|
The smart city, as it's usually conceived, is a city that approaches the software ideal. A smart city needs the infrastructure to collect relevant data, process that data, and generate output that human decision-makers or other computers can use to optimize urban life according to whatever criteria the stakeholders define. The more closely a city can approach that unattainable ideal, which only exists in purely digital space, the more rational, efficient, and (in theory) hospitable that city will become.
One interesting quality of software is that it's subject to total, instant control. Facebook can introduce a new feature or overhaul its interface overnight and force its "population" of nearly 2 billion users to accept a potentially drastic change wholesale. When Amazon's S3 servers crash, countless other internet platforms and services become fully unusable and millions are likewise affected. Most digital environments are also panopticons, in which some unseen cabal with admin privileges can observe your every move, if they want to. As certain cities become smarter, they will obviously grow richer in all of these qualities, for better or for worse (but probably worse).
So, thank god for dumb cities and dumb space. Next time you go outside, look at all the buildings made of concrete or brick or wood that have existed for decades, and consider how little all that concrete cares about the people who built it or the people who use it now, how unresponsive it is to immediate signals, and how durable it is. Even the smartest city is still 95% dumb, and thus beyond our immediate control. The events of the past few months have dampened a previously unrestrained enthusiasm for life in benevolent control societies, and as the internet keeps inventing new weird ways to own us, being dumb is how cities protect us from ourselves.
Reads:
Until next time,
Drew
|
