In exploring how smart cities enhance and compromise community participation and sustainability, Mosco (2019) explains the technology-driven perspective as a collection of advanced technologies, such as sensors, big data analytics, and artificial intelligence, that are used to optimize the efficiency of urban systems and services.

This approach emphasizes the benefits of using technology to improve resource management, reduce traffic congestion, and enhance public safety. but it may also compromise community and participation by focusing on efficiency over social and cultural values (Sadowski, J, 2017), (Mosco, 2019).

In 2017 Google’s Sidewalk Labs proposed the Quayside project in Toronto, which aimed to create a smart city using a range of technologies such as autonomous vehicles, sensors, and energy-efficient buildings. The project claimed to enhance sustainability by reducing carbon emissions and waste while improving community participation by offering open data and public consultation. However, “it raises significant policy issues” (Mosco 2019, P.85), concerns were raised about data privacy and governance, as well as the potential for exclusion of marginalized communities (Cecco, 2019).

“Panelists felt that [the Sidewalk Labs master plan] did not appear to put the citizen at the centre of the design process for digital innovations, as was promised in the beginning and is necessary for legitimacy.” Digital Strategy Advisory Panel, Waterfront Toronto

Another perspective Mosco (2019) discussed is the citizen-centered perspective which views digital smart cities as platforms for citizen participation and engagement in urban governance. This approach highlights the importance of involving citizens in decision-making processes and providing them with access to information and resources to co-create their urban environment.

The current ‘smart city’ model is made up of a variety of advanced technologies such as sensors, data collection systems, real-time analytics, connected devices, algorithmic processes, and centralized command centers. These technologies work together to create a city that is capable of processing and analyzing large amounts of data in real-time to optimize its services and systems “They are fundamentally about infrastructural and civic applications. They are the kind of systems that constitute the techno-political ordering of society” (Sadowski, J 2017, P.7).

The readings and current ‘smart cities’ projects, serve as a strong reminder that technology alone is not the ultimate solution to the challenges of urban living. Such initiatives need to be well-defined, accessible, and transparent to the general public. They must be founded upon civic participation and align with sound planning principles. Additionally, policies targeting government inefficiencies and social inequalities should accompany these smart technologies. Otherwise, these technologies could end up magnifying urban problems as readily as they can solve them.

References:

• Sadowski, J (2017) ‘Access denied: Snapshots of exclusion and enforcement in the smart city’ in Shaw, J and Graham, M. ed. Our Digital rights to the city, pp 6-11.
• Cecco, L. (2019). ‘Irrelevant: report pours scorn over Google’s ideas for Toronto smart city’, The Guardian, <https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/sep/11/irrelevant-panel-pours-scorn-over-googles-ideas-for-toronto-smart-city>, accessed 1 March 2023.
• Mosco, V. (2019) The Smart City in a Digital World. Emerald Publishing Limited. doi: 10.1108/9781787691353. [chapter 3: City of technology: where the streets are paved with data]