Page 106 - IJES Special Issues for AIEC2016

6 © Lehmann 2016 | Advocacy for the Compact
we are heading towards a global population of 9
or 10 billion people by the end of this century,
we will not be able to keep our high-energy-
consumption lifestyles.
A Smart City Definition
In this context, we have to ask: What exactly are
‘smart green cities’?
The basic principal behind ‘green eco-cities’ is
living within the means of the environment and
resources. For the benefit of the people living in transforming our cities, and we need to think
the city, eco-cities reduce their greenhouse gas
emissions by producing energy through renew-
able sources such as solar, wind, hydropower
and biomass, use low carbon public transport,
green infrastructure and reduce the embodied
energy of buildings (Roseland 1997). Eco-cities
produce energy on-site, so they require little or
no energy from the outside and favour local,
renewable and easily recyclable materials.
Resources are conserved and recovered
through waste management, recycling and the
natural bio-filtration of stormwater (Lehmann
2014).
‘Smart cities’ are cities where the seams and
structures of the various urban systems are
made clear, simple and responsive through
technology and design (which all became pos-
sible with the ubiquitous internet connectivity
and the miniaturisation of electronics).
Engineering firm Arup defines a smart city as ‘a
city where three specific networks interact and
are integrated: the communications grid, the
energy system and the so-called logistics
internet (which tracks people and things
through transport and supply systems)’. City
transport systems and logistics are the obvious
beneficiaries from such smart systems, where
higher efficiencies and more productivity is
promised (just think of real-time train arrival
messages for waiting subway passengers). From
the smartphones in our pockets and the
cameras on the lampposts, to sensors in the
sewers, the sidewalks and the bike-sharing
stations, the contemporary city is permeated
with networked information technology that
collects data. If we trust the smart city’s
promise, technology could even solve our social
problems that otherwise resisted; for instance,
more equity in the distribution of resources.
Science Target Inc. www.sciencetarget.com
Embedding computerised sensors into the
urban fabric could lead to the so-called ‘internet
of things’ that is promising better living through
big data (for instance in the new-built smart
Songdo City in South Korea, see Image 2).
However, there needs to be a real debate about
the smart city; for instance, what we want
technology to do for cities (Greenfield 2013).
And the challenging question: who will own all
the data the smart city generates and who will
control it? Paul Mason noted recently (2015)
that ‘all these technologies are rapidly
hard about who controls a system where all
people and things are tracked, all of the time.’
Clearly, we can’t allow the tech giants or IT
providers to rule smart cities – it needs a better
solution and community involvement. Open
source urban data generated from public
services should always remain publicly owned
(a position that the City of Madrid has adopted
for their smart city project).
Figure 2: There is frequently a reference to
Singapore as a smart city that has become
denser and greener at the same time, while
displaying leadership in green urbanism and
place-making. New Songdo City in South Korea
(Figure 2) is a new-built smart city whose roads
and water, waste and electricity systems are
dense with electronic sensors, but lacks green
place-making (Image: Nicolette Mastrangelo)
Interestingly, we can now bring the notions of
the green sustainable city and the smart city
together: combining the postmodern flaneur
with the techno-utopian engineer. While global