Owning the City: New Media and Citizen Engagement in Urban Design – Michiel de Lange and Martijn de Waal
– Smart city projects typically consist of a ‘triple helix’ of government, knowledge production (e.g., universities) and industry. Such consortia often ignore the role of citizens as equally important agents.” The ‘helix’ may not name ‘citizen’ as one of its main strategies, but is it not assumed that these concentrations are chosen and being designed for the citizen? Of course a successful project should include the general public in as many aspects of the development as possible, but perhaps naming them as necessary initiators might be intimidating for citizens, even smart ones. A ‘smart citizen’ might be willing to take collective ownership of the city, but not everyone has the means or desire to author the initiative. If only few are willing, there runs a risk of systems that only represent a small number of loud, too-similar voices.
– “In her (Jane Jacobs’) view cities offer citizens the advantage to escape narrow social control of the small village, and obtain the freedom to choose their own lifestyles.” Don’t cities offer their own kind of social interdependence? Not everyone knows each other as in a small village, but there is still a great deal of mutual trust needed. If one chooses to move to a large city with a heavy overlap of people, is it not understood that although invisibility is more or less possible, participation is required?
– It seems as though projects that visualize the general feeling of the city, like the D-Tower are quite popular.
http://www.designboom.com/art/feel-o-meter-smiley-face-reflects-city-mood/
‘Happy Barometer’ Monitors the Mood of a Gloomy City
– “Architects adopt the roles of commissioner and executor at once. …they actively seek out an issue…and try to organize publics that take ownership.” How can architects and planners convince the public to take ownership and care? How hard should/ do they push?
Reframing, reimagining and remaking smart cities – Rob Kitchin
– Some of the perils listed alongside the promises in Table 2 seem to be reaching. For instance, how is it bad that “technologies deployed are objective, commonsensical pragmatic and politically benign?” As an example: an overburdened subway line is identified and additional bus/tram lines are put in place or rerouted to more equally distribute the passengers. This seems to be objective, pragmatic and not at all a peril.
– “Moreover, no two cities hold the same qualities, having different histories, populations, cultures, economies, politics, legacy infrastructures and systems, political and administrative geographies, modes of governance, sense of place, hinterlands, interconnections and interdependencies with other places, and so on.”(pp. 8) For these reasons, a one-size-fits-all approach to smart city initiatives should be avoided at all costs. But it also begs the question of how smart cities being built from the ground up can hope to be truly successful if they do not yet know what the tides and general feeling of the city will be. There is only so much than can be planned and predicted.
– “Failing to tackle these issues (of security and ethics) will undermine and curtail smart city initiatives and public support for them.”(pp.12) If administrations and designers assume that citizens will be comfortable with a certain level of surveillance and privacy when they are not, would an active refusal in participation be feasible? What would the consequences of that be?