Smart cities first appeared in academic literature during the 1990s — conceived as a laboratory for integrating multimedia technologies into public space.
Early discussions, such as those by Van Bastelaer in 1998, emerged in response to widening gaps between public and private sectors, increasing distance between governments and citizens, and the accelerating pressures of globalisation. The digital city was introduced as an online community — an alternative spatial dimension intended to repair the disrupted relationship between citizens and governments. The assumption was simple: if communication was the problem, then technical and managerial solutions could resolve it.
However, this logic reduced complex social and political fractures to operational inefficiencies. Over time, deeper issues such as loss of community, erosion of belonging, and weakened civic identity received less attention. The literature increasingly shifted toward mechanical formulations of how urban systems could become digitally smart.
Two decades later, the field still lacks a universal framework or shared ideology. Scholars such as Anthopoulos and Fitsilis have highlighted the conceptual confusion surrounding smart cities. Scientific communities, political actors, and industry leaders continue to produce fragmented and often disconnected interpretations of what smartness means. Without a common platform or shared vision, smart cities remain an aggregation of isolated technological ambitions.
“Technology can interconnect social and technical systems. It cannot automatically resolve issues of spatial justice, autonomy, or democratic legitimacy.”
As information and communication technologies became embedded in urban systems, new concerns emerged. Sustainable development, social cohesion, sense of place, citizens’ rights, resilience, and adaptation to future shocks must be integral to any meaningful urban transformation. Yet these elements often remain peripheral to technology-driven agendas.
The process of smartification increasingly involves the integration of artificial intelligence into urban infrastructure. Sensors and AI systems replicate aspects of human cognitive capabilities such as learning and decision-making. As cities move rapidly in this direction, critical questions arise regarding governmentality, the political dimensions of data, and the distribution of power within digital ecosystems.
My own analysis of major smart city definitions reveals a common pattern. Most definitions focus on the label of smartness while converging around one central element: the linking of ICT infrastructure to cities. Some approaches are influenced by market-driven perspectives. Others frame technology as a means toward higher goals such as wellbeing or sustainability.
Yet treating technology merely as a means to an end does not solve deeply rooted urban challenges. Social justice, sense of place, citizens’ rights, gentrification, resilience, energy consumption, privacy, and autonomy cannot be addressed through technological layering alone.
This realisation forms the foundation of my work. Smart cities require more than digital optimisation. They require a shift in consciousness, governance, and ethical orientation.
