“Smart City” today: between technological utopia and urban pragmatism

Introduction: Evolution of the Concept

The concept of the “smart city” (smart city) has undergone significant transformation since its emergence in the 2000s. Initially focused on vertical integration of data and technological infrastructure (“city wrapped in sensors”), today it shifts towards a horizontal, human-oriented model. The modern “smart city” is a complex socio-technical system where digital technologies are not the goal, but a tool for improving the efficiency of urban services, sustainability, quality of life, and inclusiveness. The key challenge is not the implementation of innovations, but their harmonious integration into the social fabric of the city while ensuring digital sovereignty and ethical use of data.

1. Structural Components of the Modern “Smart City”

Digital infrastructure as the “nervous system”.

The Internet of Things (IoT): Sensor networks collecting data on traffic, air quality, waste bin capacity, energy consumption. For example, in Barcelona, the sensor system for park irrigation analyzes data on soil moisture and weather forecasts, saving up to 25% of water.

Unified urban operational platform (Urban Operating System): A center for collecting and analyzing data from various sources. The “City Brain” platform in Hangzhou (China), developed by Alibaba, optimizes traffic light operations in real time based on video stream analysis, reducing traffic jams by 15%.

Digital twins: Virtual, constantly updated copies of physical objects or systems in the city (buildings, districts, transportation networks). Singapore has created one of the most detailed digital models in the world for simulating planning decisions, evacuation, and the spread of infections.

Human-centered services.

Multi-modal mobility (MaaS — Mobility as a Service): Applications integrating various modes of transport (public, car-sharing, taxis, bike rental) into a single billing and routing system (Helsinki, Whim app).

Interactive civic participation: Platforms for participatory budgeting, crowdsourcing ideas, and operational feedback. The “Oma linna” portal in Tallinn (“My City”) allows residents not only to report problems but also to vote for priorities for improvement.

2. Key Trends of the 2020s

From “smart technologies” to “smart governance” (Smart Governance). The focus shifts from sensors to decision-making processes based on data (data-driven policy making). This requires new competencies for municipal employees and transparent algorithms.

Sustainability and climate adaptability. Smart grids for integrating renewable energy, air and water quality monitoring systems, stormwater management. The “Copenhagen Connecting” project aims to achieve carbon neutrality by 2025 through intelligent management of energy consumption and transport.

Inclusiveness and overcoming the digital divide. “Smart city for all” means access to services for the elderly, mobility-impaired citizens, and those without smartphones. In Vienna, the “smart” strategy prioritizes gender equality, affecting the planning of lighting, public transport routes, and public spaces.

Focus on data confidentiality and security. After the wave of criticism of universal surveillance models (for example, in some Chinese cities), the approach of “data sovereignty” is gaining momentum in Europe. Data collected in the city should serve its residents, not be gratuitously extracted by corporations. Barcelona adopted an ethical charter for the use of data and IoT in 2019.

3. Different Development Models: Comparative Analysis

Corporate-technocratic model (China, some projects in the Middle East). Rapid deployment “turnkey” by IT giants (Huawei, Alibaba, Cisco). High efficiency, but risks of creating “closed ecosystems”, vendor lock-in (dependence on the supplier), and total surveillance. The NEOM project in Saudi Arabia is an ambitious example of building a linear “smart” city from scratch.

Ecosystem-evolutionary model (Europe, Singapore). Gradual modernization of existing infrastructure with a strong role for the state, open standards, and a focus on the well-being of citizens. Singapore combines strict centralized planning with active testing of innovations within “regulatory sandboxes”.

Civilian-bottom-up model (individual initiatives in Europe and the United States). Focus on open data (open data), community participation, and solving local problems. Amsterdam is developing a smart city through cooperation with small businesses, startups, and research institutions, not through mega-contracts.

4. Critical Challenges and Contradictions

Digital inequality and social segregation. Areas with high-quality digital infrastructure and services may become enclaves for wealthier residents, exacerbating social disparities.

Vulnerability and cybersecurity. Centralized platforms are a tempting target for hackers. Hacking into the system managing energy grids or transport can paralyze the city.

Technological determinism and the loss of human scale. A focus on data can lead to the neglect of informal, difficult-to-measure aspects of urban life (neighborhood feeling, spontaneity).

The “black box” problem. Decisions made by algorithms (for example, resource allocation) may be unexplainable to citizens, undermining trust and democratic accountability.

Conclusion: “Smart City” as a Process, Not a State

Today, the “smart city” is not an endpoint, but a continuous process of adaptive management based on dialogue between technology, people, and institutions. Its success is measured not by the number of installed sensors, but by improving sustainability, justice, and the ability to collectively solve problems. The most promising models abandon the technocentric approach in favor of a humanistic and ecosystemic one, where technology serves to enhance, not replace, social capital and democratic practices. The future of the “smart city” depends on whether we can turn massive data not into an instrument of control, but into a common resource for co-creation of a more convenient, safe, and vibrant urban environment, where the right to the city is complemented by the right to digital privacy and self-determination.
© elibrary.org.uk

Permanent link to this publication: