Much of the opposition against smart cities is opposition to the ways in which idealized versions of the smart city are automated and controlled in what seem like extreme ways. In class, we have discussed how prototype smart cities around the world are all sparsely inhabited. Personally, I would not enjoy living in an entirely automated smart city. As futuristic as they seem, they lack an attractive human aspect that is present in current day cities. In my mind, this is linked to Lefebvre’s phrase, “the right to the city,” discussed in Mitchell’s essay “To Go Again to Hyde Park.” {1} In many ways, I believe cities are defined by the people who live in them. People have a certain right to their cities that disappears when cities are entirely automated for efficiency. For example, I do not think New York would be such a cultural hub of the country or even of the world if it did not have such a diverse population of residents. In a similar way, Berlin is often known for its street art and graffiti and was even honored as a UNESCO City of Design for its design achievements. {2} Mitchell also writes that “any city should be structured toward meeting” and that cities should allow people to interact. {3} If smart technology is to impact our futures and the futures of cities, then smart cities need to be designed in such a way that people want to explore their public spaces and share them with others.
Smart cities should have public spaces that can be used for multiple purposes. While parks seem like a simple solution, they should be adaptable to things like weather to allow people to use them in all different seasons. This could be as simple as the way in which the main quad at Bowdoin is grassy during the spring, summer, and fall, but is converted into an ice rink during the winter. However, with more funding, parks could be changed more drastically by season. They could be more weatherproof during winter to allow people to continue using the park, or even have specific features such as fountains or devices that spray mist during the summer to cool off park-goers. I also believe that parks are one way in which to preserve history of cities through dedications on park benches or trees. This reminded me of the recommendations made by 8th graders on what to put at Ground Zero in the Setha Low reading. The 8th graders all had different ideas, but what tied all of their ideas together was a desire to commemorate the events of 9/11 and allow people to share the location for healing and remembrance. {4} Parks in smart cities could be used for similar kinds of memorials or history to acknowledge the past, allowing the cities to be “smart” while still allowing park-goers to feel connected to the park and to one another in a human way.
Portland strikes me as needing two kinds of public spaces. The most obvious is the need for parks. For example, Lincoln Park is an absolutely dismal park that happens to be located in downtown Portland, but no one ever goes there. Congress Square Park is very similar in its central location, but also is rarely populated. I believe that Portland needs to both increase the amount of park space in the city and rework the existing park space to make the parks more attractive to visitors and residents. I also believe that Portland is capable of creating some kind of winter function for outdoor public space that would make Portland a more enticing city for winter tourism. The other kind of public space that Portland needs is indoor collaborative space. While Portland does have a coworking space at Think Tank, it needs public space that is more collaborative, inviting, and functional than a space like a library. While many cities have coworking places like Think Tank, most cities do not have free coworking spaces or more interactive, dynamic workspace options. I think that the year-round residential population of Portland is in an age range that would benefit greatly from something like this, especially in the winter months. Cafes get crowded and coworking spaces can get expensive, so collaborative indoor space would be greatly beneficial to Portland.
1. Gieseking, Jen Jack. “To Go Again to Hyde Park: Public Space, Rights, and Social Justice.” In The People, Place, and Space Reader. New York: Routledge, 2014. 193.
2. “Creative Cities Network.” United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization. http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/creativity/creative-cities-network/design/berlin/ (accessed September 30, 2014).
3. Mitchell, 193.
4. Sorkin, Michael, and Sharon Zukin. “Spaces of Reflection, Recovery, and Resistance: Reimagining the Postindustrial Plaza.” In After the World Trade Center: Rethinking New York City. New York: Routledge, 2002. 163-172.