Over half of the world’s population lives in urban environments, and that number is rapidly growing according to the World Health Organization. Many of us interact with the physical environments of cities on a daily basis: the arteries that move traffic, the grids that energize our lives, the buildings that prevent and direct actions. For many tech companies, though, much of this urban infrastructure is ripe for a digital injection. Cities have been “dumb” for millennia. It’s about time they get “smart” -- or so the story goes.
According to the new digital version of urban planning that’s being underwritten by companies like Cisco, Intel, Siemens, and Microsoft, every part of the city should leak data into sensors that communicate with algorithms designed to make the city run like a well-oiled machine -- and, in the process, provide whoever is sitting in the city control room a massive amount of power over the city’s features and inhabitants. IBM, the global technology powerhouse, has already staked out its leadership position, funding approximately 2,500 projects around the world that aim at making “smarter cities,” a term of art that’s more than just another meme waiting to be birthed. This is trademarked terminology, and the linguistic buck doesn’t stop there: The collision between IBM’s intellectual property and vernacular extends to a slew of other “smarter” things, including commerce, energy, healthcare, public safety, water, and traffic.
To get a good sense of where things are going, consider Songdo, which sits outside of South Korea’s capital Seoul. At a cost of approximately $40 billion, Songdo’s corporate and government backers hope to make it the world’s first fully smart city by 2015. Telecommunications giant Cisco has landed the contract to provide the city with all its smarts -- namely, networked technologies, sensors, software, and more. As tech theorist Christine Rosen describes it, “Songdo claims intelligence not from its inhabitants, but from the millions of wireless sensors and microcomputers embedded in surfaces and objects throughout the metropolis.”
Before accepting the techno-hype as a fait accompli, we should consider the implications such widespread technological changes might have on society, politics, and life in general. Urban scholar and historian Lewis Mumford warned of “megamachines” where people become mere components -- like gears and transistors -- in a hierarchical, human machine. The proliferation of smart projects requires an updated way of thinking about their possibilities, complications, and effects.
A new book, Smart Cities: Big Data, Civic Hackers, and the Quest for a New Utopia, by Anthony Townsend, a research director at the Institute for the Future, provides some groundwork for understanding how these urban projects are occurring and what guiding principles we might use in directing their development. Townsend sets out to sketch a new understanding of “civics,” one that will account for new technologies.
The foundation for his theory speaks to common, worthwhile concerns: “Until now, smart-city visions have been controlling us. What we need is a new social code to bring meaning and to exert control over the technological code of urban operating systems.” It’s easy to feel like technologies -- especially urban ones that are, at once, ubiquitous and often unseen to city-dwellers -- have undue influence over our lives. Townsend’s civics, which is based on eleven principles, looks to address, prevent, and reverse that techno-power.
It’s worth exploring each principle of this new civics. When taken together they speak to many of the main trends, possibilities, consequences, and potential within the current hype around smart cities. I’ll do this by giving a representative quote from Townsend’s book for each principle, and then I’ll briefly explain what he’s getting at.
1. “The commercial success and cultural ascendance of the Internet lends an air of inevitability to the idea of smart cities … we should never default to smart technology as a solution.”
Just because a new device or system comes out with much fanfare claiming it to be the next best thing, doesn’t mean we have to accept those promises. Smart tech should be an upgrade for our lives -- it should actually increase our well-being and address real problems. This means asking hard questions and recognizing that “smart” doesn’t automatically mean better or good.
2. “Community-owned broadband is one of the best investments a smart city can make.”
The telecommunication companies hold a monopoly over broadband networks, and they are quick to vilify any arguments that propose making broadband a public utility (like electricity). This helps to solidify their power over increasingly vital modern infrastructure. Townsend argues that public broadband “puts the city in control of its own nervous system, giving it tremendous bargaining power over any private company that wants to sell smart services to the city government or its businesses and residents.” This isn’t to say that local governments should all follow one plan, rather, they ought to have the ability to experiment with different options without being stopped by federal or state laws, or corporate interests.
3. “Build a web, not an operating system.”
By this Townsend is referring to the software and standards that smart city technologies build from. If we go the route of an operating system, then we’re just asking for power to be centralized and held by whatever entity controls the software. Townsend quotes an executive of one possible entity, the software company Living PlanIT: The “urban operating system will control everything that happens in the city.” Such a scenario doesn’t exactly inspire positive imaginations. A web-like construction, though, would encourage more openness, flexibility, and distributed power -- a chance to provide citizens with more direct influence.