Will the real smart city please stand up?

Abstract

Debates about the future of urban development in many Western countries have been increasingly influenced by discussions of smart cities. Yet despite numerous examples of this ‘urban labelling’ phenomenon, we know surprisingly little about so‐called smart cities, particularly in terms of what the label ideologically reveals as well as hides. Due to its lack of definitional precision, not to mention an underlying self‐congratulatory tendency, the main thrust of this article is to provide a preliminary critical polemic against some of the more rhetorical aspects of smart cities. The primary focus is on the labelling process adopted by some designated smart cities, with a view to problematizing a range of elements that supposedly characterize this new urban form, as well as question some of the underlying assumptions/contradictions hidden within the concept. To aid this critique, the article explores to what extent labelled smart cities can be understood as a high‐tech variation of the ‘entrepreneurial city’, as well as speculates on some general principles which would make them more progressive and inclusive.

Notes

1 While the discourse of smart cities has certain parallels with that of the creative city, and hence is open to similar criticism (see Peck, 2005), it is distinguished by its particular focus on information and communication technologies as the driving force in urban transformation (Eger, 1997), rather than creativity in a more general sense (see Florida, 2002; 2005). However, as I shall go on to argue there are selective borrowings in some of the smart city discourses regarding the role IT increasingly plays in the arts, culture and media (see Eger, 2003a).

2 As such, I would liken the aim of this paper to Peck’s (2005) critique of Florida’s (2005; 2002) work on the creative city, albeit it is critiquing a somewhat different literature. In other words, the point of both articles is not to prove or disprove the existence of the creative or smart city, but rather to critically explore some of the assumptions and rhetoric behind these labels as well as examine some examples of cases where the term is applied.

3 There are methods developed which claim to help measure smartness/intelligence and innovation—see Intelligent Community Forum (2007) which lists the five main elements of intelligent communities and the OECD and Eurostat (2005) Oslo Manual designed to provide guidelines for measuring innovation. As this is not the purpose of this paper, I do not really make any further reference to these measurement criteria.

4 While there is clearly some overlap here between the use of the term smart in relation to smart cities and the smart growth agenda (particularly as they both relate to ICTs and how these can transform work and life in a region), the two terms should not be completely conflated. The smart growth agenda is a somewhat more wide‐ranging urban approach, with a strong emphasis on policy prescriptions and problem‐solving. There are also specific national variations, such as the smart growth agenda emanating out of the USA (American Urban Land Institute, 2007), which has developed in response to specific urban problems such as sprawl, inner‐city decline and a lack of community in suburban areas (see Smart Growth Network, 2007). Despite these differences, I would content that smart cities and the smart growth agenda tend to share some similarities when it comes to emphasising the underlying importance of IT and business‐led initiatives when solving urban problems. In this paper I reserve the term smart cities to refer to those urban regions which publicly label themselves as smart, whilst focussing in on the labelling process they adopt.

5 In this regard I examine a range of cities from around the world that have been designated (either through award or competition) or have self‐designated themselves as smart cities. In examining this labelling process I look particularly at city websites as this is one of their main promotional vehicles and hence reveals what kinds of things are emphasized and which things are hidden from view.

6 It is generally recognized that North American cities in particular have always been more shaped by pro‐business influences, so it is hardly surprising to see smart city discourses here more nakedly influenced by ‘neo‐liberalism’ (for example in the case of San Diego and Edmonton). At the same time, it is clear that the Smart Capital initiative in Ottawa Canada did partly achieve a balance of IT initiatives that cut across business, government and community interests (Ottawa Centre for Research and Innovation, 2007), hence the need for more specific case studies. European cities, by contrast, have historically, at least, been more welfare‐oriented in their urban policy‐making and generally been more concerned with social inclusion, although as Harvey (1989) argues, they too have embraced urban entrepreneurialism in the last couple of decades (see also Quilley, 2000), and many are competing with one another via various creative indexes (see Florida and Tinagli, 2004). Meanwhile, political transformations in Eastern Europe have meant rapid change in cities such as they have made the rather rapid transition from a socialist to an entrepreneurial urban form (see Sykora, 1999).