Smart cities will kill freedom Planning is the enemy of play – UnHerd

Report on Urban Development: Balancing Technocratic Control with Human-Centric Principles for Sustainable Cities

This report analyzes the conflict between top-down, technologically-driven urban planning and the organic, spontaneous nature of human life in cities. It examines this tension through the lens of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), with a particular focus on SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions), and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

1. Public Spaces, Social Inclusion, and Sustainable Communities (SDG 11 & SDG 10)

The management and design of public spaces are critical to achieving SDG 11, particularly Target 11.7, which calls for universal access to safe, inclusive, and accessible green and public spaces. A prevailing trend towards excessive regulation and control threatens the vitality and inclusivity of these areas.

• Conflict Between Order and Spontaneity: Encounters between individuals engaging in non-prescribed activities (e.g., skateboarding, artistic expression) and figures of authority illustrate a fundamental tension. This dynamic often prioritizes a narrow conception of order over the “unruly felicities, creative improvisations, leisurely inefficiencies and insouciant eccentricities” that constitute vibrant urban life.
• Exclusionary Design: Urban design can preemptively restrict human activity, thereby undermining social inclusion and contradicting the principles of SDG 10. Examples include:
  1. The use of pins and ropes in parks like New York’s High Line, which discourages play and exploration.
  2. Architectural features in plazas designed to prevent activities like skateboarding.
• Appropriation of Space: The “misuse” of urban landscapes, such as skateboarding on architectural features, can be interpreted as a form of civic expression and appropriation. This act of “taking liberties” is essential for fostering a sense of community ownership and belonging, which are core components of a sustainable community under SDG 11.

2. The “Smart City” Paradigm and its Implications for Sustainable Urbanization (SDG 9 & SDG 11)

The push towards “smart cities,” where urban services are optimized through an interconnected “urban operating system,” presents both opportunities and significant challenges to sustainable development. This approach aligns with SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure) but must be critically evaluated against the human-centric goals of SDG 11.

• Technocratic Vision: The smart city concept aims to achieve frictionless efficiency by managing infrastructure, traffic, waste collection, and other services through data science. However, this model often views unpredictable human behavior as a systemic flaw to be managed or eliminated.
• Historical Precedents: High-modernist, master-planned urban projects of the 20th century serve as cautionary tales.
  • Cities like Brasilia and Chandigarh, designed by Le Corbusier, failed to foster organic urban life and were often repurposed by inhabitants in defiance of the master plan.
  • These projects highlight the risks of top-down planning that disregards existing social fabrics and traditions, a critical lesson for achieving the inclusive urbanization goals of SDG 11.3.
• Innovation vs. Humanism: The tech-centric “first principles” approach, which dismisses historical context and traditional expertise, risks creating sterile environments. Sustainable innovation under SDG 9 must be integrated with an understanding of complex human needs rather than pursuing optimization as an end in itself.

3. Governance, Sovereignty, and Institutional Integrity in the Digital Age (SDG 16 & SDG 17)

The implementation of smart city technologies raises profound questions about governance, accountability, and public sovereignty, directly impacting the targets of SDG 16, which focuses on effective, accountable, and transparent institutions.

1. Subcontracting Governance: The trend of municipal governments outsourcing core functions to private technology firms can erode democratic accountability. While potentially improving efficiency, this shift risks creating a scenario where public power is diminished and corporate interests dictate urban life, undermining SDG 16.6.
2. Data Ownership and Sovereignty: The case of Google’s Sidewalk Labs project in Toronto exemplifies the challenges associated with public-private partnerships (SDG 17). Key issues included:
   • Data Control: The project’s reliance on proprietary, non-transparent data collection and analysis raised concerns over who owns and benefits from citizen data.
   • Erosion of Sovereignty: Local opposition centered on the transfer of control over public life and urban data to a private, unaccountable entity.
3. Algorithmic Governance: When rules of conduct are embedded within opaque urban operating systems, the potential for public contestation is removed. This shift from human-mediated enforcement to algorithmic control makes governance less legible and less responsive to citizens, contradicting the call for participatory decision-making in SDG 16.7. This represents a modern, more powerful version of the state’s historical quest to make its populace “legible” for control, as described by James C. Scott.

Analysis of the Article in Relation to Sustainable Development Goals

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

   The article primarily addresses issues related to two Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs):

   • SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities. This goal is central to the article’s discussion on urban living, the planning and design of cities, the nature of public spaces, and the development of infrastructure. The text critiques “smart city” concepts, high-modernist urban planning (e.g., Le Corbusier’s Brasilia), and the design of public parks like the High Line, all of which fall under the purview of creating sustainable and inclusive urban environments.
   • SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions. This goal is connected through the article’s exploration of governance, rule of law, individual freedoms, and institutional accountability. The conflict between “Wheelie Guy” and “Clipboard Man” symbolizes the tension between individual liberty and institutional order. Furthermore, the discussion on “smart cities” raises critical questions about sovereignty, data ownership, and the role of democratic governments versus private tech corporations (like Google’s Sidewalk Labs) in managing municipal services, which relates directly to the development of effective, accountable, and transparent institutions.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

   Based on the article’s content, the following specific targets can be identified:

   • Target 11.3: By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management in all countries. The article critiques top-down, non-participatory planning approaches, such as those of Le Corbusier, which resulted in “ghost towns,” and the “smart city” vision that risks ignoring the “stubborn realities of human behaviour.” The cancellation of Google’s Sidewalk Labs project in Toronto due to “local opposition” directly highlights the importance of participatory planning and management.
   • Target 11.7: By 2030, provide universal access to safe, inclusive and accessible, green and public spaces. The article extensively discusses the nature and use of public spaces. It critiques the design of New York’s High Line, where “metal pins and ropes… seem to say: Do not wander, do not play,” arguing that such designs discourage the “unruly felicities” that are the “heart of urban life.” It champions the “misuse” of plazas by skateboarders as an act that reveals the latent potential of these spaces and celebrates the “rights of assembly and expression.”
   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels. The article raises concerns about the accountability and transparency of “smart city” governance. It questions the wisdom of democratic governments “subcontracting the day to day functions of running a city” to private tech firms. The discussion of Google’s Sidewalk Labs project highlights the issue of an “opaque, proprietary ‘urban operating system'” where data is hoarded, undermining institutional transparency.
   • Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels. The core theme of the article is a critique of non-participatory, rationalist visions being imposed on urban populations. The author contrasts the “technocratic visionary” with the organic, bottom-up life of the city represented by skateboarders and “Wheelie Guy.” The failure of grand projects and the local resistance to the Toronto smart city plan underscore the need for decision-making processes that are responsive to and inclusive of the people who inhabit these spaces.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

   The article, being more philosophical than statistical, implies qualitative indicators rather than citing official quantitative ones. These implied indicators can be used to measure progress:

   • For Target 11.3 (Participatory Planning): An implied indicator is the degree of community participation and the power of local opposition in urban planning. The article presents the cancellation of the Sidewalk Labs project in Toronto “due to local opposition” as a successful assertion of community will over a top-down corporate vision. Progress could be measured by the extent to which citizen feedback and opposition can genuinely alter or halt large-scale urban projects.
   • For Target 11.7 (Inclusive Public Spaces): An implied indicator is the degree of freedom and unplanned use permitted by the design of public spaces. The article contrasts the restrictive design of the High Line with the creative appropriation of plazas by skateboarders. A measure of progress would be the prevalence of “unruly felicities, creative improvisations, leisurely inefficiencies and insouciant eccentricities” in public spaces, indicating a design philosophy that is deliberately “under-determining of the uses that might be found for them.”
   • For Target 16.6 (Accountable Institutions): An implied indicator is the ownership and transparency of urban data. The article points to the conflict over “data ownership” as the key reason for the Toronto project’s cancellation. Progress towards this target could be measured by how much municipal data is publicly owned and governed by transparent policies, versus being controlled as a proprietary asset by private corporations, which the article notes is “key to the whole concept” of their business model.
   • For Target 16.7 (Participatory Decision-Making): An implied indicator is the extent to which municipal governance and services are managed by publicly accountable bodies versus private entities. The article quotes Jacob Siegel’s concern about the “loss of power over the institutions we have to live inside” when governments subcontract their functions. A measure of progress would be a decrease in the outsourcing of core sovereign functions to opaque, private systems and an increase in direct, democratic control over them.

4. Create a table with three columns titled ‘SDGs, Targets and Indicators” to present the findings from analyzing the article. In this table, list the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), their corresponding targets, and the specific indicators identified in the article.

   SDGs	Targets	Indicators (Implied from the article)
   SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities	11.3: Enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management.	The ability of local communities to influence or halt top-down urban development projects (e.g., the cancellation of the Sidewalk Labs project due to “local opposition”).
   SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities	11.7: Provide universal access to safe, inclusive and accessible, green and public spaces.	The degree to which public space design allows for unplanned, creative, and spontaneous human activities (“unruly felicities”), rather than being overly restrictive (e.g., the “prim arrangement of metal pins and ropes” on the High Line).
   SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions	16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.	The level of public ownership and transparent governance of municipal data, as opposed to private, proprietary control by tech firms (“data ownership”).
   SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions	16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.	The proportion of core municipal services managed by publicly accountable democratic institutions versus being subcontracted to private, non-representative entities.

Source: unherd.com