Critique on the Smart London Plan

Critique on the Smart London Plan

1

Critique on the Smart London Plan -

Does it address the criticisms of the original smart cities?

Smart cities made their first appearances a number of years ago and the term was used to

refer to a small group of projects such as Songdo in Korea, Masdar City in the United Arab

Emirates, and PlanIT Valley in Portugal (Greenfied, 2013). These projects were typically guided

by strong corporate visions and were about building completely new cities. As these first smart

city projects are completed and existing cities started to work towards building smart cities, the

original corporate visions were found to have a number of limitations and lacking in aspects

important to actual cities and the people living in them. Townsend (2013) and Greenfield (2013),

for example, contend that corporate visions were repeating the mistakes of previous concepts

such as the Garden City and Le Corbusiers masterplan. Various criticisms have generated

insights for issues that future smart cities should take into account when generating their visions.

Today, as more cities adopt the label of smart cities, many different definitions of smart

cities have been put forward. Most of these definitions involve using digital technology to solve

urban problems (e.g. Hollands 2008; Batty et al, 2012), and is often accompanied by notions of

building better infrastructure, a more sustainable city, and more efficient use of resources in

different degrees. Just within the last two years, the Greater London Authority launched its Smart

London Plan, India announced plans to create 100 smart cities (Tolan, 2014) and Singapores

prime minister stated their intention to make Singapore a Smart Nation (Lee, 2014). This paper

seeks to discuss Londons Smart London Plan in the context of criticisms against the original

smart city projects, and evaluate whether London has addressed previous criticisms of smart

cities. The Smart London Plan will be compared and contrasted with other recent smart city


2

plans to better understand where it stands amongst its peers. While Batty (2013) has pointed out

that such smart city plans should be seen in the context of the rest of the citys plans, such as for

infrastructure, planning, or the economy, that is a large undertaking that will not be attempted in

this paper. Instead, the primary reference documents will be the official smart city

plan/vision/strategy documentation that cities have produced and speeches by their leaders, as

well as news articles and books that comment specifically on these smart city plans.

Where I mention the smart cities movement in this paper, I refer to cities that claim to be

smart cities, typically through an official announcement and/or the publication of an official plan

or vision, or have embraced the smart city label. I differentiate the smart cities movement from

organizations that are selling smart city solutions, such as Cisco, Siemens, and IBM. This group

also includes organizations such as the Smart Cities Council, which is a for-profit, Partner-led

association for the advancement of the smart city business sector (Smart Cities Council, 2013),

and whose lead partners include companies such as Qualcomm, Microsoft, and General Electric.

The Smart London Plan

The Smart London Plan was published in December 2013. It seeks to use the creative

power of new technologies to serve London and improve Londoners lives (Greater London

Authority, 2013). Key parts of the vision include addressing the diverse needs of people and

businesses in London, mobilising Londons entrepreneurs, researchers, businesses and citizens to

innovate with digital technology, and using digital technology to solve Londons challenges in

infrastructure and public services. A series of case studies were used to illustrate the vision, and a

number of indicators have been set to measure the success of the Smart London Plan.


3

Based on Giffinger et al (2007)s framework which identified smart economy, smart

people, smart governance, smart mobility, smart environment and smart living as 6

characteristics of smart cities, the vision in the Smart London Plan is more geared towards the

economy, people, governance and living, with little to no emphasis on mobility and environment.

This is underscored by the forewords written in the Smart London Plan by Boris Johnson, the

mayor of London, and David Gann, the Chairman of the Smart London Board. Both highlighted

the importance of engaging Londons talents to build innovative solutions, and see the plan as a

generator of economic growth and investment.

Critics of the original smart cities have argued that smart cities should move away from

the visions espoused by corporations, in three important ways. Essentially, visions of smart cities

should seek to:

a. Decentralize innovation;

b. Be more people-oriented; and

c. Build resilience

Decentralizing innovation

Critics believe that innovation in smart cities have been dominated by business interests

keen to sell their digital technology solutions (Hollands, 2008; Townsend, 2013). These business

interests typically view cities as machines, when cities should really be seen more as an evolving

organism or complex system (Batty et al, 2012). Smart city solutions have often been sold to

administrators and deployed for their own benefit, with citizens being treated as having

homogeneous goals and urban lifestyles (Townsend, 2013). In the extreme, Greenfield (2013)


4

argues that the ensemble of technologies marketed by corporations selling smart city solutions

assume that people cannot be entrusted with the power to manage their own affairs.

Instead of being dominated by business interests or administrators, critics believe the

balance of power in smart cities innovation needs to be shifted to the communities and ordinary

people who live in cities (Hollands, 2008). Townsend (2013) is extremely supportive of this view,

arguing it is easier to engage residents and identify problems at the local scale. At the same time,

it is easier to see the impact of new solutions. Similarly, Greenfield (2013) believes that smart

cities should reflect faith in the intelligence of its citizens, and technology should be used to

harness that intelligence, instead of boxing them in as mindless individuals. Campbell (2015)

believed in a nurturing environment in cities as well, suggesting that governments should create

an open, responsive and collaborative environment for citizens to innovate their own solutions

and help them to scale up the solution when appropriate. All three critics expressed that residents

of cities should engaged in developing solutions for the city.

There is strong evidence that innovation in the Smart London Plan is shifted more

towards its residents. In their forewords, Boris Johnson and David Gann have recognized that

London has many talented residents and have called for Londons researchers and entrepreneurs

to contribute to the Smart London vision. Key parts of the plan include encouraging innovation

in small and medium sized enterprises through investments and creating opportunities for

Londons talents to innovate in digital technology. This is a significant departure from earlier

smart city projects like Songdo, where an entirely new town was built based on the vision

provided by a technology company (Townsend, 2013).


5

Compared to many of its peers in the smart cities movement, Londons plan to engage

residents is more robust and focused. The City of Vienna (2014), for example, lists innovation as

one of three higher order goals in its smart city strategy. However, it sees innovation as an end

goal which is characterized by top-end research, a strong economy and education. There is no

mention of engaging its residents to innovate for the city, no plans to create opportunities for

residents to meet and work with each other to innovate, and no mechanisms for scaling up

potential solutions developed locally.

A more extreme example is India, whose prime minister announced plans to build 100

smart cities in the next few years (Tolan, 2014). Many of these cities would be completely new,

echoing the approach taken by the original smart city projects. Some of these cities, such as

Dholera, are already considered destined to fail, and have sparked protests from the locals (Datta,

2014).

Amsterdam is one of few cities that is strong in decentralizing innovation. Its takes a

bottom-up approach to smart cities and it has actively crowdsourced solutions from its residents

(City Climate Leadership Awards, 2014). The city has an innovation platform called Amsterdam

Smart City, which challenges businesses, residents, the municipality and knowledge institutions

to suggest and apply innovative ideas & solutions for urban issues (Amsterdam Smart City, nd).

In the overall scheme of things, it is clear that London is making a strong push to decentralize

innovation to its residents, it could possibly learn from cities like Amsterdam as well.

Being more people-oriented

Hollands (2008) argued that smart cities have over-emphasized the influence and

importance of technology in shaping the city, and placed technology as the focus of smart cities.


6

Driven by the analogy of cities as machines, smart cities have focused on optimization and

efficiency, which by themselves are not suitable measures of city life (Greenfield, 2013). This is

acutely apparent in the Smart Cities Council (2012)s vision. While the vision talks about

creating cities that are liveable, great to work in and sustainable, the language used to describe it

is overwhelmingly about optimization and efficiency, and about the integration of cities and

technology. There is no mention of residents, citizens or people in its vision.

Critics have identified many issues in cities which may not be measured in terms of

efficiency but are equally or more valuable for cities, such as social justice (Hollands, 2008) and

collective action (Greenfield, 2008). In certain cases, efficiency measures may even destroy

quality of life (Greenfield, 2013). Dan Hill from Future Cities Catapult surmised the criticism

aptly, saying that smart cities have not answered the question How is it tangibly, materially

going to affect the way people live, work, and play? (Poole, 2014)

Critics have suggested that technology should not be the default solution in smart cities

(Townsend, 2013). Instead, technologies should be used where appropriate to improve the lives

of people in the city. These include better solutions for peoples mobility, safety, education,

housing and health (Giffinger et al, 2007). Greenfield (2013) also suggested that the smart city

technologies could be harnessed by citizens for their own use and to raise their own issues,

instead of by corporations to deliver cookie cutter solutions. One way to do this would be to

share more data and algorithms with the public (Townsend, 2013).

Hollands (2008) further points out that smart cities create inequalities between the

unskilled and IT illiterate residents and the knowledge workers in the city. As more services

migrate to and require the use of digital technology, this group may be further disadvantaged in


7

smart cities. Smart cities should offer solutions to reducing this inequality and engage the IT

illiterate and unskilled residents and make the city better for them as well.

The Smart London Plan states unequivocally that the vision puts Londoners at the heart,

that all investments in technology are meant to improve the lives of Londoners (pg. 18). Boris

Johnson states in his foreword that one of the motivating factors for the plan was the challenge of

dealing with increasing strain on public services as Londons population grows. One of the key

measures of the plans success is whether there is an increase in the number of Londoners who

think the use of digital technology has improved London as a city to live in (pg. 12), and the

aims of the plan include better road safety, reduced costs for public services, and increased

access to city data so that Londoners can make use of the information for their own benefits.

On the other hand, much of the benefits of the Smart London Plan seem to widen the

inequality between knowledge workers and those who are unskilled and IT illiterate, with few

mechanisms in place to reduce the inequality. Knowledge workers are more data and technology

savvy, and as such would be better able to make use of the increased access to city data. The

potential savings in areas such as energy and water consumption may require households to

spend on upgrades and be acquainted with new technology, which again privilege the tech-savvy.

While the intention of the Smart London Plan is to benefit all Londoners, it is likely that benefits

will accrue disproportionately to those who are already better off, and no solutions have been

offered to help the unskilled and IT illiterate.

Londons vision seem just as people-oriented as its peers in the smart cities movement.

Most cities recognize the value of making city data more accessible tout the benefits that digital

technology will bring to residents, though some visions tend to be environmental or


8

entrepreneurial. Amsterdams smart city vision, for example, stems from its goal to be a

sustainable city and reduce carbon dioxide emissions in line with targets set in Europe (City

Climate Leadership Awards, 2014). While many of its projects benefit its residents directly as

well, it is clear that Amsterdams focus is on the environment. Most other smart cities, such as

Barcelona and Birmingham have placed an emphasis on delivering benefits to residents and also

recognize that residents wish to pursue vastly different goals and lifestyles, and are equal to

London is this aspect.

In the case of Birmingham, the city has also explicitly recognized that digital inclusion as

an issue (Birmingham City Council, 2012). In addition to improving connectivity for all

residents, Birmingham also seeks to help the disadvantaged residents build digital skills through

a social inclusion process. This attention to digitally-disadvantaged residents is rare in the smart

cities movement today, and London could consider emulating Birminghams plans.

Building resilience

Cities are complex systems where different parts interact dynamically and patterns evolve

over time (Batty et al, 2012). The original smart city visions, however, treated cities more like

problems that could be solved beforehand and machines that were to be optimized for efficiency

(Greenfield, 2013). Many critics believe that treating cities like solvable machines was the wrong

approach for the original smart cities. Both Townsend (2013) and Greenfield (2013) believe that

smart cities need to find ways to manage complexity in cities and adapt to changing

circumstances. Townsend (2013) suggests building resilience in smart cities infrastructure so

that there is minimal damage when the digital technologies used in smart cities eventually fail.

Greenfield (2013) further argues that inefficiency or redundancy is desired, since it allows people


9

to explore different ways to solve the same problem, and find better solutions over time. Smart

cities that are not resilient and unable to manage complexity may fail spectacularly when they

crash.

Londons smart city plan makes no mention of building resilience in smart cities. While it

acknowledges that cities are complex systems, it does not specifically address the importance of

managing complexity and building resilience in the city. Nevertheless, I believe that the

principles and the implementation methods being adopted by London make will make it more

resilient than the first smart cities such as PlanIT Valley and Masdar City. Londons plan relies

on its residents developing different solutions to urban problems and conducting experiments.

This allows solutions to be tested quickly before being adopted and leads to lower chances of

failing, and well, less damage if the solution fails, and having other options available should a

particular solution fail. In contrast, the approach in PlanIT Valley and Masdar City relied on

technology companies to implement a large scale system from the beginning before it could be

tested in actual urban settings, and they were based on optimization and efficiency (Townsend,

2013). This meant that the systems were more likely to crash, to result in more damage, and also

for cities to have no alternatives if the system failed.

Londons case is in line with much of the smart cities movement, especially in already

developed cities. Chicago, for instance, adopts principles in their smart city approach that are

likely to make the city more resilient and able to manage complexity. Chicago engages the citys

residents and stakeholders in creating solutions, and the solutions and open to everyone (Smart

Chicago, nd). As software is one of the main manifestations of their solutions, their approach

allows for rapid testing and modification of their solutions when needed, contributing to the

resilience of the city.


10

Cities often break smart city plans into smaller components and work on integrating

digital technology in these components separately. Barcelona, for example, has 9 smart city areas,

from public and social services to mobility to tourism (Barcelona City Council, nd). These plans

seem to assume that the different components can be worked on in silos without much issues.

However, the complexity of cities means that these different components are likely to interact

with each other and generate patterns that affect the city as a whole (Batty, 2013). Cities should

make use of digital technologies to better study these interactions and patterns, which can help

cities identify points of fragility and how to manage them, thus improving the citys resilience.

Conclusion

In this paper, I have outlined three key criticisms of the original smart cities based on

existing literature and evaluated whether the Smart London Plan has addressed these criticisms.

Londons plan does decentralize innovation much more than the original smart cities and most

other cities in the smart city movement. Londons plan is also more people-oriented than the

original smart cities, though it could do more to include its digitally-disadvantaged residents.

While Londons plan for smart cities suggests that it will be more resilient than the original smart

cities, London and the rest of the smart city movement could benefit from explicitly recognizing

that resilience is an important part of building smart cities, and continue to integrate digital

technology with resilience in mind. Cities and technology have a mutually reinforcing effect,

with improved technology allowing cities to manage increased density and attract the most

innovative minds, which in turn advances technology even further (Glaeser, 2011). As smart

cities integrate digital technology, it would be wise to remember that technology is a means to a

better life for the residents of the city, and continue to place people at the center of their visions

for cities of the future.


11

References

AMSTERDAM SMART CITY. [Online]. Available at: http://amsterdamsmartcity.com/

[Accessed: 6th Mar 2015].

BARCELONA CITY COUNCIL. Smart City Areas. [Online]. Available at:

http://smartcity.bcn.cat/en/smart-city-areas.html [Accessed: 6th Mar 2015].

BATTY, M., AXHAUSEN, K.W., GIANNOTTI, F., POZDNOUKHOV,

A., BAZZANI A., WACHOWICZ, M., OUZOUNIS, G. & PORTUGALI, Y. (2012). Smart

Cities of the Future. The European Physical Journal Special Topics. 214. p. 481-518.

BATTY, M. (2013). The New Science of Cities. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

BATTY, M. (2013). The Smart London Plan. Spatial Complexity. [Online]. Available at:

http://www.spatialcomplexity.info/archives/1940 [Accessed: 5th Mar 2015].

CAMPBELL, K. (2015). Massivesmall.com/pendium. [Online]. Smart Urbanism [London].

Available at: http://www.massivesmall.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/DRAFT-COMPENDIUM-STRUCTURE.pdf [Accessed: 4th Mar 2015].

CITY CLIMATE LEADERSHI AWARDS. Amsterdam: Amsterdam Smart City. [Online].

Available from: http://cityclimateleadershipawards.com/amsterdam-amsterdam-smart-city/

[Accessed: 6th Mar 2015].

CITY OF VIENNA. (2014). Smart City Wien Framework Strategy. [Online]. Available from:

https://smartcity.wien.gv.at/site/files/2014/09/SmartCityWien_FrameworkStrategy_english_onep

age.pdf [Accessed: 5th Mar 2015].

DATTA, A. (2014). Indian smart city craze: big, green and doomed from the start? The

Guardian. [Online]. Available from: http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/apr/17/india-smart-

city-dholera-flood-farmers-investors [Accessed: 5h Mar 2015].

GIFFINGER, R., FERTNER, C., KRAMAR, H., KALASEK, R., PICHLER-MILANOVIC, N.

and MEIJERS, E. (2007). Smart Cities Ranking of European Medium-Sized Cities. Research Report, Vienna University of Technology.

GLAESER, E. (2011). Triumph of the City. London: Pan Macmillan.

GREENFIELD, A. (2013). Against the Smart City. Edition 1.3. New York: Do projects.

HOLLANDS, R.G. (2008). Will the real smart city please stand up? City: Analysis of Urban

Trends, Culture, Theory, Policy, Action. 12(3). p. 303-320.


12

LEE, H.L. (2014). Transcript of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loongs speech at Smart Nation launch on 24 November. Prime Ministers Office. [Online]. Available from: http://www.pmo.gov.sg/mediacentre/transcript-prime-minister-lee-hsien-loongs-speech-smart-

nation-launch-24-november [Accessed: 4th Mar 2015].

POOLE, S. (2014). The truth about smart cities: In the end, they will destroy democracy. The Guardian. [Online]. Available from: http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/dec/17/truth-smart-

city-destroy-democracy-urban-thinkers-buzzphrase [Accessed: 5th Mar 2015].

SMART CHICAGO. Our Principles. [Online] Available from:

http://www.smartchicagocollaborative.org/about-us/our-principles/ [Accessed: 6th Mar 2015].

SMART CITIES COUNCIL (2012). Our Vision. [Online] Available from:

http://smartcitiescouncil.com/article/our-vision [Accessed: 6th Mar 2015].

SMART CITIES COUNCIL (2013). Become a Partner. [Online] Available from:

http://smartcitiescouncil.com/category-membership [Accessed: 6th Mar 2015].

TOLAN, C. (2014). Cities of the future? Indian PM pushes plan for 100 smart cities. CNN International. [Online]. Available from: http://edition.cnn.com/2014/07/18/world/asia/india-

modi-smart-cities/ [Accessed: 4th Mar 2015].

TOWNSEND, A.M. (2013). Smart Cities: Big Data, Civic Hackers, and the Quest for a New

Utopia. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

GREATER LONDON AUTHORITY. (2013). Smart London Plan. [Online]. Available from:

http://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/smart_london_plan.pdf [Accessed: 2nd Mar 2015].

Documents

Critique on the Smart London Plan