This was an essay/assignment written in response to a class reading: [Smart cities: Utopia or neoliberal ideology?](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264275116308812) by Giuseppe and Pianezzi.

“Do you mean that the public is a different thing from the people you just see walking about the place? The public thinks big, sensible, measured thoughts while people run around doing silly things?”

The Truth (Pratchett, 2000)

Common People - The Perennial Losers

You’ll never live like common people,
You’ll never do whatever common people do,
You’ll never fail like common people,
You’ll never watch your life slide out of view,
And dance and drink and screw,
Because there’s nothing else to do.

Common People (Pulp, 1995)

We first begin by acknowledging the diverse definitions available for the Smart City. For our purposes, we simply define the Smart City as one that focuses on the use of modern information and communication technologies to make city life better. Despite being relatively unfocused (Which city does not use information and communication technologies?), this definition, coupled with some common sense, is sufficient for our discussion.

Critiques of the Smart City are often based on a direct link between the Smart City and neoliberalism. In their paper, Grossi and Pianezzi suggest that the Smart City is an illusion disguising neoliberalism, as well as a distraction from real urban problems (Grossi & Pianezzi, 2017). Specifically, the authors claim the “neoliberal-based smart city utopia may lead to a privatization of decision making and an exercise of power insulated from democratic accountability” (Grossi & Pianezzi, 2017: 81). They also raise the example of Genoa, where “business-led development of the smart city utopia favors the deployment of consequence-oriented technological solutions, in so doing diverting attention away from the causal roots of the geohydrological risk” (Grossi & Pianezzi, 2017: 83).

Many other critiques make similar arguments. Hollands notes the “pro-bias and neo-liberal bias” of Smart Cities (Hollands, 2008: 305). In another work, Hollands also claims that “the profit motive of global IT, software, engineering, construction and utilities companies […] has left little room for ordinary people who live in cities” (Hollands, 2014: 62). Cugurullo coins the term Frankenstein urbanism to describe the Smart City, using Hong Kong as an example, with its laissez-faire capitalism and a “disregard for social issues [that] derives from the government’s prioritisation of economic targets” (Cugurullo, 2018: 84).

Vanolo vividly demonstrates that the Smart City is “characterised by stereotyped images with lights representing digital flows, tall buildings and a lack of people in the streets”, with an image acquired from The European Commission’s official website on the Digital Agenda (Vanolo, 2016: 28). While the image can no longer be found on the website, a moment’s Google Image search for the term “Smart City” returns similar images of “digital flows, tall buildings” and yes, “a lack of people in the streets”.

Example images of Smart City from Google Image Search

Images retrieved from a Google Image search for “Smart City”. From top left clockwise: from an article on Internet of Things for Smart Cities (Ismail, 2018); part of Deutsche Telekom’s Smart City media kit (Deutsche Telekom, 2018); from an article on smart infrastructure in Smart Cities (Horn, 2016); from a case study on Barcelona as a Smart City (Urban Hub, 2018).

These critiques contain narratives that positions private corporations as vicious winners and the common people as perennial losers. In Genoa, the ‘I don’t risk’ app “obtains environmental and weather data from sensors and provides information through mobile devices to the citizens”, but citizens remain vulnerable to the fundamental problem of geohydrological risk (Grossi & Pianezzi, 2017:83). Through images lacking in people, Vanolo implies a disregard for the needs, or even existence, of people in the Smart City model. To emphasis his point, Vanolo also looks at four Smart City imaginaries, where the common people are depicted respectively as “invisible and silent political subjects”, “subjugated citizen”, “active sensing nodes, or citizen-sensors” and “condemned to constantly trade off welfare (pleasures) of now for the politics of the future” (Vanolo, 2016: 30-34).

But such critical narratives appear to commit the very same mistake they are calling out - a neglect of the common people. By framing the common people as perennial losers, these narratives falsely assert that private corporations and civilians are mutually exclusive, and simplistically define the latter as helpless victims. Just as the Smart City might distract from more urgent problems, the focus on common people as victims distract from the empowerment of civilians that stem from Smart City technologies.

People are People too - Agency of the People

They gave me a number and murdered Valjean

Valjean’s Soliloquy (Claude-Michel Schönberg, 1989)

On the post-industrial city, Indian sociologist Ashis Nandy highlights the ingenuity of the people, commenting that “our native vernacular genius will corrupt the imported model of the post-industrial city and turn it into an impure, inefficient, but ultimately less malevolent hybrid” (quoted by Chatterjee, 2004: 145). Likewise, in the article ‘Open Source Urbanism’, Sassen suggests that “the city can talk back” (Sassen, 2011). Sassen raises examples of such talk-backs, such as protests by Stuttgart’s residents to stop the demolition of their old train station and the ‘Take Back the Night’ international movement against street violence.

Contrary to the ‘people are victims’ narrative in the previous section, these examples suggest that ‘people are people’. Simply put, people like, people dislike, people support, people resist. Most of all, people are people with individual and collective agencies. Bringing back the focus on the Smart City, the technologies and infrastructure developed in fulfilling typical Smart City plans might very well serve the primary interests of corporate bigwigs. But the people do talk back against such moves. For instance, the grassroots movement Tech Reset Canada has recently emerged against the supposed exploitation of Toronto’s Quayside by Alphabet’s Sidewalk Labs (Barth, 2018).

Furthermore, Smart City technologies can also have an empowering effect on citizens. For instance, the provision of wifi networks and smartphones empower people with citizen journalism. Furthermore, the dominance asserted by the government or corporations is frequently sidelined by citizen ingenuity. The Great Firewall of China is often circumvented by the use of virtual private networks by the people. This is not to suggest that people are free from restrictions imposed by governments and corporations. Rather, it merely highlights the possibility of agency and resistance from the people.

In line with this, McFarlane and Söerström constructs an alternate narrative of the Smart City, which they term “knowledge- intensive smart urbanism” (McFarlane & Söderström, 2017: 313). The authors suggest that this alternative “should begin with ordinary urban places, knowledges and needs”, rather than beginning with technology. This focus on knowledge often requires participation from the ground, who are in tune with real pressing issues.

To illustrate this alternative, the authors consider the Social Justice Coalition (SJC), which developed an online platform for Cape Town residents to report sanitation conditions and maintenance issues, which is then used to “question the city’s data and budgeting allocations in a more vigorous way, much to the chagrin of the city authorities” (McFarlane & Söderström, 2017: 320). They also cite the example of Slum Dwellers International (SDI), which used census data of the urban poor across 6000 informal settlements to negotiate with local states. These examples illustrate how Smart City technologies empower the people to broker with authorities on more equal ground. Of note, McFarlane and Söderström mention that “it is more difficult for the state to ignore quantitative and mapped data […] than it is to ignore more qualitative calls for social inclusion”.

Smart City Taiwan - Digital Democracy

Fork the government.

The call behind the g0v movement for open source alternatives to government websites (Tang, 2016).

Here we use the rise of digital democracy in Taiwan to illustrate the empowerment and the fluid identity of the Smart City’s citizen. In March 2014, students occupied Taiwan’s parliament building in what came to be know as the Sunflower Movement. The students were protesting against the Cross-Strait Service Trade Agreement, which was deemed to have been signed without sufficient consent from the citizens and seen as increasing Taiwan’s reliance on mainland China (Cheng, 2014: 88).

As Cheng writes, “what most stood out about this movement was its clever use of technology and digital media”. Examples include live streaming of the occupation, extensive use of social media, the use of opensource software such as Hackpad, and online crowdfunding (Cheng, 2014: 88-91). This echoes McFarlane & Söderström’s case studies of SJC and SDI, where Smart City technology helps to put the citizen on equal ground with the government. This also illustrates Sassen’s phenomenon of the city talking back.

From the aftermath of the Sunflower Movement, Taiwan has emerged as a forerunner in digital democracy, through projects such as vTaiwan, g0v and PDIS. In particular, vTaiwan is an online platform which has been described as “an open consultation process that brings Taiwan citizens and government together […] to deliberate and reach rough consensus on national issues” (Hsiao, 2018: 1). Specifically, the platform has been used to ratify and amend laws regulating Uber and existing taxi services, after extensive engagement between government and citizens. From an equalizer between the disenfranchised citizen and the powerful government, Smart City technology has evolved further to create a collaborative environment between citizen and government. Sassen’s talking back has evolved into a two-way conversation.

These government-citizen collaborative projects have been facilitated in part by Audrey Tang, who has been described as a “civic hacker” and was part of the Sunflower Movement (O’Flaherty, 2018). In 2016, “Tang became the country’s youngest minister without portfolio and the first transgender official in the top executive cabinet”. In this Smart City story, Tang plays the role of concerned citizen, revolutionary hacker, civic activist and government official. This runs counter to the neat and tidy categories of government, corporations and people implied by the critiques in the first section. The same can be said of the citizens who participated in the Sunflower Movement, as well as subsequent digital democratic processes.

Conclusion - Rise up

Rise up! When you’re living on your knees, you rise up Tell your brother that he’s gotta rise up Tell your sister that she’s gotta rise up

Hamilton: An American Musical (Miranda, 2016)

In critiques of the Smart City, the common people have been characterized as hapless victims subject to exploitation and neglect by higher powers including government and private corporations. Here, we show how this characterization is dreadfully oversimplified. Rather, the common people have fluid roles that might even partly subsume that of government and private corporations. They also talk back rather than suffer in silence. Furthermore, the technology underlying the Smart City acts as equalizer and enabler, allowing citizens to negotiate with authorities and even collaborate on common ground.

The narratives imposed by critiques of the Smart City distract from the possibility of grassroots resistance against exploitation and neglect. Placing the blame on ideology and government inadequacy takes the onus away from the citizen and encourages passivity. Instead, focusing on the empowerment of citizens might inspire more civilian initiatives and talking back. The rise of grassroots movements such as Tech Reset Canada, Social Justice Coalition, Slum Dwellers International and vTaiwan could help to better resolve Smart City problems and complement existing top-down approaches.

References

  • Barth, Brian. “The fight against Google’s smart city.” The WorldPost, The Washington Post, 8 August 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/theworldpost/wp/2018/08/08/sidewalk-labs/ (accessed 30 September 2018).
  • Chatterjee, Partha. The politics of the governed: reflections on popular politics in most of the world. Columbia University Press, 2004.
  • Cheng, Tracey. “Taiwan’s Sunflower Protest: Digital Anatomy of a Movement.” Digital activism in Asia reader (2014): 87-97.
  • Claude-Michel Schönberg. Lyrics to “What Have I Done? (Valjean’s Soliloquy).” (1989). Genius, 2018, https://genius.com/Claude-michel-schonberg-what-have-i-done-valjeans-soliloquy-lyrics (accessed 30 September 2018).
  • Cugurullo, Federico. “Exposing smart cities and eco-cities: Frankenstein urbanism and the sustainability challenges of the experimental city.” Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 50.1 (2018): 73-92.
  • Deutsche Telekom. “Smart City Media Kit.” Deutsche Telekom, 2018,https://www.telekom.com/en/media/mediacenter/media-kits/mediakits-2018/smart-city (accessed 30 September 2018).
  • Grossi, Giuseppe and Daniela Pianezzi. “Smart cities: Utopia or neoliberal ideology?” Cities, 69 (2017): 79-85.
  • Hollands, Robert G. “Will the real smart city please stand up? Intelligent, progressive or entrepreneurial?” City 12.3 (2008): 303-320.
  • Hollands, Robert G. “Critical interventions into the corporate smart city.” Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society 8.1 (2015): 61-77.
  • Horn, John. “3 benefits a smart city can gain from smart infrastructure.” readwrite, readwrite, 14 December 2016, https://readwrite.com/2016/12/14/3-benefits-cities-can-gain-smart-infrastructures-dl4/ (accessed 30 September 2018).
  • Hsiao, Yu T., et al. “Vtaiwan: An Empirical Study of Open Consultation Process in Taiwan.” SocArXiv, 4 July 2018. Web. Available at: https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/xyhft/ (accessed 30 September 2018).
  • Ismail, Nick. “Unlocking the potential of the Internet of Things for smart cities - a CTO’s perspective.” Information Age, Bonhill Group Plc, 17 April 2018, https://www.information-age.com/iot-smart-cities-ctos-perspective-123471496/ (accessed 30 September 2018).
  • McFarlane, Colin, and Ola Söderström. “On alternative smart cities: From a technology-intensive to a knowledge-intensive smart urbanism.” City 21.3-4 (2017): 312-328.
  • Miranda, Lin-Manuel. Hamilton: An American Musical. Directed by Thomas Kail, 21 April 2016, Richard Rodgers Theatre, New York, NY. Performance.
  • O’Flaherty, Kate. “Taiwan’s revolutionary hackers are forking the government.” Wired UK, Condé Nast, 4 May 2018, https://www.wired.co.uk/article/taiwan-sunflower-revolution-audrey-tang-g0v (accessed 30 September 2018).
  • Pratchett, Terry. The Truth: A Novel of Discworld. New York: HarperCollins, 2000.
  • Pulp. Lyrics to “Common People.” (1995). Genius, 2018, https://genius.com/Pulp-common-people-lyrics (accessed 30 September 2018).
  • Sassen, Saskia. “Open source urbanism.” The new city reader: a newspaper of public space (2011). Available at: http://www.domusweb.it/en/op-ed/2011/06/29/open-source-urbanism.html (accessed 30 September 2018).
  • Tang, Audrey. “Challenges for Taiwan’s Civic Hackers in 2016.” Medium post. Available at https://medium.com/@audrey.tang/challenges-for-taiwan-s-civic-hackers-in-2016-385af61d6e79 (accessed 30 September 2018).
  • Urban Hub. “Smart City 3.0 – Ask Barcelona about the next generation of smart cities.” Cities, Urban Hub, 13 February 2018, http://www.urban-hub.com/cities/smart-city-3-0-ask-barcelona-about-the-next-generation-of-smart-cities/ (accessed 30 September 2018).
  • Vanolo, Alberto. “Is there anybody out there? The place and role of citizens in tomorrow’s smart cities.” Futures 82 (2016): 26-36.