclusion, Spatial Data and Governance in the Smart City. University of Amsterdam.
https://pure.uvt.nl/portal/les/12342457/Customers_users_or_citizens_Taylor_Richter_
Jameson_Perez_de_Pulgar_2016.pdf (last accessed 16 August 2016).
Townsend, A., Maguire, R., Liebhold, M. and Crawford, M. A Planet of Civic Laboratories:
The Future of Cities, Information and Inclusion. Palo Alto: Institute for the Future.
Vanolo, A. 2014. Smartmentality: The smart city as disciplinary strategy.Urban Studies
51(5): 883898.
230 Rob Kitchin
T&F PROOFS NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
... Citizen participation policies can include measures such as public consultations, citizen feedback mechanisms, and participatory budgeting to ensure that citizens are involved in decision-making processes and that their voices are heard. The article identifies several important research gaps that warrant further exploration [17][18][19][20][21][22] . While the theoretical necessity of smart city regulations is discussed, there is a need for more empirical research examining the practical implementation and impact of such regulatory frameworks. ...
... Smart cities have the potential to transform urban life by leveraging technology to enhance sustainability, increase efficiency, and improve the quality of life for citizens. However, the implementation of smart city technologies also raises concerns about privacy, security, and the protection of citizens' fundamental rights [15][16][17][18] . This can help build trust and confidence in smart city technologies and their regulation, leading to greater acceptance and adoption of these technologies. ...
... As a result, protecting citizens' data privacy in smart cities can contribute to citizens' mental well-being, as they can be confident that their personal data is being properly protected and that its misuse and violation of their privacy is prevented. Table 2shows the citizen participation and co-production in smart cities 11 , information systems perspectives on smart city advances 12 , privacy concerns in smart cities 13 , the evolution of the "city-as-a-platform" concept 14 , general issues and themes in creating smart cities 15 , people-centered approaches to smart cities 16 , conceptualizing smart cities as cyber-physical social systems 17 , reframing and reimagining smart cities 18 , developing citizencentric typologies for smart city services 19 , the social transition towards inclusive development through smart cities 20 , and the developments and transformations of smart tourism cities 21 . This can directly help maintain citizens' trust in smart city tools and, as a result, contribute to their mental well-being. ...
Article
Full-text available
The advent of smart cities has brought about a paradigm shift in urban management and citizen engagement. By leveraging technological advancements, cities are now able to collect and analyze extensive data to optimize service delivery, allocate resources efficiently, and enhance the overall well-being of residents. However, as cities become increasingly interconnected and data-dependent, concerns related to data privacy and security, as well as citizen participation and representation, have surfaced. This article emphasizes the significance of regulating smart cities to foster a culture of citizenship and safeguard civic rights, security, and privacy. Effective regulatory frameworks are crucial in striking a balance between technological innovation and the protection of fundamental rights. The article examines various pivotal policies and regulations concerning data protection, cybersecurity, and citizen involvement in decision-making processes. Data protection regulations play a vital role in safeguarding individuals’ personal information and ensuring its collection, processing, and usage comply with legal requirements. Similarly, cybersecurity regulations are indispensable in fortifying smart city systems against cyber threats. Regulations promoting citizen engagement and participation can cultivate a sense of ownership and responsibility among citizens, contributing to the creation of more inclusive and democratic urban environments. This study used an artificial neural network (ANN) to examine the effects of cyber security regulations, citizen participation, information sharing laws, and data protection on smart city development. Implementing these policies led to a 30% increase in citizen participation over 4 years, which continued even when regulations were temporarily suspended. However, unchanged or reduced regulations led to declines in information sharing. The neural network’s predictions showed acceptable error compared to experimental results. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1038/s41598-024-76964-z.
... A great deal of research has been conducted on the social, environmental, and economic aspects of smart cities, revealing both positive outcomes and areas of concern. Kitchin [8] posits that although Smart Cities possess the capacity to foster environmental sustainability and stimulate economic expansion, a more comprehensive comprehension of their social ramifications is necessary, specifically with regard to fairness and inclusiveness. Helsper [9] emphasize the potential for social inequalities to be further exacerbated as a result of disparate access to intelligent technologies. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
Through performing a detailed literature review, this study offers a comprehensive analysis of Smart Cities, with a particular emphasis on the integration of technology in order to encourage sustainable urban development. By making use of scholarly contributions, this endeavour seeks to develop a theoretical framework that encompasses existing knowledge and highlights areas that require additional research. With conducting an in-depth literature review and methodically analyzing important academic works, a broad theoretical framework is constructed. This methodology emphasizes the significance of literature reviews in establishing fundamental theories and identifying gaps in existing research, thus laying the groundwork for subsequent investigations into Smart Cities. The results indicate a comprehensive comprehension of Smart City endeavours, with a particular focus on the pivotal influence of contextual elements on final results. The research emphasizes the capacity of Smart Cities to improve urban sustainability, while also drawing attention to the socioeconomic inequalities that may result from the integration of technology. This highlights the critical nature of inclusive planning and the significance of mitigating the digital divide. In overall, this research contributes to the ongoing dialogue surrounding Smart Cities by advocating for an equitable approach that takes into account technological progress and social justice. This viewpoint proposes a proactive approach to urban development, placing particular emphasis on the imperative of sustainability and inclusiveness as Smart Cities progress. Subsequent investigations ought to integrate empirical data and engage in participatory planning in order to surmount identified constraints and improve the execution of Smart City endeavors.
... Furthermore, numerous scholars question the sustainability of these technological solutions, as well as the ethical implications associated with data collection and usage (Kitchin et al., 2019). Lastly, the governance model often lacks transparency and democratic engagement, with decisions made by technocrats rather than in consultation with citizens (Kitchin, 2018). ...
Article
Full-text available
Nowadays, urban ecosystems require major transformations aimed at addressing the current challenges of urbanization. In recent decades, policy makers have increasingly turned their attention to the smart city paradigm, recognizing its potential to promote positive changes. The smart city, through the conscious use of technologies and sustainability principles, allows for urban development. The scientific literature on smart cities as catalysts of public value continues to develop rapidly and there is a need to systematize its knowledge structure. Through a three-phase methodological approach, combining bibliometric, network and content analyses, this study provides a systematic review of the scientific literature in this field. The bibliometric results showed that public value is experiencing an evolutionary trend in smart cities, representing a challenging research topic for scholars. Network analysis of keyword co-occurrences identified five different clusters of related topics in the analyzed field. Content analysis revealed a strong focus on stakeholder engagement as a lever to co-create public value and a greater emphasis on social equity over technological innovation and environmental protection. Furthermore, it was observed that although environmental concerns were prioritized during the policy planning phase, their importance steadily decreased as the operational phases progressed.
... These criticisms echo other critical evaluations of pilot projects, demonstrators, and test beds more broadly. Scholars have spoken of "the city of permanent experiments," referring to a model of urban organization whereby technologies are experimented with across entire cities, without necessarily leaving the experimental stage (Kitchin 2018). Such a model fits with "test-bed urbanism" or even "Frankenstein urbanism" (Cugurullo 2018;Halpern et al. 2013), where experiments are ways of governing the city that articulate future promises but which are never really fulfilled and which contribute to the fragmentation of urban space into various pockets of geographical, regulatory, and social exceptions (Laurent et al. 2021). ...
Article
This paper problematizes the obsession with “scaling up” that is visible in numerous technological domains. Using the case of hydrogen mobility projects in France, we identify a tension between a discourse of rapid scaling for nationwide deployment, and projects undertaken by local authorities and private companies who make small-scale experiments with hydrogen cars and charging stations more dense, by adding uses, actors, and technical functionalities. We use the term “deep scaling” to characterize the latter approach. By examining projects focusing on “ecosystems” of hydrogen mobility, we discuss the consequences of deep scaling for the geographic and economic extension. In this configuration, technologies are not expected to expand to vast territories by remaining the same at a bigger scale. Instead, they are attached to local sites and develop alongside them, which raises the issue of the connections between those sites. The analysis of deep scaling allows us to identify potential alternatives to ready-made discourses of scalability and contribute to the analysis of the politics and practices of scaling.
... Most smart city technologies are integrated into city infrastructures to improve efficiency and quality of services [7]. These technologies collect, analyze, and distribute citizens' data [25,26], and their use has privacy implications. Helbing et al. [19] argue that mass surveillance is why privacy is so often violated in smart cities. ...
Chapter
Full-text available
Smart cities take advantage of advances in ubiquitous computing and big data analytics to build and deploy technologies that increase efficiency and sustainability. However, benefits derived from smart cities are not equally distributed. In this paper, we consider how smart city initiatives can better serve and engage marginalized communities through a focus on the city of Baltimore, MD. Through focus groups with 43 Black Baltimore residents living in low-income neighborhoods, we identify key barriers they perceive to being more engaged in and trusting of smart city initiatives, as well as important disconnects between residents’ needs and the city’s solutions. Based on these findings, we make the case for cities to more deeply engage these communities in smart city initiatives, as many technologies are not designed with their unique needs in mind, and they are the most likely to experience harms from surveillance technologies that collect large quantities of data and build predictive models used by cities.
Book
Geodesign, Urban Digital Twins, and Futures explores systems, processes, and novel technologies for planning, mapping, and designing our built environment. In a period of advancing urban infrastructure, technological autonomy in cities, and high-performance geographic systems, new capabilities, novel techniques, and streamlined procedures have emerged concurrently with climatic challenges, pandemics, and increasing global urbanisation. Chapters cover a range of topics such as urban digital twins, GeoBIM, geodesign and collaborative tools, immersive environments, gamification, and future methods. This book features over 100 international projects and workflows, five detailed case studies, and a companion website. In addition, this book examines geodesign as an agent for collaboration alongside futuring methods for imagining and understanding our future world. The companion website for this book can be accessed at http://geodesigndigitaltwins.com.
Chapter
Full-text available
Materialization practices in the architecture and building industry have evolved with the advancement of manufacturing and information technologies. This evolution is evident across various design and production phases, with a pronounced impact on prototyping. Advances in design and fabrication tools have empowered prototypes, integral in any production cycle, to furnish a growing array of information and feedback for designers and manufacturers. In this context, prototypes have transformed from merely showcasing data-driven building solutions to presenting socio-environmentally conscious systems. Innovation in prototyping connects the initial design and construction stages to the operational phase, creating a seamless transition throughout the project lifecycle. This chapter provides a range of definitions and prototypical case studies for smart prototyping by identifying practiced approaches in integrated design to production workflows. This chapter introduces three paradigms for smart prototyping: Digital prototyping focuses on data-driven design for mass customization, phygital prototyping involves mixed-reality-enabled design and assembly, and thirdly collaborative prototyping explores human-machine hybrid intelligence and co-production in architectural and urban contexts. The chosen case studies in this chapter and how they are categorized aim to provide a comprehensive overview of smart prototyping, covering projects conducted in both research and practice. This chapter concludes with potential future trends and the role of emerging and evolving mediums of prototyping for smart design and construction.
Article
This article contributes to the small but growing corpus of literature which analyses the increasing use of digital technologies as part of spatial planning activities. Much of that existing literature focuses on the opportunities such technology brings or explores the use of specific technology. Instead, the article seeks to problematise digital planning, explicitly questioning some of the optimistic claims made on its behalf. To do so, it makes use of a new conceptual framework to reflect upon the promises and potential pitfalls of greater use of digital technology within and beyond planning practice. The paper concludes that digital planning is no more immune to questions about exclusion and power than any other form of activity affecting the built environment, and that it is essential to question the rationale behind how decisions are made regarding the adoption of new technologies in urban planning systems.
Article
Full-text available
We argue that the ideas, ideals and the rapid proliferation of smart city rhetoric and initiatives globally have been facilitated and promoted by three inter-related communities: (i) `urban technocrats'; (ii) a smart cities `epistemic community'; (iii) a wider `advocacy coalition'. We examine their roles and the multiscale formation, and why despite their influence they encounter a `last mile problem'; that is, smart city initiatives are yet to become fully mainstreamed. We illustrate this last mile problem through a discussion of plans to introduce smart lighting in Dublin.
Book
For years, pundits have trumpeted the earthshattering changes that big data and smart networks will soon bring to our cities. But what if cities have long been built for intelligence, maybe for millennia? In Code and Clay, Data and Dirt Shannon Mattern advances the provocative argument that our urban spaces have been “smart” and mediated for thousands of years. Offering powerful new ways of thinking about our cities, Code and Clay, Data and Dirt goes far beyond the standard historical concepts of origins, development, revolutions, and the accomplishments of an elite few. Mattern shows that in their architecture, laws, street layouts, and civic knowledge-and through technologies including the telephone, telegraph, radio, printing, writing, and even the human voice-cities have long negotiated a rich exchange between analog and digital, code and clay, data and dirt, ether and ore. Mattern’s vivid prose takes readers through a historically and geographically broad range of stories, scenes, and locations, synthesizing a new narrative for our urban spaces. Taking media archaeology to the city’s streets, Code and Clay, Data and Dirt reveals new ways to write our urban, media, and cultural histories. © 2017 by the Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.
Article
This paper critically reflects on the building of the Dublin Dashboard – a website built by two of the authors that provides citizens, planners, policy makers and companies with an extensive set of data and interactive visualizations about Dublin City, including real-time information – from the perspective of critical data studies. The analysis draws upon participant observation, ethnography, and an archive of correspondence to unpack the building of the dashboard and the emergent politics of data and design. Our findings reveal four main observations. First, a dashboard is a complex socio-technical assemblage of actors and actants that work materially and discursively within a set of social and economic constraints, existing technologies and systems, and power geometries to assemble, produce and maintain the website. Second, the production and maintenance of a dashboard unfolds contextually, contingently and relationally through transduction. Third, the praxis and politics of creating a dashboard has wider recursive effects: just as building the dashboard was shaped by the wider institutional landscape, producing the system inflected that landscape. Fourth, the data, configuration, tools, and modes of presentation of a dashboard produce a particularised set of spatial knowledges about the city. We conclude that rather than frame dashboard development in purely technical terms, it is important to openly recognize their contested and negotiated politics and praxis.
Article
The article argues, drawing on interviews, event observations, academic and policy literature, that the UK’s Open Government Data (OGD) initiative should be understood as part of a deep seated social and political struggle with significant processes of co-optation and contestation over outcomes underway. The OGD initiative’s intersections with both the PSI re-use industry and the UK government’s programme of forced ‘austerity’ and marketisation of public services are problematised. Civil society advocates’ vulnerabilities within this context are discussed and a number of recommendations are offered for the progressive shaping of OGD based on egalitarian principles.
Article
The smart city has become a hegemonic notion of urban governance, transforming and supplanting planning. The first part of this article reviews current critiques of this notion. Scholars present three main arguments against the smart city: that it is incompatible with an informal character of the city, that it subjects the city to corporate power and that it reproduces social and urban inequalities. It is argued that these critiques either misunderstand how power functions in the smart city or fail to address it as a specific modality of entrepreneurial urban governance. The second part advances an alternative critique, contending that the smart city should be understood as an urban embodiment of the society of control (Deleuze). The smart city is embedded in the intellectual framework of second order cybernetics and articulates urban subjectivity in terms of data flows. Planning as a political practice is superseded by an environmental-behavioural control, in which subjectivity is articulated supra-indiv...
Article
The smart city encompasses a broad range of technological innovations which might be applied to any city for a wide variety of reasons. In this article, I make a distinction between local efforts to reshape the urban landscape, and a global smart city imaginary which those efforts draw upon and help sustain. While attention has been given to the malleability of the smart city concept at this global scale, there remains little effort to interrogate the way that the future is used to sanction specific solutions. Through a critical engagement with smart city marketing materials, industry documents, and consultancy reports, I explore how the future is recruited, rearranged, and represented as a rationalization for technological intervention in the present. This is performed amidst three recurring crises: massive demographic shifts and subsequent resource pressures, global climate change, and the conflicting demands of fiscal austerity that motivate the desire of so many cities to attract foreign direct investment and highly skilled workers. In revealing how crises are pre-empted, precautioned, and prepared for, I argue that the smart city imaginary normalizes a style and scale of response deemed appropriate under liberal capitalism.