Smart cities first appeared in the literature during the 1990s. Van Bastelaer (1998) in digital cities and transfer-ability of results put forward an argument on the seemingly increasing gap/distance between the so-called traditional public and private sector, increasing distance between people and the government, and the radical shift in the degree of globalisation and changes in the classical tendencies of the public sector in general.

With this degree of complexity, Van Bastelaer (1998) proposed the concept of “digital cities” as the following: “Digital cities can be seen as laboratories of integration of multimedia technology within the public space (Van Bastelaer, 1998)”. The concept of Digital cities was created as a business as a usual solution to facilitate communication between the ever disengaged communities and the ever-frustrated governments in the European cities. In other words, the digital cities were originally seen as an alternative spatial dimension called “an online community” to revitalise the broken and disrupted connection between people and governments. In short, the rationale behind the digital city had assumed that the problem of communication between people and governments is logical. As a result, it can be solved by introducing mechanical and managerial solutions. Since the appearance of digital cities, the fleeting feelings of “loss of communities”, “sense of belonging”, “membership”, and “being a part of something bigger than oneself” was less and less appreciated. However, literature has taken a business-as-usual turn and is filled with a diverse range of mechanical formulations on how urban systems can become smart (i.e., digital).

Two decades after the original conceptualisation, the literature on smart cities is yet to arrive at a universal framework, ideology, and definition of a Smart City. Anthopoulos and Fitsilis (2013) argue that the conceptualisation of smart cities concerning definitions and perspectives is still very confusing. Smart cities have attracted the attention of scientific communities, political parties, and industries. However, without a common platform, view, or vision, these disciplines provide separated and isolated versions of smart cities (Anthopoulos and Fitsilis, 2013). Other scholars and practitioners have commonly shared their concerns over this widely disintegrated framework of smart cities. They have tried to provoke the foundation over which future cities and digital ICT platforms should merge. For example, with the integration of ICT platforms into urban systems, concepts such as sustainable development, social cohesion, place-making and sense of place, citizens and their rights to the city, resilience, and adaptation to future shocks must be integral if not primarily part of smartificiation of societies and urban systems henceforth.

Smartificiation of cities implies the integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) employing sensors to the cities’ infrastructure systems for virtually recreating and mimicking a portion of fundamental human cognitive capabilities such as learning and rational decision making. As we rapidly move toward this format of smartificiation trend, Rodrigues (2016) argues that although technology facilitates the interconnection of social and technical systems, issues such as governmentality, the political dimension of data generation, and data sharing must be at the forefront of the process of smartificiation. Therefore, it is necessary to consider “the logic and objectives over which smart cities conceptualisation have been implemented, cause and effect that jeopardise the possibility of achieving a situation of spatial justice in urban systems (Rodrigues, 2016).”

TAI/T analysis of a collection of definitions and important, relevant literature demonstrates that most current smart city definitions are focused on defining the ‘label’ of Smart City, albeit they share one common denominator throughout, the linking of ICT infrastructure systems to cities.

Some scholars emphasise the actuality of ICT platforms with an undercurrent tone of Capitalism. Others view ICT platforms as a form of means to a higher-end such as happiness, well-being, or sustainability. Nevertheless, the notion of means to ends schools of thought by itself can not solve some of the most complex urban challenges such as social justice, sense of place, citizens’ rights to cities, gentrification, resilience against future shocks, social cohesion, energy consumption, privacy, autonomy, and smartificiation in general.

• Adapted from Mindful Smart Cities 2020. Shima Beigi, PhD. Co-founder and CEO