Selling Smartness: Corporate Narratives and the Smart City as a Sociotechnical Imaginary

Abstract

This article argues for engaging with the smart city as a sociotechnical imaginary. By conducting a close reading of primary source material produced by IBM and Cisco over a decade of work on smart urbanism, we argue that the smart city imaginary is premised in a particular narrative about urban crises and technological salvation. This narrative serves three main purposes: (1) it is an overarching structure used to fit different ideas and initiatives into a coherent view of smart urbanism; (2) it is a vehicle to sell and spread this version of smartness; and (3) it serves to crowd out alternative visions and corresponding arrangements of smart urbanism. Furthermore, we argue that IBM and Cisco construct smart urbanism as both a reactionary and visionary force, plotting a model of the near future, but one that largely reflects and reinforces existing socio-political systems. We conclude by suggesting that breaking IBM's and Cisco's discursive dominance of the smart city imaginary requires us to reimagine what smart urbanism means and create counter-narratives that open up space for alternative values, designs, and models.

Platform urbanism and the Chinese smart city: the co-production and territorialisation of Hangzhou City Brain

“…Alibaba is not simply one of several ‘influences from elsewhere’ (Robinson 2015 , p 831), but a central enabling actor without whom Hangzhou’s City Brain platform would not exist. In part, this confirms findings underlining the predominance of corporate power and visions in smart city development (Hollands 2015 ; Wiig 2015 ; Sadowski and Bendor 2019 ). At the same time, the City Brain case extends this because of the complex power geometries between city authorities and technology corporates (Bunders and Varró 2019 ).…”

Bringing back the national to the study of globally circulating policy ideas: ‘Actually existing smart urbanism’ in Hungary and the Netherlands

“…Datta, 2015;Ho, 2017), the discourse of smart urbanism has lent itself well to scholarly interpretations through the lens of policy mobilities, an increasingly influential strand of literature highlighting how globally circulating urban policy ideas become embedded in concrete regulatory contexts (McCann, 2011;Peck and Theodore, 2010;McCann and Ward, 2010). From this perspective, the 'smart city' is a globally mobile policy concept propagated by global tech giants like IBM (Söderström et al, 2014;Wiig, 2015) and Cisco (Sadowski and Bendor, 2019), and enacted through the place-specific assemblage of actors, ideologies and technologies (Shelton et al, 2015). Studies on the 'actually existing smart city' (Shelton et al, 2015) from a policy mobilities perspective (e.g.…”

The politics of algorithmic governance in the black box city

“…As Kitchin (2011) has argued, a key imperative of these transformations is to render the city programmable so that it can be subject to emerging forms of technoscientific management. Digital technologies, artificial intelligence and automation are touted by public agencies and commercial companies alike as being the pre-eminent tools for solving all manner of known and indeterminate social and ecological crises associated with 'cityness': poverty, crime, congestion, pollution, wastage, and so on (Sadowski and Bendor, 2019;Sassen, 2013). In the context of the unfolding COVID-19 pandemic, we can observe city authorities in countries like Russia turning to facial recognition software solutions as a means to govern people's movements and mobilise swift responses to those violating the lockdown restrictions.…”