Smart Cities
The City That Watches You Back: What 'Smart' Actually Means
Every time a traffic light adjusts to ease congestion, a question no one asked gets answered: who decided the city should be this intelligent, and on whose behalf?
The Idea
The word 'smart' in smart cities is doing a lot of heavy lifting. At its most neutral, it describes urban infrastructure wired with sensors, data networks, and automated systems — traffic flows that self-optimise, energy grids that predict demand, waste trucks that only roll when bins are full. The efficiency gains are real and, in isolation, genuinely appealing. But the concept carries an assumption worth interrogating: that cities are essentially engineering problems, and that more data produces better decisions. What gets lost in that framing is the older, messier truth about what cities actually are. Urbanists from Jane Jacobs onward have argued that a city's vitality comes from unpredictability — the unplanned encounter, the informal economy, the neighbourhood that resists tidy categorisation. The smart city, at its logical extreme, treats those frictions as bugs to be patched. When Alphabet's urban development subsidiary Sidewalk Labs proposed rebuilding a Toronto waterfront district from scratch around sensors and real-time data collection, critics pointed out that it was essentially designing a city around a data-harvesting operation, with civic life as the byproduct. The more searching version of the smart city question isn't 'how do we make infrastructure more efficient?' It's 'who controls the intelligence, who benefits from it, and what happens to the people whose behaviour doesn't fit the model?' Those are political questions dressed in engineering clothes.
In the World
Songdo, South Korea, is the most complete attempt in history to build a smart city from nothing. Construction began in 2003 on reclaimed land near Incheon, designed by the American firm Kohn Pedersen Fox and backed by a collaboration between the South Korean government and Gale International. Every apartment building, office, and public space was connected to a central operating system from day one. Pneumatic tubes carry rubbish underground; sensors monitor air quality in real time; videoconferencing screens are built into walls so residents never need to physically travel for a meeting. By every technical benchmark, Songdo works. The infrastructure performs as designed. The problem is that, for much of its first two decades, not enough people wanted to live there. A city optimised before its residents arrived turned out to feel, to many of those who moved in, oddly inert. The spontaneous life that makes cities magnetic — the late-night street food vendor, the bookshop that shouldn't survive but does, the plaza claimed by teenagers — cannot be designed into a masterplan. Songdo has gradually become more inhabited and more lived-in, but largely as its residents found ways to use it that its designers hadn't anticipated. It is now studied as a cautionary tale as much as a success story: proof that legibility and liveability are not the same thing.
Why It Matters
This isn't a lesson only for urban planners. The tension at the heart of smart city thinking mirrors a tension in how we increasingly manage most complex systems — workplaces, healthcare, education — where the availability of data creates pressure to optimise, and optimising tends to mean flattening the variation that makes systems humane. The Songdo story is useful precisely because it isn't a dystopia. Nobody was oppressed; the bins were emptied; the traffic moved. But something was missing that no sensor could measure. Recognising what that something is — the human need for environments that feel discovered rather than delivered — is a form of critical literacy that applies well beyond city limits. Next time you encounter a system — an app, a workplace, a service — that describes itself as intelligent or optimised, it's worth asking what the designers decided in advance the outputs should look like, and what kinds of human behaviour that left no room for.
A Question to Ponder
If a city were perfectly efficient — no wasted journeys, no idle infrastructure, no unpredictable behaviour — would it still be a place you'd want to live in, and what does your answer tell you about what you actually need from a city?
Get a new one of these every morning.
Start learning with Thinkable