Understanding of Smart Cities and Digital Cities
Introduction of Smart Cities
Smart cities have been a big deal for urban planners since the 2000s. The whole idea is to use digital tech in city infrastructure to make life better for people, solving issues like transportation, energy, and governance. A couple of early examples are Masdar City in the UAE and Santander in Spain—they both used high-tech solutions and data to help with city planning.
Image 1. https://www.fosterandpartners.com/projects/masdar-city
Image 2. https://oidp.net/en/practice.php?id=1286
Smart cities aim to use digital technology to make urban life easier, more efficient, and more people-centered. What excites me most is how smart living integrates smart homes, connected communities, and modern entertainment facilities. These developments create a more comfortable and appealing environment for residents. In southwestern China, Mianyang stands out as one of the country’s first pilot smart cities. It provides rich examples and valuable experiences in smart city development.
Image 3.https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E7%BB%B5%E9%98%B3%E5%B8%82/5022750
Smart Living in Mianyang
My university is located in Mianyang City, China, where I have lived for five years, and I feel that life in Mianyang is very convenient and fast, and it deserves the name of ‘China’s Science and Technology City’.One of the highlights of Mianyang’s smart city initiative is the development of smart communities. In newly built areas like the Nanhu District, smart home technology has become a reality. Residents can control lighting, door locks, and appliances through their smartphones. This makes people’s life much more convenient.
I was impressed by the degree of smart city development in Mianyang. In Mianyang’s communities, intelligent security systems have basically been installed, and community managers are able to monitor public areas in real time to provide security for residents. These technologies make communities safer and more comfortable.
At the same time, Mianyang also launched a mobile phone service platform such as “Mianzhou Tong”, which integrates the functions of transportation, medical registration and administrative services, greatly simplifying the daily life process of residents, making people’s clothing, food, housing and travel more convenient and fast, and strengthening the connection between residents and the city.
Intelligent entertainment space
Mianyang has also made great progress in creating “smart entertainment”. For example, Mianyang Science and Technology City has developed a smart park that combines advanced technology with the natural environment to provide citizens with a unique leisure experience. Among them, Nanshan Park is a good example. The park is equipped with smart seats. Compared with traditional seats, smart seats are not only more beautiful, but also more rich in functions. There is a photovoltaic panel installed on the back of the chair, which can operate normally without pipeline power supply. There are also 16 smart guide boards in the park. As long as visitors scan the wechat QR code, they can hear the voice introduction of various scenic spots, obtain road guidance in the scenic spot, understand the cultural background and related history of the scenic spot, and enrich the sightseeing experience. At the same time, the park has also added wireless WI-FI function for everyone to use.
Image 4.http://www.myrb.net/html/2023/news/7/358129.html
My feelings
The construction of smart cities in Mianyang fully demonstrates how technology can change cities and improve our lives. It’s not just about making things more efficient, it’s about making cities more people-centered through technology. From smart homes to innovative entertainment Spaces, every detail reflects technology’s focus on improving the quality of life for residents.
Mianyang’s success also provides a good reference for other cities to build smart cities. Smart cities should not be just piles of technology, but should be a place where technology improves everyone’s life experience and creates a better life.
Reference
- Mianyang Municipal People’s Government Office.(2020).’Notice of the Mianyang Municipal People’s Government Office on the issuance of the overall plan for the construction of a new smart city in Mianyang and the promotion plan for the construction of the Mianyang City Service Platform’.https://www.lawlawing.com/community/90543(Accessed:7 January 2025).
- Guo,C.(2023).’Nanshan Park creates ’boutique park’ and ‘smart park”.http://www.myrb.net/html/2023/news/7/358129.html(Accessed:7 January 2025).
- Mianyang Mianzhoutong Technology Co., Ltd.(2021).http://www.mymzt.cn/?m=home&c=Lists&a=index&tid=1(Accessed:7 January 2025).
I found your work on smart cities really interesting, especially the examples of Masdar City, Santander, and Shanghai. As someone who’s familiar with urban development, I could relate to your focus on Shanghai. The smart transportation, healthcare, and governance systems, like the Suishenban app, are great examples of how technology can make life easier for people.
I also liked how you talked about PropTech and digital twins. The examples of Newcastle’s 3D model and Zhangjiang Science City are good ways to show how these technologies can improve city planning. The point you made about balancing corporate interests with the needs of citizens is important and something I think about often when considering smart cities.
Overall, your writing really helped me understand how these technologies are shaping cities today, and it resonates with my own experiences.
Hi! I really enjoyed reading your blog on smart cities and the use of digitization in our modern society. I liked how your blog highlighted citizen-generated data and the importance of participatory approaches like “Making Sense” shows that you have a good understanding of the existing and evolving critiques of smart city projects. This has definitively added some depth to your blog.
I also liked your discussion of PropTech and Digital Twins, introducing advanced tools like PropTech and digital twins also demonstrated awareness for the different type of cutting-edge technologies we currently have and their implications for urban design.
The mention of Adam Greenfield’s criticisms and the shift towards “smart citizens” rather than “smart cities” was also a cool important layer of critical thinking and balance to the blog.
I would just say while some sources are cited, such as Greenfield (2013) and Dawkins et al. (2018), some others do appear to be missing or incomplete. For instance, Koonin et al. (2014) and FoRE (2014) should have full citations and some pictures have website links as well which should be referenced instead. Consistently providing detailed references would make the blog more academic and credible overall.
Also while the examples are well-chosen, the analysis could go deeper. For example in Shanghai’s case, how do these smart initiatives address broader urban challenges like equity or affordability? Are there any unintended consequences, such as increased surveillance or privacy issues, in projects like the “Suishenban” app or the Pudong Smart District?
Having done that would just have just given the blog a little more depth and a more informative outlook on the topic you have chosen to explore. But overall, it was a very enjoyable piece to read!
( Re-commenting and expanding the conversation to address some points i thought were worth exploring further)
Hi! So your blog post provided a comprehensive overview of the development and components of smart cities, demonstrating a deep understanding of their applications and challenges. I particularly appreciated your emphasis on how digital technologies, such as iot devices, digital twins, and proptech, are shaping urban planning in today’s society. However, I would like to expand on a few of the points raised and explore additional dimensions of smart cities that highlight their opportunities and challenges.
Firstly, your mention of citizen-generated data and participatory approaches is highly relevant, as community engagement is critical to the success of smart cities. Hemment et al. (2013) and Hollands (2008) emphasise that empowering residents to contribute data and participate in decision-making fosters a sense of ownership and ensures that developments reflects local needs. However, this ideal is often difficult to achieve in practice. Critics argue that technological solutions frequently prioritise efficiency and innovation over equity, resulting in unequal access to smart city benefits. For example, Kitchin (2014) warns of the “smart city divide,” where wealthier populations benefit disproportionately from advanced infrastructure, leaving marginalised communities behind. This is definitely something that should be made awate and calls for urban planners like us, to design more inclusively, ensuring that technological advancements are well and equitably distributed throughout.
Additionally, while PropTech enhances transparency and participation, its integration with urban planning raises questions like data privacy and security. Tools like Building Information Modelling (BIM) do rely on vast amounts of user data, which can be misused or even inadequately protected. Greenfield (2013) for example, critiques smart cities for their potential to enable surveillance and corporate control, highlighting the need for clear data governance within our existing frameworks.
Your discussion of digital twins is another strong point, these models are for sure revolutionising and changing the way we plan cities. Their ability to simulate scenarios and improve decision-making have are for sure to help with the increasing demand for data-driven solutions. However, these models often require significant investment and technical expertise, which can be barriers for smaller cities and/ or those in developing countries.
Finally, your example of Shanghai’s smart city initiatives is insightful and illustrates how technology can improve transportation, healthcare, governance, and sustainability. However, it is also worth noting that Shanghai’s model might just not be universally replicable due to how different its governance structures, cultural contexts, and resource availability is to ours and other places. I do think that urban planners will definitely have a big (and challenging) job to tailor smart city strategies to local contexts rather than adopting a one-size-fits-all approach.
In conclusion, your blog captures the diverse nature of smart cities while raising important discussions around citizen participation which I liked. I’ve here just expanded the conversation to address other important points on equity, privacy, and the very scalability of these challenges that can further enhance our ways of understanding of how smart cities can more create inclusive and sustainable urban environments.
References
Greenfield, A. (2013). Against the Smart City. Do Projects.
Hemment, D., Rogers, J., & Basu, T. (2013). Smart Citizens. FutureEverything Publications.
Hollands, R. G. (2008). Will the real smart city please stand up? Intelligent, progressive or entrepreneurial? City, 12(3), 303-320.
Kitchin, R. (2014). The real-time city? Big data and smart urbanism. GeoJournal, 79(1), 1-14.
Dawkins, O., Byrne, J., & Duncan, K. (2018). Digital twins: What are they and how can they improve the built environment? Smart Cities Journal.
This blog looks into the idea of smart cities and how they are used in urban planning by examining various case studies. It covers topics like data-driven decision-making, the impact of PropTech, and the emergence of digital twin technologies. These examples show how technology and urban design work together, highlighting the great potential of smart cities to improve quality of life, manage resources better, and encourage citizen involvement.
The blog really highlights the “smart citizen” idea, pointing out how getting citizens involved makes smart cities more democratic. For example, the “Making Sense” project shows how participatory sensing works, allowing residents to take part in data collection and decision-making, which brings a democratic aspect to smart city projects. One example of this philosophy in action is the “Suishenban” platform in Shanghai. This approach to centralising different government services has really boosted how efficiently the government operates and enhanced the experience for users, making it a model for smart city development worldwide.
This case shows that seeing citizens as contributors and partners in urban development, instead of just users of technology, helps make governance better match what residents actually need. Increasing public participation can help smart cities avoid turning into mere “technology showcases” and instead develop into more human-centric and sustainable models.
Some critics say that smart cities tend to focus more on what corporations want rather than what communities need, which brings up worries about privacy and surveillance (Greenfield, 2013). The blog brings up these issues, but the discussion doesn’t go into much detail. In real life, gathering data in smart cities can really endanger people’s privacy. For instance, urban sensors and IoT devices that are used to monitor air quality and traffic might accidentally collect sensitive personal information. Platforms such as Shanghai’s digital initiative, while definitely convenient, bring up concerns regarding the transparency and security of how they store and manage data.
According to Greenfield (2013), smart city technologies often prioritise corporate interests over the well-being of the community. If not handled properly, this commercial bias could increase the chances of data being misused. So, in addition to new technology, strong rules and clear processes are really important for protecting people’s privacy rights.
Google’s Sidewalk Labs encountered challenges in developing smart cities because of worries about data privacy. Even though having access to data, especially personal data, can really help enhance lives and business functions, it also brings about major privacy concerns (John, Mitchell & Julia, 2019). This case brings up three important points to think about: First, we can’t ignore data privacy concerns just because a platform is run by a huge corporation that seems untouchable. Secondly, we need to rethink the idea of “data-driven” approaches, making sure that public transparency and legitimacy are essential before using any data. Third, it’s important for governments and public sectors to create a level playing field with private companies so they can have real conversations about data privacy and how it can be used.
Smart cities definitely provide new ways to tackle urban issues, but for them to succeed in the long run, it’s important to find a balance between technology and social values. The blog does a good job of highlighting the variety and possibilities of technological innovations, but it doesn’t really cover the potential risks in enough detail. When developing future smart cities, it’s really important to prioritise the rights of residents, especially when it comes to data privacy.
To sum up, the future of smart cities depends on how technology changes our lives and whether it maintains fairness, openness, and sustainability during these transformations. To make this vision a reality, it’s going to take teamwork from policymakers, tech developers, and everyday people.
Greenfield, A. (2013). Against the Smart City. Do Projects.
John, Leslie K., Mitchell W, and Julia K. (2019). “Sidewalk Labs: Privacy in a City Built from the Internet Up.” Harvard Business School Case 819-024, October 2018 (Accessed: 6 January 2025).