The concentration of diverse people, power and wealth in cities makes them fertile ground for
revolution (Beissinger, 2022). Ranging from the French revolution in Paris to a traceable,
evidently urban history of Black Right Movements in the US, the recent series of urban protests
under the Black Lives Movement (BLM) banner is another testament to the city as a nexus of
social conflict and revolution. Although cities have always operated in association with a
globally networked processes of urbanization, current digital technology and its social media
platforms have transformed the linkages of this global urban layer to a live and active network
that transcends geographies and time zones in real-time. Urban revolution in combination with
social media, now operates on a newly generated hybrid physical and digital global public
forum. This real time proliferation of the social movements has also played its role in the rapid
global uptake of the BLM movement. However, these social media platforms, while in this case,
acting as an enabler for the movement, are owned and operated by large private entities.
revolution (Beissinger, 2022). Ranging from the French revolution in Paris to a traceable,
evidently urban history of Black Right Movements in the US, the recent series of urban protests
under the Black Lives Movement (BLM) banner is another testament to the city as a nexus of
social conflict and revolution. Although cities have always operated in association with a
globally networked processes of urbanization, current digital technology and its social media
platforms have transformed the linkages of this global urban layer to a live and active network
that transcends geographies and time zones in real-time. Urban revolution in combination with
social media, now operates on a newly generated hybrid physical and digital global public
forum. This real time proliferation of the social movements has also played its role in the rapid
global uptake of the BLM movement. However, these social media platforms, while in this case,
acting as an enabler for the movement, are owned and operated by large private entities.
In this sense, the private sector has an increasingly growing stake in this new typology of public
space. This brings to light questions of power and structures of societal organization. The state
starts to become an agent, rather than the regulator of the market (Lefebre, 1970). Since these
private entities are still very much a product of the economies of the Global North, new
questions of digital colonialism and surveillance capitalism emerge. Similar to the architecture
of classic colonialism, according to (Kwet, 2019), digital colonialism is rooted in the design of
the tech ecosystem for profit and plunder. Through tools like proprietary software, corporate
clouds and centralized Internet services (which can be compared to maritime trade routes of
colonial propagation), digital tech and big tech corps are starting to ‘spy’ on users and produce
manufactured services of their data fiefdoms, feeding into the production of surveillance
capitalism.
space. This brings to light questions of power and structures of societal organization. The state
starts to become an agent, rather than the regulator of the market (Lefebre, 1970). Since these
private entities are still very much a product of the economies of the Global North, new
questions of digital colonialism and surveillance capitalism emerge. Similar to the architecture
of classic colonialism, according to (Kwet, 2019), digital colonialism is rooted in the design of
the tech ecosystem for profit and plunder. Through tools like proprietary software, corporate
clouds and centralized Internet services (which can be compared to maritime trade routes of
colonial propagation), digital tech and big tech corps are starting to ‘spy’ on users and produce
manufactured services of their data fiefdoms, feeding into the production of surveillance
capitalism.
Zooming to the physical city, instruments of digital technology that are increasingly getting
integrated into cities range from sensing technologies to monitor crowds, traffic and the
environment to e-governance platforms and algorithm-based policing and decision-making
models. This is rapidly shifting citizens' interaction with their urban environments and the
socio-political decision-making landscape of the city. In the race for tech driven innovation,
there is the inherent danger of relying too much on technology by reducing complex socio-
economic and deliberative urban political challenges to technology problems and efficiency-
based solutions (Green, 2019). Additionally, data based digital technologies can have grave
integrated into cities range from sensing technologies to monitor crowds, traffic and the
environment to e-governance platforms and algorithm-based policing and decision-making
models. This is rapidly shifting citizens' interaction with their urban environments and the
socio-political decision-making landscape of the city. In the race for tech driven innovation,
there is the inherent danger of relying too much on technology by reducing complex socio-
economic and deliberative urban political challenges to technology problems and efficiency-
based solutions (Green, 2019). Additionally, data based digital technologies can have grave
consequences for issues like citizen-rights, autonomy, privacy, inclusiveness, transparency and
empowerment. Data is the currency of the digitally powered city. If left purely to the
mechanisms of the neoliberal market forces driven purely by profit, this results in regimes of
data accumulation and data driven surveillance capitalism as the new modes of capital
production. Drawing on (Wood, 2014)’s definition of capitalism as market dependence being
the fundamental condition of life for everyone, the neoliberal digital technology driven city is
based on its dependency of data and data collection.
empowerment. Data is the currency of the digitally powered city. If left purely to the
mechanisms of the neoliberal market forces driven purely by profit, this results in regimes of
data accumulation and data driven surveillance capitalism as the new modes of capital
production. Drawing on (Wood, 2014)’s definition of capitalism as market dependence being
the fundamental condition of life for everyone, the neoliberal digital technology driven city is
based on its dependency of data and data collection.
Digital technology is itself embedded with several biases stemming from its systems and
stakeholders of production. It can also exacerbate social inequities owing to the barriers of
affordability attached to its access (or access to its interfaces). The informal sectors of the
society often lack access to digital technology or are programmed out from its usage by either
gaps in digital literacy or as missing from the data-sets collected from using the tech network
(Green, 2019). When these datasets are used to make ‘fair’ decisions about the socio-economic
decisions in the city, the marginalized are further marginalized (think of De Soto’s argument
about informality lacking the means of formal capital production owing to dead capital). For
instance, (Benjamin., 2019)’s work makes explicit the intentionality and the ways in which new
technologies ‘encode’ racial and other forms of discrimination in to their design.
stakeholders of production. It can also exacerbate social inequities owing to the barriers of
affordability attached to its access (or access to its interfaces). The informal sectors of the
society often lack access to digital technology or are programmed out from its usage by either
gaps in digital literacy or as missing from the data-sets collected from using the tech network
(Green, 2019). When these datasets are used to make ‘fair’ decisions about the socio-economic
decisions in the city, the marginalized are further marginalized (think of De Soto’s argument
about informality lacking the means of formal capital production owing to dead capital). For
instance, (Benjamin., 2019)’s work makes explicit the intentionality and the ways in which new
technologies ‘encode’ racial and other forms of discrimination in to their design.
Technology here starts to act as an instrument of power, but the question is who yields power
over whom? What is emerging structure of power and control in this emerging urban digital
landscape (through the lens of Scott, 1998’s organization of the society by the state to threats
of the modern day organization of society by technology)? Who has true agency in this
landscape and how is it exercised? In these changing ways of the city and its operators, the
relationship between the state and the market and the role of the current day urban planner
comes into question.
over whom? What is emerging structure of power and control in this emerging urban digital
landscape (through the lens of Scott, 1998’s organization of the society by the state to threats
of the modern day organization of society by technology)? Who has true agency in this
landscape and how is it exercised? In these changing ways of the city and its operators, the
relationship between the state and the market and the role of the current day urban planner
comes into question.
Reflecting on (DeFilippis., 2016)’s duality between the market and the state, there is a strong
reiteration of the codependence of the state and the market (via the private sector) in the
modern capitalist city and its current digital tech centered shift. Looking at the case of the
Sidewalks Toronto project, a tech utopia proposed as a collaboration between Google’s (parent
company Alphabet’s) subsidiary Sidewalk Labs and Waterfront Toronto (WT), an urban
development corporation established for the renewal of Toronto’s Waterfront. (Goodman and
Powles, 2019: 457- 496) map out the development of the project- the tech utopia it promised,
its vision for the ‘city as a ubiquitous platform’ and models for digital governance. In unpacking
reiteration of the codependence of the state and the market (via the private sector) in the
modern capitalist city and its current digital tech centered shift. Looking at the case of the
Sidewalks Toronto project, a tech utopia proposed as a collaboration between Google’s (parent
company Alphabet’s) subsidiary Sidewalk Labs and Waterfront Toronto (WT), an urban
development corporation established for the renewal of Toronto’s Waterfront. (Goodman and
Powles, 2019: 457- 496) map out the development of the project- the tech utopia it promised,
its vision for the ‘city as a ubiquitous platform’ and models for digital governance. In unpacking
the story, they highlight various the legal and policy issues around data, ownership and
governance surrounding the project. One of the main learnings from the project was the risk of
unpreparedness of city governments and their legislative framework in dealing with the advent
of digital technology and how cities can get blind sighted by technology’s promises and
potentials often touted by big (tech) corps as the solution to all the planning, management and
governance issues that cities are faced with. In the case of WT, Sidewalk Labs dictated how the
governance of the city and its data management would take place and the city effectively was
reduced to a client to the private entity to the extent of the legislative and governance
functions that have traditionally been core functions of the city government (central to the
effective functioning of urban democracy). This exposed the city and its citizens to regimes of
underhand tactics of data control and surveillance by the tech giant. To address the role of the
state in this context, there is a crucial need for cities to build capacity and legislative
frameworks that will lead to more conscious and thorough understanding of the technologies
that are procured and implemented in cities and the challenges they pose to urban governance
structures and citizen rights. This interplay could even help to steer market forces by creating
demand (via legislation and procurement processes) for technologies and solutions that are
more ethical and citizen centric. Some examples of such frameworks are the General Data
Protection Rights (GDPR) in Europe, the DTPR open source communication standard currently
being piloted in Boston and the TADA value framework as a foundation of the digital city
agenda of the city of Amsterdam.
governance surrounding the project. One of the main learnings from the project was the risk of
unpreparedness of city governments and their legislative framework in dealing with the advent
of digital technology and how cities can get blind sighted by technology’s promises and
potentials often touted by big (tech) corps as the solution to all the planning, management and
governance issues that cities are faced with. In the case of WT, Sidewalk Labs dictated how the
governance of the city and its data management would take place and the city effectively was
reduced to a client to the private entity to the extent of the legislative and governance
functions that have traditionally been core functions of the city government (central to the
effective functioning of urban democracy). This exposed the city and its citizens to regimes of
underhand tactics of data control and surveillance by the tech giant. To address the role of the
state in this context, there is a crucial need for cities to build capacity and legislative
frameworks that will lead to more conscious and thorough understanding of the technologies
that are procured and implemented in cities and the challenges they pose to urban governance
structures and citizen rights. This interplay could even help to steer market forces by creating
demand (via legislation and procurement processes) for technologies and solutions that are
more ethical and citizen centric. Some examples of such frameworks are the General Data
Protection Rights (GDPR) in Europe, the DTPR open source communication standard currently
being piloted in Boston and the TADA value framework as a foundation of the digital city
agenda of the city of Amsterdam.
An interesting way to do this via the lens of responsible design as a value-based approach
towards citizen centricity in the design and uptake of urban digitization. The role of urban
digitization needs to be critically examined in the context of urban problem solving. This is
where planners and urbanists who read and understand the city as a complex social-economic-
political landscape can play a significant role (Lefebre,1986). Technology most often attempts
to solve challenges for efficiency, based on empirical data and quantitative metrics (Green,
2019). It is important to unpack these technologies as mere tools in a larger and more complex,
holistic urban problem-solving framework.
towards citizen centricity in the design and uptake of urban digitization. The role of urban
digitization needs to be critically examined in the context of urban problem solving. This is
where planners and urbanists who read and understand the city as a complex social-economic-
political landscape can play a significant role (Lefebre,1986). Technology most often attempts
to solve challenges for efficiency, based on empirical data and quantitative metrics (Green,
2019). It is important to unpack these technologies as mere tools in a larger and more complex,
holistic urban problem-solving framework.
The socio-political impacts of technology largely depend on the values embedded in its design
and implementation. Similar to urban policy development, the choice of which values are
prioritized in the development of urban technical systems are also political questions. To
address the challenges to racial justice and ‘right to the city’ of the often discriminatory and
technocratic regimes of urban digitization, it is crucial to understand the citizen and human
landscape of technology and how effective and equitable citizen-centric design and processes
and implementation. Similar to urban policy development, the choice of which values are
prioritized in the development of urban technical systems are also political questions. To
address the challenges to racial justice and ‘right to the city’ of the often discriminatory and
technocratic regimes of urban digitization, it is crucial to understand the citizen and human
landscape of technology and how effective and equitable citizen-centric design and processes
are crucial to ensure the operationalization of democratic values. Community involvement, co-
creation and education about the technologies being installed, their potential threats and their
control mechanism are crucial from the very beginning of the process to safeguard against the
loss of civic rights and civil liberties, infringement of privacy and exaggeration of the digital
divide.
creation and education about the technologies being installed, their potential threats and their
control mechanism are crucial from the very beginning of the process to safeguard against the
loss of civic rights and civil liberties, infringement of privacy and exaggeration of the digital
divide.
Responsible Design comprises responsible individual and organizational behavior,
environmental responsibility and social responsibility while ethical design means design based
around a social belief system (Mangold, 2014). Value-based design tools like responsible design
and ethical design can be instrumental tools to ensure the desired processes and ethos are
incorporated in the design and uptake of the Urban Digital Systems. The idea of citizen centric
urban digitization can be key to creating systems that empower people and facilitate
democratization of the urban realm and the modern-day planner (with their dual belief in
markets and technology) could be well placed to facilitate the operationalization of this ethos.
References:
Beissinger, M. (2022). The Revolutionary City: Urbanization and the Global Transformation of Rebellion.
Princeton University Press.
Benjamin., R. (2019). Introduction: Discriminatory Design, Liberating Imagination . Captivating
Technology race, carceral technoscience, and liberatory imagination in everyday life.
DeFilippis., S. F. (2016). Introduction: The Structure and Debates of Planning Theory. Readings in
Planning Theory, 4th Edition, 1-18.
Green, B. (2019). The Smart Enough City. MIT Press.
Kwet, M. (2019). Digital colonialism is threatening the Global South.
Mangold, W. (2014). Design and Social Responsibility. The People, Place and Space Reader.
Powles, E. P. (2019). Urbanism under Google: Lessons from Sidewalk Toronto. Fordham Law Review.
Wood, E. M. (2014). Capitalism’s Gravediggers. Jacobin.
environmental responsibility and social responsibility while ethical design means design based
around a social belief system (Mangold, 2014). Value-based design tools like responsible design
and ethical design can be instrumental tools to ensure the desired processes and ethos are
incorporated in the design and uptake of the Urban Digital Systems. The idea of citizen centric
urban digitization can be key to creating systems that empower people and facilitate
democratization of the urban realm and the modern-day planner (with their dual belief in
markets and technology) could be well placed to facilitate the operationalization of this ethos.
References:
Beissinger, M. (2022). The Revolutionary City: Urbanization and the Global Transformation of Rebellion.
Princeton University Press.
Benjamin., R. (2019). Introduction: Discriminatory Design, Liberating Imagination . Captivating
Technology race, carceral technoscience, and liberatory imagination in everyday life.
DeFilippis., S. F. (2016). Introduction: The Structure and Debates of Planning Theory. Readings in
Planning Theory, 4th Edition, 1-18.
Green, B. (2019). The Smart Enough City. MIT Press.
Kwet, M. (2019). Digital colonialism is threatening the Global South.
Mangold, W. (2014). Design and Social Responsibility. The People, Place and Space Reader.
Powles, E. P. (2019). Urbanism under Google: Lessons from Sidewalk Toronto. Fordham Law Review.
Wood, E. M. (2014). Capitalism’s Gravediggers. Jacobin.