Skyscrapers and Server Racks: Governing the Smart City Under Conditions of Global Postmodernity by Matilda Chaney

SKYSCRAPERS AND SERVER RACKS: GOVERNING THE SMART CITY UNDER CONDITIONS OF GLOBAL POSTMODERNITY UPD5201 History and Theory of Planning and Urban Design Assessment Paper 2 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Critical Debates Essay Matilda Chaney

June 10 2019 Monash University Student ID: 29366607

Abstract Smart city design is driven by government. Because of this, informed transformation in smart city policy design is required to produce more favourable outcomes. Smart city governance must respect the progress of technology and simultaneously ensure that such technology is harnessed for the public good. This paper unpacks these juxtapositions through the examination of the Footscray Smart City for Social Cohesion project (SC2), a critical literature review covering the intersection between postmodernity and global urbanism, and a review of the smart city technologies enacted in Barcelona and Chennai. These international case studies are used to envisage the reality that despite the aspirations made, smart cities must be authentically citizen-focused to achieve positive outcomes. Councils must learn to separate the signal from noise, identifying hype from conceptions that have real potential for transformative change. I argue that we need to both temper our expectations of technology as an urban panacea and that technocratic decisions made using public data should be transparent and ultimately held accountable to the public who informed that very data. Given the immediacy and nuance of this project, this paper concludes by identifying future considerations for smart city policy that Maribyrnong City Council can adapt as directions for how to manage new data mobilities in smart cities to safeguard infrastructure justice.

Introduction Smart cities offer a vision of the future where technology is the primary driver for change. The cyberphysical technologies attributed to smart cities are labelled ‘smart’, in the sense that the instability of human error is removed from the loop. “Technologies work autonomously, based on massive data collection and processing, complex algorithmic calculations, and automated transactions that they are programmed to perform” (Sheller, 2018, p. 106). Such technologies have achieved improvements in areas of safety, navigation, energy consumption optimisation, rubbish disposal, traffic management and air quality. This has led the smart city to be perceived by policymakers as a panacea for urbanisation, crime, inequality and countless other crises of contemporary urban life. Conversely, interspersed between these perceived benefits have emerged new ways to control the private lives of citizens. Shapiro (2018) expresses concern about the impact of the lack of regulatory oversight over pervasive algorithmic software controlled by both private corporations and state apparatus, raising crucial concerns about the protection of citizen rights, labor rights, privacy and justice. Ultimately, no matter how innovative our technology and cities become, the normative and political task of deciding how to use it is inescapable. An absence of leadership at federal and state level in Australia has led to, what Budde coins “death by pilot”, arguing that millions have been wasted on small-scale ‘smart’ projects initiated by people who lack solid strategy, leadership and financial support to scale them up (2017, p. 6). Budde argues that since the mid 2010s, this has seen major change, in part attributed to the Federal Government’s ‘National Smart City Plan’ (2017). The smartest cities in Australia (including Adelaide, Bendigo, Canberra, Newcastle and Ipswich) now have strategic plans in place, high level government funding and a local council committed to the vision. As part of the 2016 election campaign, the Government committed to establishing a $50 million Smart Cities and Suburbs (SCS) Program to support projects “that apply smart technology, data driven decision making and people-focused design to deliver economic, social and environmental benefits in metropolitan and regional urban centres” (Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development, 2018, p. 5). The program will run from 2017-2020 and transform the local government sector, advancing community goals to shift Australia into a global leadership position in innovative technology (ibid, 2018).

This essay asks the question, should we allow the smart city to act as landlord, utility provider, urban developer, unelected government official, and employer? Through examining the ‘Footscray Smart City for Social Cohesion’ proposal, and reviewing critical debates surrounding postmodernity, the global urban age and smart cities, this paper will recommend future considerations for smart city policy to ensure the best result. Consequently, Maribyrnong City Council’s role becomes to ensure that the smart city supports urban planning dimensions, and that planning must simultaneously capitalise and respect the existence of the smart city (Anthopolous and Vakali, 2012). The ‘Footscray Smart City for Social Cohesion’ Project Over the past decade, Footscray has become a popular inner-city destination. In response, in 2017 Footscray was identified as a Metropolitan Activity Centre and an Education Precinct in Plan Melbourne (Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, 2017). Located approximately 5 kilometres from Melbourne’s CBD, Footscray is growing at an annual rate of 4.28%, recording an estimated population of 18,623 in 2018, which is projected to increase to 35,725 by 2026 (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2019). As of the 2016 census, 29.8% of residents were in the ‘young workforce’ age bracket of 25-34, with 14.6% attending University or TAFE (Maribyrnong City Council, 2018). Despite the size of this bracket, Footscray is also experiencing a shift towards an ageing populace, with ‘empty nesters and retirees’ (aged 60-69) emerging as an important group over the 2011-2016 period, with an increase of 195 people (Maribyrnong City Council, 2018). Ongoing and completed developments are scattered throughout the precinct’s core, the influx of higher density apartment towers altering both the streetscape and skyline. Major developments have and will continue to impact how people move around and access services. New retail and hospitality businesses, similar to those visible in the popular suburbs of Brunswick, Fitzroy and Collingwood, have proliferated across the suburb. This combination of population growth, redevelopment, gentrification and a transitioning economy have led to an influx of new residents, visitors, students, and businesses. These challenges and opportunities have placed Maribyrnong City Council in the position of having to immediately decide what they want the future of Footscray to look like.

In February 2019, Footscray was announced as one of 32 recipients of the SCS Program, which supports the delivery of innovative smart city projects that “improve the livability, productivity and sustainability of cities and towns across Australia” (Sawyer, 2018, p. 1). The joint initiative between the Maribyrnong City Council and Victoria University (VU), named the ‘Footscray Smart City for Social Cohesion’ (SC2) project, received a $400,000 grant from the Australian Government (Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development, 2019). This was further amplified by $350,000 donated by Council and $100,000 from VU, totalling $850,000 (ibid, 2019). SC2 aims to focus on city and community planning, and natural environmental data and measurement in an effort to improve quality of life, drive economic growth and improve the environment (ibid, 2019). While there are evident benefits of this proposal, the dangers of this technology and of further embedding new forms of surveillance and control into our cities should not be downplayed. Governments need to mitigate these risks and ensure that these technologies benefit the existing and future residents of Footscray, so this project is able to be used as a successful precedent for reproduction in other Australian cities. SC2 plans to leverage smart technology and open data to deliver community value and increase safety, economic activity, mobility and efficiency (ibid, 2019). The project began in January 2019, with expected completion set for June 30 2020, and involves the rollout of a variety of smart technologies in order to improve city performance and citizen experience (ibid, 2019). The key mechanism to achieve these goals is the creation of a ‘Social Cohesion Platform’ that leverages open data to drive innovation, economic growth and environmental improvements (ibid, 2019). Smart technology elements to be implemented include: smart mobility/traffic sensors and real time information, smart environmental monitoring, smart spaces and places (Wi-Fi touch screens, smart lighting, and leisure based digital interactivity), and a virtual reality platform (ibid, 2019). Key focus points identified in the project proposal involve smart lighting, community engagement, visitor experience and wayfinding, public safety, active lifestyle and increased mobilities, smart parking, environmental monitoring and movement of people (ibid, 2019). In order for SC2 to be achieve its goals, Council must understand the convergence between planning and smart city technologies. Anthopolous and Vakali (2012) divide smart cities into four layers: infrastructure, data, user and service. They stipulate that the key interaction between planning and smart

cities occurs at the ‘user’ level, as “users and stakeholders of the smart city are equally obliged to follow planning rules” (ibid, 2012). Smart city infrastructure and data must also conform to planning rules and encourage dialogue, so as to deliver efficient services to the local community (ibid, 2012). Conversely, urban planning must account the existence of the smart city: surveying the data collected to incorporate useful directions for land use and service provision.

Critical Debates around the Smart City “Infrastructure is culturally produced, actively shaped by and shaping human staging, and therefore always politically in play. It has both ideologically intended consequences (such as exclusion and surveillance) and unintended consequences (including hacking), with significant kinopolitical implications for not only our potential mobilities, but also our potential political mobilisations” Sheller, 2018, p. 110

For the past three decades information and communication technologies have been exercising a rising influence on the management of everyday life. In response, urban theorists have become increasingly interested in how the cities and emerging digital technologies interact (Kitchin, 2014). Cities that have embraced technology as a tool through which they can improve the human experience and drive economic growth have been labelled as ‘wired’, ‘cyber’, ‘digital’, ‘intelligent’, ‘smart’ or ‘sentient’ (Hollands, 2008; and Shepard, 2011). Whilst these terms each denote a particular relationship between information technologies and cities, they have since been largely subsumed within the ticket ‘smart cities’, a term which has gained particular traction within contemporary urban scholarship (Kitchin, 2014). With smart urbanism becoming an increasingly attractive city governance option, urban researchers must more critically engage with how, why, and with what effects smart city iterations are being constructed (Luque-Ayala and Marvin, 2015). Smart urbanism has faced many critiques since its inception: it is incompatible with informal processes that exist within cities, it produces enacted environments, it corporatises the environment, it excludes important social and political questions and that it further embeds existing social and urban inequalities (Krivy, 2018; Greenfield, 2013). In particular, Sheller has argued that “pervasive data-

surveillance and forms of continuous real-time calculation – qualculation – create[s] an artificial world that is said to be increasingly sentient and potentially adaptive” (Sheller, 2018, p. 106). Further supporting this idea of new technologies creating increasingly enclosed social circuits, Sennett and Sassen argue that while cities are open systems, the smart city exists in contradiction as a closed system (Sennett, 2012; Sassen, 2012). Smart city archetypes encourage environments centred around calculation and computation where citizens are variously absent, discounted or further marginalised (Vanolo, 2016). However, as these technologies are gradually integrated into our local streetscapes, we must ask ourselves whether the earlier critiques and dystopian imaginaries, remain appropriate (Cowley et al., 2018; Soderstrom et al., 2014). Contemporary policies seem to have intentionally adopted the aspiration of a citizen-focused smart city, with the ‘Social Cohesion’ aspect of the Footscray proposal a common example (Cowley et al., 2018). Whether this positive aspiration is realistic remains to be seen, and as such, governments must make a concerted effort to understand the systemic injustices that disproportionately affect marginalised and minority populations to ensure that new technologies work to rectify these (Chan, 2019).

The Smart City as the Society of Control Conceptualising the city as an assemblage, the coalescing of individuals as a collective, continues to challenge policymakers. Vanolo (2014, p. 890) argues that smart cities pre-empt the inevitable “move beyond policy-based decisions to reshape cities with insights gained from data”. The danger being, that technology will eventually supplant planning (Krivy, 2018). However, policymakers adopt smart city technologies to benefit communities. In Footscray, where the city will soon be collecting data about its citizens to efficiently manage resources, the policy directive is to improve the overall standard of living in the suburb. However, while policymakers may have admirable intentions, it is the unforeseen consequences of these built forms of control that have the potential to impact the privacy of citizens. Consequently, despite the benefits of these technologies, increasingly automated systems are colonising everyday life through information processing, and are being tangled in broader networks of discipline and control (Greenfield, 2017).

Critiques of smart cities stress the hazard of over-reliance upon ‘objective’ technologies. Lefebvre echoes this in his criticism of planning’s normativity, stating that it has “gradually shrunk to become a sort of catechism for technocrats” (Lefebvre, 1994, p. 17). This is reflective of Deleuze’s Societies of Control, which can be interpreted as a form of regulation that shifts from enclosed structures to embedded systems (Deleuze, 1992). This paper agrees with Krivy (2018), that smart cities are the twenty-first century concrete embodiment of Deleuze’s society of control. The security and privacy challenges that the smart city face include privacy leaks, data sharing and access control, availability of data storage and handling, false data injection, and the scalability of security solutions for data and devices (Mirshra, 2017). Sassen warns that these privacy risks have the ability to cause the “sensored” to become the “censored” and that while we enact the network city, it also inevitably enacts us (Krivy, 2018, p. 10; Sheller, 2018). Her solution to this is to “urbanise technology and put it at the service of users”, calling for “open source urbanism” condemning planning’s trend of top-down governance (Krivy, 2018, p. 10).

Worlding Smart Cities Contemporary urban studies is increasingly data driven. As urban theory and practice has become increasingly quantitative, smart city governance seems a logical outcome. However, as Roy and Ong argue, “claims about city ranking and power, whether by urban analysts and city champions, are political statements that are inseparable from the processes of urban development” (2011, p. 3). It is becoming increasingly difficult to understand the urban juncture in which cities are being matched and referenced to one another on a global scale (McCann et al., 2013). This process is referred to as ‘worlding’, which is understood as “inter-urban referencing practices of city-makers… as well as embodied practices of migration, trade, and worldly aspirations by subaltern subjects” (McCann et al., p. 585). As much as they inspire economic growth and the development of social capital, the infinite number of benchmarks used to rank cities are being used to highlight problematically-framed absences that ignore place specific concerns and aspire to a universal model of urban living (Graham and Healey, 1999). In this competitive environment of cities attempting to out-do one another on standards of liveability, sustainability, progressive social policies or low crime rates, smart cities have just become a new measure. Greenfield (2017, p. 62) condemns these competitions, stating that “these processors enmesh us all in an

urban fabric furiously siphoning up information” that is “a project of technical elite that aspires to universality”. This begs the question, is it conceptually viable to design metrics by which to measure cities against one another, which always have different historical contexts? Further, what is it that makes these metrics universal and what are the new expectations of a ‘successful city’ as a result? Universalising urban experience in cities is reductive. Without appropriate understanding of history and context, standardised metrics for smarter, more liveable or more progressive cities will not provide meaningful policy outcomes. Universalism is an illusion, for, As Rickards argues, “although spatial boundaries such as city-country may be dissolving, those between classes are hardening and it is through such technoutopian framings of meritocracy and universal process that planetary gentrifying processes are now taking shape” (2016, p. 1528).

Planning the Smart City Given the immediacy and nuance of the SC2 project, any recommendations will focus on risk mitigation and outlining principles that should be adhered to. The technology to be implemented in Footscray as outlined in the grant proposal were: the Internet of Things, Wi-Fi, Augmented/Virtual Reality, Network infrastructure, data management (data platform, open data, data privacy, and security blockchains, standards), wireless sensor networks, environmental sensors, IT systems (interoperability), cloud computing and online portal (Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development, 2019). This section will then discuss ‘who’ is the smart city, the re-democratisation of cities, introduce two smart city case studies, and finally, project the way forward in the form of principles that Maribyrnong City Council should adhere to.

Barcelona and Chennai: Lessons from Existing Smart Cities Barcelona has spent the last decade implementing smart technology and continues to rank highly on global lists of smart cities (Moskvitch, 2016). Its technologies include smart parking, pneumatic waste disposal systems, interactive touch screen maps and USB charging points located around the city (ibid, 2016). Successful projects have been the choice to use open software platforms giving access to open data, the bike-sharing scheme and waste management system. Sorrell believes that Barcelona’s

achievement lies in its attempt to address its citizens immediate needs, rather than implementing technology for technology’s sake (ibid, 2016). Unfortunately, however, many of the devices that have contributed to the city’s consistently high ranking, no longer work properly (Sawyer, 2018). The smart streetlights on the Passatge de Mas de Roda implemented in 2011 to improve energy efficiency through the detection of human movement and climatic conditions, are now ineffective and are unable to be removed (ibid, 2018). This has environmental effects as the parts are unable to be recycled and are cost inefficient. The lesson is that smart objects must be designed so that they are able to be disassembled at the end of their valuable life. In June 2015 India’s Ministry of Urban Development launched four flagship smart cities, which included the city of Chennai (Willis, 2018). The rationale for Chennai’s proposal focused on the strain facing it’s infrastructure and that the existing citizen-focused services were inefficient and unreliable (ibid, 2018). Whilst elements of the proposal focused around necessary infrastructure for adequate water provision, electrical supply and solid waste management, the “urban cleansing” strategy proposed involved the exclusion of street vendors, informal taxis and other members of the informal/gig economy from public space (ibid, 2018, p. 12). Street vendors were problematised and moved into a separate building located outside the city centre into the T Nagar district (ibid, 2018). In response, the Indian National Hawkers Federation mobilised its widespread membership to ensure their rights were recognised, under the banner of “we want bread and butter not smart city” (ibid, 2018, p. 13). The Chennai example epitomises the danger of the smart city in bolstering the spatial and economic exclusion of marginalised groups from the city and the importance of recognising the existing informal processes of urban living.

Projecting the Way Forward Smart city design is driven by government. Because of this, transformation in smart city policy design is required to produce more favourable outcomes. Smart city policy must respect the progress of technology but also simultaneously ensure that technology is harnessed for the public good. The table below identifies future considerations for smart city policy that can be adapted as directions for how to manage new data mobilities in smart cities to ensure what Sheller terms “infrastructure justice” (2018, p.

110). The recommendations are tailored for Maribyrnong City Council to engage with the Footscray Smart City for Social Cohesion proposal examined in the first part of this paper.

Future considerations for smart city policy 1.

Maribyrnong Council should fund necessary community infrastructure including transport, communication and information sharing. This should all be made accessible to the community.

Maribyrnong Council should generate clear privacy regulations in the form of legal protection for data privacy that restricts businesses from seizing, taking, or using any unauthorised private data.

Maribyrnong Council should facilitate the participation of diverse and marginalised social groups (including children, retirees, homeless people and disabled people) as they possess specific knowledge and experiences of their city than what is commonly expressed or predicted by centralised knowledge of governments or experts.

Maribyrnong Council should adopt open data policies to improve transparency and accountability (Maalsen et al., 2018). Publicly funded research should require open source publication.

Maribyrnong Council should facilitate a bidirectional relationship between smart technology and urban planning. Smart city infrastructure and data must conform to planning rules but planning must equally acknowledge the smart city.

Maribyrnong Council’s approach should be citizen-centric, identifying the specific problems they are seeking to address and have an understanding of the changing local demographics (Maalsen et al., 2018).

Maribyrnong Council should follow a localised project-centred approach where technology serves the immediate needs of citizens and reject “data-driven models that delegate critical, often ethical decisions to the machine” (Mattern, 2018, p. 12; Datta and Odendaal, 2019).

Maribyrnong Council should ensure new technologies should receive robust functional testing to ensure that they are deployed with secure safeguards in place (Rujan and Simpkinson, 2018). Choosing technology that is easily replaceable, cost-efficient and long-lasting to avoid the difficulties that come with replacement.

Maribyrnong Council should prioritise authentically “democratic and egalitarian participation practices within smart city efforts” (Shelton and Lodato, 2019, p. 39).

10. Maribyrnong Council should recognise and protect informal processes that occur within cities. Table 1: Policy Considerations (Source: Author)

Conclusion Conditions of postmodern urbanism, including decentred sprawl, urban splintering, gated communities, and the shrinking of public space, have become increasingly prevalent in contemporary cityscapes (Dear, 2002). Considering this current paradigm, it is no wonder that smart cities and the notion of “the city as a computer” appeal to both governments and citizens, because it is able to frame the “messiness of reality and urban life as programmable and subject to rational order” (Mattern, 2017, para. 14). This paper has unpacked why we should not allow the smart city to act as landlord, utility provider, urban developer, unelected government official, and employer. Through examination of the Footscray Smart City for Social Cohesion project, a critical literature review covering the intersection between postmodernity and global urbanism, and a review of the smart cities enacted in Barcelona and Chennai, this paper has argued that we need to both temper our expectations of technology as an urban panacea and that technocratic decisions made using public data should be transparent and ultimately held accountable to the public who informed that very data. Governments at all levels must learn to separate the signal from noise, identifying hype from conceptions that have real potential for transformative change. A benefit of the algorithmic systems attributed to smart cities are that they are anticipatory rather than reactive, however, this requires continuous re-framing of what this technology means, why, and how we choose to use it. The difficulty of the top-down approach already applied in this case study, is that the onus shifts onto Council and VU to facilitate authentic citizen participation. The risks and rewards of the reconfiguration of Footscray is high, however, if Council adopts the principles put forward for consideration in part three of this essay, then they have every chance of achieving the goals of improving human experience, driving economic growth and improving the environment.

Reference List

Anthopoulos, L. G., & Vakali, A. (2012). Urban planning and smart cities: Interrelations and reciprocities. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 7281, 178-189. Arvidson, E., & Wolff, Richard D. (1996). An Economic Critique of Urban Planning and the 'postmodern' City: Los Angeles, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Barker, P. (1999). Thinking the Unthinkable (on 1969â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Non-Plan: an experiment in freedom). In S. Sadler & J. Hughes (Eds.), Non-plan: essays on freedom participation and change in modern architecture and urbanism (pp. 2-11). Boston: Architectural Press.

Brdulak, A. (2017). The Concept of a Smart City in the Context of an Ageing Population. Transport Economics and Logistics, 68, 65-75. doi: 10.5604/01.3001.0010.5323.

Brenner, N. (2017). Critique of urbanization : Selected essays. Berlin, Germany: Bauwelt Fundamente.

Brenner, N. (2018). Debating planetary urbanization: For an engaged pluralism. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 36(3), 570-590. Doi: 10.1177/0263775818757510.

Brenner, N., & Theodore, N. (2005). Neoliberalism and the urban condition. City, 9(1), 101-107. doi: 10.1080/13604810500092106. Burdett, R., & Rode, P. (Eds). (2018). Shaping cities in an urban age. London, United Kingdom: LSE Cities.

Chan, J. (2019). Beware of these Unintended Harms of Smart Cities. Retrieved from: https://futureofgood.co/making-social-sense-of-smart-cities-part-3/. Chaney, M. (2019). Postmodernity in the Global Urban Age (Unpublished Masterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s paper). Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Cherot, N., & Murray, M. (2002). Postmodern urbanism: Reality or fantasy? Urban Affairs Review, 37(3), 432-438.

Cook, N. (2018). More‐than‐human planning: The agency of buildings and bodies in the post‐political city. Geographical Research, 56(4), 368-381. doi: 10.1111/1745-5871.12309.

Cowley, R., Joss, S., & Dayot, Y. (2018). The smart city and its publics: Insights from across six UK cities. Urban Research & Practice, 11(1), 53-77. doi: 10.1080/17535069.2017.1293150.

Datta, A. & Odendaal, N. (2019). Smart cities and the banality of power. Society and Space, 37 (3), 387-392. doi: 10.1177/0263775819841765.

Dear, M. (2000). The postmodern urban condition. Malden, Mass: Blackwell. Deleuze, G. (1992). Postscript on the Societies of Control. The MIT Press, 59 (Winter), 3-7. Retrieved from https://www-jstororg.ezproxy.lib.monash.edu.au/stable/778828?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents.

Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning. (2017). Plan Melbourne 2017-2050. Melbourne, VIC: State Government of Victoria.

Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development. (2019). Footscray Smart City for Social Cohesion. Retrieved from: https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/cities/smartcities/collaboration-platform/footscray-smart-city-for-social-cohesion.aspx.

Easterling, K. (2014). Extrastatecraft : The power of infrastructure space. Brooklyn, New York: Verso.

Freestone, R. (1993). Heritage, urban planning, and the postmodern city. Australian Geographer, 24(1), 17-24. doi: 10.1080/00049189308703074.

Gleeson, & Low. (2000). Revaluing planning: Rolling back neo-liberalism in Australia. Progress in Planning, 53(2), 83-164. doi: 10.1016/S0305-9006(99)00022-7.

Graham, S., & Healey, P. (1999). Relational concepts of space and place: Issues for planning theory and practice. European Planning Studies, 7(5), 623-646. doi: 10.1080/09654319908720542.

Graham, S., & Marvin, Simon. (2001). Splintering Urbanism : Networked infrastructures, technological mobilities and the urban condition. London: Routledge.

Greenfield, A. (2013). Against the Smart City (The City is Here for You to Use). New York: Do Projects.

Greenfield, A. (2017). Radical technologies : The design of everyday life. Brooklyn, New York: Verso. Hall, P. (2002). The City of Theory. In Hall, P (Ed.), Cities of tomorrow : an intellectual history of urban planning and design in the twentieth century (pp. 386-413). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

Hamel, P. (1993). City, modernity and postmodernity: The crisis of urban planning. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 2(1), 16-29. doi: 130.194.20.173.

Hatuka, T., & D'Hooghe, A. (2007). After postmodernism: Readdressing the role of utopia in urban design and planning. Places-A Forum Of Environmental Design, 19(2), 20-27.

Hedgcock, H., Hillier, J., & Wood, D. (1991). Planning, Postmodernism and Community Power. Urban Policy and Research, 9(4), 200-226. doi: 10.1080/08111149108551472.

Hollands, R. G. (2008). Will the real smart city please stand up? City, 12(3), 303-320.

Irving, Allan. (1993). The Modern/Postmodern Divide and Urban Planning. University of Toronto Quarterly: A Canadian Journal of the Humanities, 62(4), 474-87. Doi: 10.3138/utq.62.4.474.

Jilani, S. (2018). Shaping Cities in an Urban Age. Aesthetica, (85), 145. Kitchin, Rob. (2014). The real-time city? Big data and smart urbanism.(Report). GeoJournal,79(1), 114.

KrivĂ˝, M. (2018). Towards a critique of cybernetic urbanism: The smart city and the society of control. Planning Theory, 17(1), 8-30. doi: 10.1177/1473095216645631.

Lefebvre, H. (1996). Writings on Cities. Cambridge, Mass: Blackwell Publishing.

Lefebvre, H. (2014). Dissolving City, Planetary Metamorphosis. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 32(2), 203-205. doi: 10.1068/d3202tra.

Leidenberger, G., Deckker, Thomas, Fishman, Robert, Freestone, Robert, & Kolson, Kenneth. (2006). The search for a usable past : Modernist urban planning in a postmodern age. Journal of Urban History, 32(3), 451-465.

Loepfe, M., & Eisinger, A. (2017). Assemblages for Urban Transformation: Qualities and Modes of Planning Under Conditions of Urban Transformation. DISP, 53(1), 20-31. doi: 10.1080/02513625.2017.1316526.

Luque-Ayala, A., & Marvin, S. (2015). Developing a critical understanding of smart urbanism? Urban Studies, 52(12), 2105-2116. Doi: 10.1177/0042098015577319.

Maalsen, S., Burgoyne, S., & Tomitsch, M. (2018). Smart-innovative cities and the innovation economy: A qualitative analysis of local approaches to delivering smart urbanism in Australia. Journal of Design, Business & Society, 4(1), 63-82. Doi: 10.1386/dbs.4.1.63_1. Maribyrnong City Council. (2018). Footscray Community Profile. Retrieved from: https://profile.id.com.au/maribyrnong/about?WebID=110.

Mattern, S. (2017). A City is Not a Computer. Retrieved from: https://placesjournal.org/article/a-city-isnot-a-computer/?gclid=CjwKCAjw8-LnBRAyEiwA6eUMGmC1ivdBInMOoz1Nh1BAsP0eKOaqbpY6K_PIylSCXCpRcW53wfU9RoC3eYQAvD_BwE&cn-reloaded=1.

McCann, E., Roy, A., & Ward, K. (2013). Urban Pulse–Assembling/Worlding Cities. Urban Geography, 34(5), 1-9. doi: 10.1080/02723638.2013.793905.

Mishra, V. (2017). An Approach to Recovery of Critical Data of Smart Cities Using Blockchain (Master’s thesis). Arizona State University, Arizona, United States. Moskovitch, K. (2016). Barcelona: The World’s Smartest City? Engineering & Technology, 11(5) 4851. Paul Budde Communication Pty Ltd. (2017). Australia – Smart Cities report. Retrieved from: https://www.reportlinker.com/p03963948/Australia-Smart-Cities.html%3C/a%3E. Rickards, L., Gleeson, B., Boyle, M., & O’Callaghan, C. (2016). Urban studies after the age of the city. Urban Studies, 53(8), 1523-1541. doi: 10.1177/0042098016640640.

Rossi, U. (2017). Cities in Global Capitalism. Malden, MA: Polity Press.

Roy, A., & Ong, A. (2011). Worlding cities : Asian experiments and the art of being global (Studies in urban and social change). Chichester, West Sussex ; Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Rujan, A., & Simpkinson, N. (2018). Risk versus reward: Six considerations for smart cities. Retrieved from: https://www.plantemoran.com/explore-our-thinking/insight/2018/08/risk-versus-reward-sixconsiderations-for-smart-cities.

Sassen, S. (2012). Urbanizing Technology. LSECities. Retrieved from: http://lsecities.net/media/objects/articles/urbanising-technology/en-gb/. Sawyer, M. (2018). Technology is making cities ‘smart’, but it’s also costing the environment. Retrieved from: https://theconversation.com/technology-is-making-cities-smart-but-its-also-costing-theenvironment-99296.

Sennett, R. (2012). The Stupefying Smart City. LSECities. Retrieved from: http://lsecities.net/media/objects/articles/the-stupefying-smart-city/en-gb/.

Shapiro, A. (2018). Design, Control, Predict: Cultural Politics in the Actually Existing Smart City (Doctoral dissertation). University of Pennsylvania, Annenberg School of Communication.

Shaw, K. (2015). Planetary urbanisation: What does it matter for politics or practice? Planning Theory & Practice, 16(4), 1-6. doi: 10.1080/14649357.2015.1082229.

Sheller, M. (2018). The Politics of Movement in an Age of Extremes. London, United Kingdom: Verso.

Shelton, T., & Lodato, T. (2019). Actually existing smart citizens. City, 23(1), 35-52. doi: 10.1080/13604813.2019.1575115.

Shepard, M. (2011). Sentient city: Ubiquitous computing, architecture and the future of urban space. Cambridge, United Kingdom: MIT Press. Smith, N. (2002). New Globalism, New Urbanism: Gentrification as Global Urban Strategy. Antipode, 34(3), 427-450. doi: 10.1111/1467-8330.00249.

Söderström, O., Paasche, T., & Klauser, F. (2014). Smart cities as corporate storytelling. City,18(3), 307-320. Doi: 10.1080/13604813.2014.906716.

Vanolo, A. (2014). Smartmentality: The Smart City as Disciplinary Strategy. Urban Studies, 51 (5): 883–898. Vanolo, A. (2016). Is There Anybody Out There? the Place and Role of Citizens in Tomorrow’s Smart Cities. Futures, 82 (Sep.): 26–36. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2016.05.010. Vo. H. (2016). Revisiting the ‘Urban Age’ Declaration. Brief for GSDR – 2016 Update. Willis, K (2018). Whose Right to the Smart City? in Kitchen, R., Cardullo, P, di Feliciantonio, C (Eds). The Right to the Smart City. Plymouth, United Kingdom: Emerald Publishing

te fa

ee tw

pa s. cit bl ie e

m a s rt c l o r it i t e n o

cit i

ines

ive

ng i id

to w ho

an d

si nd d po n eco es th

of cul a d society e r o f c c

m or

tio tur l, t n r y a political t of ,p ffi c a e a m s rt k an i

ess. sur veillance st ng proc ate r a nn i e l i an n pl t on rba y consumption optimis pr le u a energ t o i o f ab n, r es â&#x20AC;&#x201C; li n ck ubb om g. ha utc is a h y. c eo d ce i cit t iv s le po ra sa

ecade of the 21st c

UPD5201 Critical Debates | Matilda Chaney

e rs

el w

Image Sources: Reed, C. (Producer/Director). (1949). The Third Man [screengrabs]. London, United Kingdom: London Films.

ncept has challenge dp is co

after Deleuze, G. (1992). Postscript on the Societies of Control. The MIT Press, 59 (Winter), 3-7. Retrieved from https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy.lib. monash.edu.au/stable/778828?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents. & Rossi, U. (2017). Cities in Global Capitalism. Malden, MA: Polity Press.

. th

oli nd cities becom cy-ma ya e k

,t e h rs odim e e n n t o

s ve cti le

b em

ga re

l co

orary notions of s temp n o ma c o rt u s e it i s dt

g lo no

eutrality. frame and on of n re-fr illusi ame e s l . th a f t l h o e r t . p n r o i c v at e l i v n o ese t s o y i a t e w s a be o e f cit lis ne er g a i z m n i en ft e g s sh y . t ar wh av ali m u e n e q r e a r al i b c a it i lb ur d e n ec s g a co om in t t n l s l i e ec x m t e d ag

rt e c h o t n e cr e e r a t s

ssemblages, of ind as a ivid d ua oo t s in n ovat ls w r o e h bu i d r v n e e t u t ou t als e a r o a

ol? human futures are f contr no t ks o disc wor u s s net here technology is the ed pr i m tu r e w wi ing e fu ar y t ho nd f th pa d u r no tr ive ex ef rf isio er o e av r ev c tio ch er se an n of he g u s e p tt ie .i on n cit ou t t t er ab ar sp e

iscipline and enclosure. to s of d wha ingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; t ex k r o ou r c s e e ten r s , e w h g o t a w do t sh m an ne w y l r t e n e ou i ma e i d c a ld ffi g e i o ne be to br b s u o n w t i e l tf z e in i t or co d ci m e r nc i h s e s er h of e t ne t m c on d ou en b tr e a ol a ? t a

Should we allow the Smart City to act as landlord, utility provider, urban developer, (unelected) government official, and employer? How do we separate the signal from noise, identify what is hype and what has the genuine potential for transformative change? When must we concede that we can’t blockchain our way out of systemic social prejudices? after Krivý, M. (2018). Towards a critique of cybernetic urbanism: The smart city and the society of control. Planning Theory, 17(1), 8-30. doi: 10.1177/1473095216645631. & Luque-Ayala, A., & Marvin, S. (2015). Developing a critical understanding of smart urbanism? Urban Studies, 52(12), 2105-2116. doi: 10.1177/0042098015577319. image sources APG. (2017). Anglicare Vertical Village [render]. Retrieved from http://www.apg.com.au/projects-item/anglicare-vertical-village-merrylands/. Carlebach, E. (2017). UN Vote [photograph]. Retrieved from https://urlzs.com/Czyd. Chaney, M. (2018). Footscray Market [photograph]. Author’s own. Chaney, M. (2018). Saigon Arch [photograph]. Author’s own. Haridy, R. (2017). Skyscraper Evolo. Retrieved from https://newatlas.com/best-2017-concept-architecture-buildings/52617/. Home Interior Design (2019). Riverpark Apartment [render]. Retrieved from https://www.freeinteriorimages.com/riverpark-apartment.html. iStockphoto LP. (2019). iPhone [vector image]. Retrieved from: https://bit.ly/2Jp0mzk. Stick PNG. (2019). iPhone 7 Template Transparent [vector image]. Retrieved from: http://www.stickpng.com/img/electronics/iphones/iphone-7-template.

UPD5201 Critical Debates | Matilda Chaney

Image Sources Belks. (2018). iPhone Mobile [vector image]. Retrieved from: https://www.kisspng.com/png-iphone-mobile-app-development-telephone-mobile-698100/. Carlebach, E. (2017). UN Vote [photograph]. Retrieved from https://urlzs.com/Czyd. Chaney, M. (2018). Footscray Street [photograph]. Authorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s own. Clipart Library. (2016). Tree PNG Transparent Images [png image]. Retrieved from: http://clipart-library.com/clipart/tree-free-png-image.htm. Connection IT. (2019). Axis Communications [png image]. Retrieved from: https://www.connection.com/product/axis-t92e20-outdoor-housing-with-heaterfan/0433-001/12924067. Free PNG. (2016). Headphones Png Image [vector image]. Retrieved from: https://freepngimg.com/png/13349-headphones-png-image. iStockphoto LP. (2019). iPhone [vector image]. Retrieved from: https://bit.ly/2Jp0mzk. Media Katalogas. (2019). Autorius [vector image]. Retrieved from: https://www.mediakatalogas.lt/nuotrauka/874764/klevas-medis-dazytas-medis-zalias-gamta-paveikslutapyba-augalas-meniskai-dizainas. NonScandinavia. (2019). Various Human Cutouts [vector images]. Retrieved from: http://www.nonscandinavia.com/. PNG IMG. (2019). Tree [png image]. Retrieved from: http://pngimg.com/imgs/nature/tree/. PNG Mart. (2016). Headphones Transparent [vector image]. Retrieved from: http://www.pngmart.com/image/8077. Stick PNG. (2019). iPhone 7 Template Transparent [vector image]. Retrieved from: http://www.stickpng.com/img/electronics/iphones/iphone-7-template. Van Gogh, V. (1890) Wheatfield Under Thunderclouds [painting]. Retrieved from: https://it.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vincent_van_Gogh_-_Wheatfield_Under_ Thunderclouds_-_VGM_F778.jpg.

Image Task F: What is Revised? UPD5201 Critical Debates Matilda Chaney