Will the real smart city please stand up?

By R. Hollands. 2008

Debates about the future of urban development in many Western countries have been increasingly influenced by discussions of smart cities. Yet despite numerous examples of this ‘urban labelling’ phenomenon, we know surprisingly little about so‐called smart cities, particularly in terms of what the label ideologically reveals as well as hides. Due to its lack of definitional precision, not to mention an underlying self‐congratulatory tendency, the main thrust of this article is to provide a preliminary critical polemic against some of the more rhetorical aspects of smart cities. The primary focus is on the labelling process adopted by some designated smart cities, with a view to problematizing a range of elements that supposedly characterize this new urban form, as well as question some of the underlying assumptions/contradictions hidden within the concept. To aid this critique, the article explores to what extent labelled smart cities can be understood as a high‐tech variation of the ‘entrepreneurial city’, as well as speculates on some general principles which would make them more progressive and inclusive.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

The governance of smart cities: A systematic literature review (2018, methodology): “Develops an indicatorbased measurement system 03 Hollands (2008)⁎ Theoretical – Components 1) Discusses SC concept through an analysis of various examples with primary focus on the labeling process.”
The dual effects of the Internet of Things (IoT): A systematic review of the benefits and risks of IoT adoption by organizations (2020, background): “For example, Hollands (2008) describes a differentiation between smart cities that focus on IoT purely for economic prosperity and those that seek to become sustainable and inclusive.”
Survey on Collaborative Smart Drones and Internet of Things for Improving Smartness of Smart Cities (2019, background): “ies have been conducted to enhance the characteristics of smart cities [1], [2] in different domains [3] and different aspects [4], [5], and with a focus on sustainability [6], [7].”
Security, Privacy and Risks Within Smart Cities: Literature Review and Development of a Smart City Interaction Framework (2020, background): “…central importance to smart cities but the integration of ICT into urban infrastructure alone - does not make the city smart if the human and social capital as well as wider economic policy and management of urban development are not factored in (Caragliu et al. 2009; Hollands 2008; Kitchin 2014).”
The Smart City as Global Discourse: Storylines and Critical Junctures across 27 Cities (2019, background): “The smart city is more than “mere” discourse.1 Indeed, much of its critique centers upon the problematique of the “place-less” corporate-governmental discourse (e.g., Hollands, 2008; Shelton et al., 2015; Söderström et al., 2014; Kitchin, 2015).”
City Digital Twin Potentials: A Review and Research Agenda (2021, background): “Although some have seen it as an ambiguous concept that entails unclear implications, or as a driver rather than a solution for urban and social problems such as inequality, social polarization, and gentrification [4,5], there is still a large amount of research that suggests the prospective benefit”
Tourists’ Experiences with Smart Tourism Technology at Smart Destinations and Their Behavior Intentions (2019, background): “The concept of smartness originates in the 1990s and has since been drawing attention from people (Hollands 2008, 2015).”
Municipal statecraft (2018, background): “Smart city initiatives are undoubtedly entrepreneurial (Hollands, 2008), yet that entrepreneurialism is not a growth politics per se, but rather a form of corporate welfare promoted by technology firms and consultants (Söderström et al., 2014).”