Exploring the relevance of ‘smart city’ approaches to low-income communities in Medellín, Colombia

Abstract

Smart city approaches have tended to be top-down, techno-centric/corporate and expensive approaches which are promoted by large, global companies. Smart city narratives focus on their expected capacity to improve citizens’ quality of life. However, can technology-driven and municipally-led smart city initiatives address the issues faced by poor and vulnerable communities in urban and peri-urban areas? This paper explores key aspects of the implementation of smart city approaches in the Global South taking as a case study the Colombian city of Medellín, which has been recognized internationally for its social innovation and is considered a smart city by the Inter-American Development Bank. The paper draws on a local, national and international literature review; interviews with key local stakeholders involved in smart city initiatives; and an international workshop on smart cities and community data management organized by the authors in Medellín and bringing together three perspectives: academia, government and community. The paper provides a reflection on the concept of smart city, data management and citizen participation in smart city initiatives in Medellín, contrasting each of these with the literature. Our research found gaps between broader conceptualisations and community-oriented intentions in smart city initiatives in Medellín, as well as very low uptake and reported impact of such initiatives. We conclude that a redefinition of smart city approaches that may respond to the needs of the population while improving liveability is still urgently needed, and we set out a series of questions for an international research agenda on low-income community-oriented smart city research.

Exploring the role of smart cities in supporting ageing‐in‐place in Chongqing, China

“…Third, we need to think more deeply about the institutional and governance arrangements needed within cities in order to deliver positive outcomes from the smart city agenda. This requires both top‐down and bottom‐up approaches 15 to create opportunities for older people to influence and shape smart city policy and practice in a way that builds ‘trust’ and values the voice of older citizens. This necessitates joint decision‐making, co‐design and a repositioning of the smart city agenda with and alongside older people to deliver truly liveable cities that support the right of older people to age‐in‐place.…”

“…Research has highlighted that smart city interventions have not, as yet, been deployed in an inclusive way, thereby increasing inequalities and urban fragmentation across the developing world 14 . For example, the city of Medellin in Colombia, South America, has been widely praised for its smart urbanism initiatives, which have included connecting city services online via a digital health‐care system and smart transport initiatives, but which have nonetheless failed to prioritise local resilience and participation 15 …”

“…14 For example, the city of Medellin in Colombia, South America, has been widely praised for its smart urbanism initiatives, which have included connecting city services online via a digital health-care system and smart transport initiatives, but which have nonetheless failed to prioritise local resilience and participation. 15 Across China, the deployment of smart cities has been controversial. Smart cities have been criticised as 'vanity' projects or marketing tools for city rebranding, without any real consideration for delivering 'smart' interventions at all, 16 whilst others have raised concerns about smart cities in China as a tool for mass surveillance to monitor, observe and control.…”

Smart and Novelty Villages as the Quality Place of Virtuality

“…Smith et al [24] emphasizes the smart territories approach in the global South, which is based on the capacity of marginalized communities to build their own smart future through participation and co-creation that includes local knowledge. The main problem is the gap between the identification of needs and desires of local and native populations and the possibilities of implementation in poor places and vulnerable communities.…”

“…As previously stated, a weakness of the smart concept pointed out by various authors [24][25][26] is the gap between the idea and its possibilities of practical expression. In other words, the smart idea would have a porous and open character, but this weakness, pointed out in recent specialized literature, can also be a hidden strength since it allows an interpretation from below, from the inhabitants of rural communities, for its practice and local application both in the context of globalization as well as in the context of desired de-globalization.…”