“What is a City that is would be Smart?” – Usman Haque
What can a smart city offer beyond increased efficiency and convenience? Does it promise any sociological, psychological, cultural or economical benefits? Can it unlock something, or perhaps re-discover something we lost during our pursuit of efficiency and convenience such as our connections to ourselves and/or our immediate context?
Is a “plug in” smart city a logical solution? Would it not as Usman stated be a technologically advanced promise of increased efficiency such as those of the ‘60s urban planners? Would a “smart city in a box” be any different from a city that developed as a mesh of smart nodes that gradually grew to connect the entire urban fabric? How?
Do we really tend to surround ourselves with like-minded people online? It can be argued that the webspace much like city space is a system of transportation much like our streets where we pass by one another and are offered the choice of interacting with a passing individual, an acquaintance, or a store (web page) and it’s subjects.
“Second, in a world of increasing complexity where we are far more aware that our actions can have unforeseen consequences, people – especially city managers – desire control and understanding” – Is the general public aware that a smart city is a “transparent city” where all that is them in the internet of things can be accessed and or controlled by certain parties / individuals? Are we willing to barter our sense of security for an efficient and convenient e-topia? Have we not already begun to? How much of our information is actually at increased risk of unsolicited access in the smart city?
Usman discuses a smart city that is built based on efficiency and convenience however does not mention a city with an intentional, designed “performance” that is also inherent in smart city designs where a 1 to 1 relationship is not “mapped” but studied and manipulated in order to design experiences and interactions on the street and urban scale – could they exist simultaneously as one? Or is the latter rendered an inherently inefficient utilization of space, energy and technology?
City of Sound: Smart city: or smart citizens instead? – Dan Hill
“The city is its people. We don’t make cities in order to make buildings and infrastructure. We make cities in order to come together, to create wealth, culture, more people. As social animals, we create the city to be with other people, to work, live, play. Buildings, vehicles and infrastructure are mere enablers, not drivers” – is there not a way that a smart city could be designed to allow for the aforementioned “performance”? Why is the “smart city” stripped of all sentient and atmosphere?
“Can a city be “smart” and inefficient at the same time? Perhaps this is a fundamental question, un-voiced by smart city advocates” – Can a city be efficient and approachable? Designed for the people but not necessarily by them?
Does a smart city assume a dumb citizen? Why?
“In fact, does removing the conscious decision making element make us less likely to be aware, to care, about our impact on the environment?” Are we getting dumber (more passive) as our systems get smarter?
Smart city – Townsend
Studying the history our sociological and cultural evolution can help us predict our future patterns or events. Considering our evolution from craftsmen over the industrial evolution and our increased incentive to achieve efficiency and accuracy through mechanization and soon after that atomization could our pursuit for a smart city not be considered inevitable?
“Something about Songdo just doesnt feel authentic, fully reflective of our every day digital experience” – In my humble opinion, Songdo exists as a platform of experimentation and development. It is not a product but a process of evolution/development and thus cannot be judged but in the context of the will of adoption, implementation and the entrepreneurial incentive to create ground breaking technologies that can then effectively be plugged in or tested in digital grounds like Songdo.
If a fully automated city responded to weather autonomously and automatically what happens to our sense of control or personal preferences. Much like a shift in government, does a smart city dictate that we as a species begin to abandon our self centered, almost narcissistic ideologies of privacy and personal comfort and adopt a more global perspective before it’s conception? Do smart citizens come first, and does the smart city then become merely a platform that provides for the culmination of our psychological & sociological enlightenment?
“Tokyo survived it’s digital lobotomy – there’s still enough of the conventional infrastructure in place to live manually” – Technology, as of right now maintains an almost symbiotic relationship with us, i.e, without us there is no technology and we would be severely effected if technology vanished over night. As technology becomes “smarter” is there a risk in that relationship shifting and us becoming fully reliant on technology? What happens then?