« go back

No-one wants top-down, technology-driven cities. They'd be dumb, not smart.

I was on a panel discussion last week during Business in the Community's "Responsible Business Week" in which a co-panelist argued in an impassioned speech that we should avoid overly deterministic "top-down" approaches to developing sustainable cities, and should instead encourage "bottom-up" innovation. His points echoed some of the criticisms leveled at parts of the Smart Cities movement by writers such as Adam Greenfield and Richard Sennett.
That's an argument I hear frequently; but I think it's an argument against a proposition that I simply don't think anyone is advocating.
In all of my contacts across the world, in technology, government and urban design, I don't know anyone who thinks it would be "Smart" for cities to be run by technology; who believes that digital data can provide "perfect knowledge" about city systems; or who thinks that cities built and run entirely by deterministic plans driven from the top down would be healthy, vibrant places to live (or indeed are possible at all).
A smart city should create an environment in which technology, infrastructure, policies and culture encourage and support "bottom-up" and localised innovations that make people, communities and businesses more successful. The challenge is that  creating that environment will require a significant degree of top-down leadership and change. So we shouldn't be arguing about whether top-down or bottom-up approaches are the right way to create better cities: we should be debating how to make both of them work effectively together.
I've written an article exploring those arguments on my blog, I'd appreciate hearing your views on them,
No comments yet. Be the first.