EPISODE OO1
WHAT ARE SMART CITIES?
What is research telling us about these complex systems? For today, I selected five articles from the most-read research.
I also suggest reading my book, Mindful Smart Cities and some of the cited works at the end of this episode.
You might be surprised that the concept of smart cities was not similar to today’s idea. At the start, they were called digital cities or tele-cities. The main focus was on the power structure of cities between governments and citizens. Then governments began using the digital force to re-establish their influence on people's lives. Read more on the History of Smart Cities.
The first article of this issue is titled ‘From intelligent to smart cities’ by Deakin and Al Waer (2001), which is mentioned around 540 times. Right from the start, the author recognises some of the most pressing issues of smart cities, which have not yet been solved. That is the continuous investment and emphasis on the business side of Smart cities rather than their ability to become Smart.
First and foremost, upon analysing more than 30 definitions of smart cities, it seems that the notion of smart is used as a label. Smart in the context of smart cities does not mean what our common sense and collective consciousness might call smart. Another crucial part of this Deakin and Al Waer (2001) work is the reference to the classic work of Spanish sociologist Manuel Castells: "The Rise of the Network Societies'’. I still remember writing my book and how shocked I felt by the lack of awareness in the smart city community of the critical role the emergence of networks is playing in shaping our world and our cities.
I will review the Rise of Network Societies in-depth and hone out the most vital points I think anyone living and working in cities must learn about it. For this episode, however, you can find a brief review of Castells’ work and a summary of book chapters. Read more here.
Network Societies Versus Traditional Societies
With the rise of network societies, the relationship structure of communities began to shift towards clusters and nodes away from hierarchical power structures, in other words, towards more flexibility and less rigidity. This idea is taxing for top-down and command and control systems, including most cities’ power structure models and governance paradigms.
One of the essential parts of Deakin and Al Waer’s (2011) work is recognising “the social capital” side of the smart city agenda. Deakin and Al Waer (2011) advocate for a socially inspired shift by promoting the following ideas: “moving away from the purely technical aspects of such developments and examining the social capital which is critical in underpinning their informational and communicative qualities but pivotal in supporting the broader environmental and cultural role intelligence plays in supporting the transition to smart cities”.
The recognition of the qualitative and communicative nature of the transitions from information to intelligence to Smart is missing from the Smart City dialogue. In other words, we cannot call cities “smart” by merely wiring them with devices. To be called Smart, one must merit specific qualitative and behavioural metrics.
I fully agree with the main argument of this article is the pivotal role social capital plays in the Smart city-making practice. Simply put, Smart citizenship must be the leading way, not Smart devices or objects. At TAI/T, we argue that we must move from the internet of things or (IoT) paradigm to the internet of people or what I call (IoP). The former is about labelling cities smart, while the latter is about transforming cities into places where a true sense of community or “WE-HOOD” can emerge. Read more on TAI/T-Mindful Smart Cities.
The final message of Deakin and Al Waer is the criticism of the ongoing practice of categorising cities into lists such as the ten most Smart cities, 20 most sustainable cities and so on. Their argument is heavily built on the work of Robert G. Hollands (2008), the second article I am analysing in today's episode. I tend to agree with this criticism because most of these lists are made by measuring cities' ability to integrate information communication technologies exactly how branding works and are often self-congratulatory.
So, what do Deakin and Al Waer mean by the smart city?
The exact opposite of what is now branded and promoted as Smart. The notion of smart means building social capital and understanding the underlying forces shifting the world and humanities' worldviews. Smart also means moving away from the 90s obsessions with a superficial focus on labels and brands instead of the actual impact smartness can have on the urban life's social, cultural, psychological and even spiritual dimensions.
The second article we selected is that of Robert G. Hollands, "Will the real smart City, please stand up?"
I like the title of this article because it directly targets the continuous tendency toward over-branding, labelling and categorising cities into what is currently hot. It also takes the reader to the principal question that I think many so-called experts struggle with, which is what is a smart city. Hollands (2008) wants the reader to think critically about the notion of a 'smart city' and examine its utility for pushing cities towards more adaptability. Hollands asks these questions: Will smart city labels make cities more open to entrepreneurship, or is it just another fad? In other words, will cities and the lives of citizens become more and more evolutionary if we use the term 'smart cities?
I think the critical approach to smart cities is vital as it forces citizens to ask thought-provoking questions and examine how technology can make cities more liveable. Moreover, Holland’s approach leaves room for identifying the problems technology cannot solve.
Google Smart cities, for instance, to see the following definition: "A smart city is a place where traditional networks and services are made more efficient with the use of digital solutions for the benefit of its inhabitants and business. A smart city goes beyond digital technologies for better resource use and less emissions".
These articles cited above argue against the Google-generated definition of smart cities. A smart city is not improving the old systems with new technologies. Some are highly incongruent with the needs and requirements of today's modern, networked and complex world. Cities that are predominantly built around cars cannot call themselves Smart.
A smart city is not a place. In reality, a smart city is an experience that can be imagined as a kind of collective rethinking, redoing, and reimagining the city toward building more social capital.
Social capital is the force that gives technology a sense of meaning, purpose, and real value. Unfortunately, this understanding is still absent in the current smart city community. For Holland (2008), the term smart cities should not be immediately interpreted and equated to "high-tech." Instead, it should be seen as "a form of inquiry into the transformative and changing nature of cities." It must consider both positive and negative aspects of technological innovation in urban systems. Viewed this way, the entire direction of Smart cities shifts towards making better, more inclusive, and evolving cities. However, we face challenges when only focusing on labelling cities as Smart.
The first challenge is, of course, confusing various terminologies with one another without truly understanding what they mean. The second challenge is creating a disjuncture between image and reality, obscuring the difference between a city becoming intelligent or changing the branding regarding smart cities. I think this is significant because of the current state of the world, the rise of urbanisation, and the need for building resilience and sustainability into city design. In reality, smart should mean showing signs of intelligence in the form, functionality, or structure.
In Holland (2008)’s point of view, in the search for smartness, one should look for an increase in intelligence. I would also like to include the term 'mindful' in this quest. My book expanded the addition of mindful to smart in that a smart city must have three building blocks: Mindful, Smart citizens, Mindful, Smart interfaces, and Mindful Smart living spaces. Moreover, various degrees of smartness should be defined based on the qualitative nature of how various urban societies change (e.g., Society 4.0 and Society 5.0). This is why we at TAI/T have defined 'Seven Levels of Smartness' to cover the nonlinear and multidimensional process of Smart city-making, the subsequent challenges social transformations pose, and the journey of human development from tribal societies to advanced civilisation.
The third problem we have to address regarding smart city labelling is the positivity bias. Smart cities are often seen as 'the cities of the future. This idea assumes that the future is inherently positive. Because all cities worldwide have some form of a smart city initiative, becoming smart must be regarded as something good and seen as "the direction" all cities towards which eventually must develop. But, this is farther from the truth.
The third article that we selected for today’s issue is from a group of an international group of researchers and covers a comprehensive review of scientific smart city literature. As an ex-academic, I find the difference between the scientific approach to smart cities and the industry mind-opening. There is a need to bridge the two and facilitate sharing the latest scientific progress with the business world.
Academics want to define smart cities. Business owners want to dominate it. This ideological divide hinders our ability to find the real meaning of smart. We recognised two tendencies and realised we could balance them out by asking better questions and bringing people together at the core of the conversation.
Yigitcanlar, Tan, et al. (2018) argue that the smart city's dialogue has to be steered back to the objective of addressing complex challenges such as climate change. But this has been difficult because of the following five obstacles in smart city practice.
The pressure to keep up with the speed of the fourth industrialisation.
Smart city projects are difficult to deliver because they are big and expensive capital investments with objectives connected to social and environmental issues that are not well identified. Smart city plans are often ad hoc, making it increasingly difficult to deliver desired socio-spatial outcomes.
The third challenge is the problem of "mono-centricity". Smart cities' narratives worldwide are focused on technology. Han and Hawken (2014) highlight this issue in the following lines: "Current discourse on smart cities is obsessed with technological capability and development. Global rankings reduce cities to a one-dimensional business model and series of metrics. If the term 'smart city' is to have any enduring value, technology should be reframed as only a way amongst many other solutions to develop a city's unique cultural identity and quality of life for the future."
The technocentric orientation of smart cities makes them high-risk projects as they become highly dependent on technology with little to no attention to how they could change urban space and address social challenges. This argument is at the core of the TAI/T approach to smart cities, and one of the main objectives of my book is to show a roadmap to change the paradigm of techno-centricity to people-centricity.
This shift in the paradigm requires a comprehensive understanding of the risks the current methodology poses for the future of cities. Smart in the techno-centricity paradigm is achieved through sensors. Smart in the people-centricity paradigm is, however, a result of individuals' evolution of consciousness, mindsets and personal growth.
The fourth obstacle, I think, is one of the most important and most difficult to overcome because it stems from the aggressive marketing of major technology giants such as KPMG, Cisco, IBM Smart Planet and Smarter Cities Challenge Initiative, Google, Uber, Volvo, Tesla, Audi, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Nissan, Toyota, etc. These companies often have the capital to sell their visions to governments, and most often, the governments around the world follow their ideology. We want to increase awareness at TAI/T, particularly with the Triple AI Podcast episodes and newsletters. Smart in the eye of whom? Smart for whom? Smart at the expense of ignoring what? These are the kinds of questions that we as citizens should ask ourselves.
The fifth obstacle is the problem of conceptualisation and definition. Simply put, too many smart city definitions out there make it almost impossible to bring these disfranchised initiatives together. At some point, we need to agree on some principles. Unfortunately, this converges in the current climate is also hijacked by the big tech companies, aka Smart Government, Smart Health, Smart Mobility, etc. The scientific literature is also rapidly increasing, intending to shift the technocentric view towards something more multi-dimensional.
We have listed a category of these definitions that can be found on our platform.
The table of definition is extracted from Yigitcanlar, T., Kamruzzaman, M., Buys, L., Ioppolo, G., Sabatini-Marques, J., da Costa, E.M. and Yun, J.J., 2018. Understanding ‘smart cities’: Intertwining development drivers with desired outcomes in a multidimensional framework. Cities, 81, pp.145-160.
So, this episode's main question was: What are smart cities?
Smart cities are not to be confused with the digital city, intelligent city, ubiquitous city, techno-centric city, creative city and knowledge city, although some of these labels have some common characteristics with the smart city concept. The confusion over the interpretations of what an ideal city should be like and which policies these cities should utilise to sustain growth and address socio-spatial inequalities of resources have led to an increasing tendency to label cities.
When we think about smart cities, it is important to know that the concept has evolved from a governance measure to a solution to address the challenges of rapid urbanisation and subsequent social, economic, ecological, cultural, industrial and even psychological impacts on humans. So, the smart city was a collective defensive measure against the rapidly depleting ecological resources and unsustainable human expansion on earth. Nevertheless, we often forget this and think the concept results from the emergence of the Internet and technological devices. So, as developers in the space, it is necessary to accept the responsibility of educating ourselves, our clients and most importantly, the people we serve on the real notion of smart cities.
On the over-branding of line of argument, I find the article by Yigitcanlar et al. (2018) interesting in the inclusion of the Songdo, which shows what can go wrong when a city is only built based on technocentric ideology. Located in Korea, Songdo city is arguably one of the very first smart city projects in the world. The Incheon city officials developed Songdo, and architects and urban planners worldwide have joined forces to build this city from scratch.
The Songdo project was based on a 93 billion USD budget plan, an example of what a smart city is not and should not be about. That is why we decided to include it amongst similar projects in the first episode of the Triple AI series.
Songdo Smart City is an example of what can go wrong when planners begin to think of cities as predictable mechanical assemblages. It is also a classic case of what can go wrong when technology, AI Investors and the best experts are seen as the main components for building smart cities. I believe these kinds of cities should be called “Artificial Cities”.
Neom City is another heavily branded project. In their vision statement, Neom calls itself a vision of what a new future might look like: “an attempt to do something that’s never been done before, and it’s coming at a time when the world needs fresh thinking and new solutions. Simply put, NEOM will be a destination, a home for people who dream big and want to be part of building a new model for sustainable living, working and prospering”.
Toyota Woven City is another example of a car company venturing into city space. The vision statement of Woven City is similar to the Neom project: “Woven City is pioneering a profound evolution in how societies of the future live, work, play, and move. Our approach is driven by three unwavering principles: “Human-Centered” respect and prioritisation of people’s needs and preferences; “Living Laboratory”, which enables seamless real-world testing of new technologies; and an “Ever-Evolving” approach by which such new technologies and services continuously grow and improve”.
One of the main criticism of these projects is using the term Human-Centric as a new marketing strategy which leads to the invasion of industrial giants into the city space.
Do we need to build from scratch to build for people? Is a new future a different point in space and time without attachment to the previous points? It is important to look critically at these so-called built from scratch or built from the ground cities. Is this new method of claiming land and building a city the possible use of the talents of people and the earth's finite resources?
So what is a smart city?
In the current climate, a smart city is an expensive and heavily branded concept city sold by the industry giants to city Officials. Most of these branded cities are designed for AI and technology. They are not made for people. They are fancy boxes modulated by artificial intelligence and then filled with people. However, this is not to say that planning and neighbourhood design fall in the same categories. Some of the best places and neighbourhoods in cities emerge from planning. The rise of the ‘Appealing-Design’ in the UK considers the latest findings of urban research into redesigning the neighbourhoods and helps cast out the deep and often misinformed ideas about city planning. The main difference is that the appealing design movement does not build from scratch. It modifies the existing urban form and fabric with the best available knowledge and technologies.
A smart city is a journey of rethinking, redoing and reclaiming the city’s form and its citizen’s way of life, mindset and behaviour. A smart city is a journey of collective transformation of place, people, planet and technology.
Smart does not mean superb, beautiful, liveable, sustainable, resilient, mindful, and evolutionary. So if you are a Smart city developer, it is critical to decouple smart from sustainable, carbon-neutral, resilient, liveable, and so on. Holland argues that information technology does not equal urban regeneration. Granted, if you are a technology developer, think about how your participation in making cities smarter follows the branding paradigm leaving behind the fundamental objective of making cities smarter. Remember,
Smart does not mean efficient either. Instead, efficiency is a by-product of systems becoming more and more intelligent. Intelligence is multidimensional and cannot be reduced to machine-like smartness.
If you are a citizen reading this newsletter, know that the fastest way to live in the smart city is becoming more thoughtful citizens and adopt a mindset that revolves around personal growth. So start by adopting healthier urban habits. In the upcoming episodes, we share more about how citizens can become awakened Individuals (AI.01) and shape what kind of smart city format they deem to be an intelligent choice.
Finally, to conclude, I point out what I consider to be the central message of this episode, and that is the following:
When we want to answer the question of what smart cities are, the point should not be about diversifying the concept into Smart Governance, Smart Health, and Smart Mobility. It rather should be about which city is using what technology to become better at serving people.
INSPIRING PEOPLE AND RESOURCES TO LEARN FROM
This project and podcast are among the most inspiring projects we found on mindfulness and consciousness. The developers' vision statement states the following: Pursuing deep thinking and moral imagination, social courage and joy, to renew inner life, outer life, and life together.
We highly recommend this podcast if you are into science; almost becoming science fiction using real climate change data to build awareness and encourage social behavioural change. Twenty-Seventy-Two is a collection of audio short stories by Tuva Novotny and Henrik Björn, read by Gizem Kling Erdogan and Edvin Ryding. The short stories are based on research-based future scenarios developed by Dr Andrew Merrie, Head of Futures at Planethon. The future is in our hands. We have the power, and the responsibility, to change the planet and the society for the better. For ourselves and future generations. The worlds we can create 50 years in the future are familiar and, at the same time, incomprehensible. Take part in stories rooted in the latest research from residents in some of our possible futures.
Restorative Cities: Urban design for mental health and wellbeing by Jenny Roe, Layla McCay
This book is probably one of the few books about integrating mental health issues into city design. A recent book written after the pandemic leverages the impacts of Covid-19 pandemics and the lessons learned for better planning of cities. Below are a couple of extracted paragraphs from the book: “ if we are to flourish, we still need access to green and blue natural spaces; to engage our senses; to enjoy casual and meaningful social connections; to be able to walk and cycle and play safely; and to feel included in the life of our city, with our diverse identities, characteristics and needs all fairly reflected, respected and supported. It is no coincidence that many of the planning and design approaches required to meet these needs reflect the pillars of a restorative city that form the basis of this book.
This report by Arup is one of the few studies published by an architectural company based on the latest scientific research. The Planetary boundary cities draw inspiration from some of the most cited and high-calibre research conducted by Johan Rockström and his team at Stockholm Resilience Centre. The Planetary Boundaries framework was first published as a series of articles in the Journal of Science, aiming to offer a roadmap or safe operational boundaries for future human settlement on earth.
How do we design for an ethical life in smart cities? The Emotional AI in Smart Cities is one of the most advanced research projects funded in 2020 to explore the question of ethical life in the age of AI. The notion of Emotional AI is the latest addition to the field of smart cities and probably one of the first attempts to understand how we can envision a possible coexistence between AI and humans. The project description says that it will explore biometric and online technologies that sense, learn and interact with emotions, moods, attention and intentions and examine the societal implications of these technologies in cities both in the UK and Japan (i.e., Super City Initiative). In addition, the research team aims to assess what it means to live ethically and well with Emotional AI in smart cities in cross-cultural commercial, security and media contexts. This research is particularly important for deploying autonomous vehicles, facial recognition and spatial intelligence computation, which are at the forefront of smart cities’ security services. These technologies require an advanced understanding of Data Protection, GDRP and LED and facial recognition algorithms that are not yet fully developed. This project is eye-opening research on the risks and dangers of using AI as an emotional recognition tool for human life and violating fundamental human rights and agency.
HIGHLIGHT OF THIS ISSUE
The Dreamachine Project
The Dreamachine project is a mix of many things meeting to make something new. The Dreamachine project is where music, science, philosophy and city life come together to examine the nature of reality and the mind's work. The project is made possible by weaving together the works of 1959 artist-inventor Brion Gysin and the works of neuroscientist professor Anil Seth on the phenomena of flickering light, the latest form of artificial intelligence offering Londoners a window into the working of our minds. Many AI-assisted exhibitions exist in cities such as those of Refik Anadol. But, the Dreamachine's multidisciplinary makes it better to see how citizens can benefit from technology, learn more about the human experience, and maybe even adopt better mindful habits.
Could these kinds of technologies be the early steps towards unlocking the potential of the human mind?
Will the future smart city be a place of awakening and enlightenment?
One of the main outcomes of this project is that we all make a different map of reality, but we assume everyone makes the same map and therefore perceives reality the same way.
Technologies such as Dreamachine bring these fundamental differences into our awareness and can help build a more tolerant society.
Inclusivity is at the core of our vision at TAI/T and Mindful Smart City roadmap. We also take a multi-dimensional view of intelligence to show a smart city is more than a label. To deliver this vision, we then envisioned the Triple AI Model. The Awakened Individual (AI.01) is the first building block in which we provide toolkits for personal transformation.
Awakened individuality (AI.01) is about transforming human consciousness while living in urban systems. It can be seen as an urban awakening journey of personal development, the redemption of the identity, the dissolving of ego-self, and overcoming the illusion of separation. We consider the Dreamachine Project one of the many ways we can experiment with the possibility of democratising urban awakening.
WHAT IS THE TRIPLE AI MODEL?
The Triple AI is a cognitive tool designed by us at TAI/T to move beyond the technocratic view and practice of smart city design. The Triple AI model ensures the integration of multiple intelligence flows and forms in the smart city design process.
The central message of TAI/T is that technology is only a small part of the future of smart cities and that cities are first and foremost about people, not machines and sensors. That AI is only a tool, and that smart city is not a destination but a multidimensional journey of co-evolution between humans, nature, place and technology. The Triple AI also highlights citizens' role in the Smart city-making process. Furthermore, once the focus of smart cities is placed on these three anchors, chances are more and more technology developers begin to consider how their technologies bring power back to people.
At TAI/T, we build this kind of deep decentralisation that leads to deeply connected urban communities.
The Triple AI model has three building blocks:
Awakened Individuals (AI.01): Encouraging constant evolving and learning of individuals.
Ancient Intelligence (AI.02): Including the vast ocean of universal wisdom and ancestral knowledge.
Artificial Intelligence (AI.03): Using the best of continuously expanding universal body of scientific know-how and technological competencies.
COLLECTIVE MICRO-DOSING ON TRIPLE AI
AFFIRMATIONS FOR AWAKENING INDIVIDUALS (AI.01)
POWERFUL WORDS FROM ANCIENT INTELLIGENCE (AI.02)
RUMI
“Your task is not to seek for love, but merely to seek and find all the barriers within yourself that you have built against it.”
PARTNERS
Would you like to sponsor the Triple AI Podcast and Newsletter?
We always look for products, companies, people and products that align with our vision.
Just send a message to info@tai-therpaeutic.com
