Civicness in the Smart City: Solutions in Search of Problems

• In Event: Smart yet (in)Sensible? Feminist Critical Perspectives on “Smart Cities” II

Abstract

There is a growing literature on the smart city, in which the primary actors are tech companies intent on privatizing public services and city governments eager to boost economic competitiveness. This paper challenges that top-down view, and shows that the creation of a smart city can involve a great deal of bottom-up support. Based on two years of ethnographic fieldwork in Kansas City, where a civic movement took off to create a data-driven city by partnering with tech companies such as Google, Cisco, and Sprint, I contend that the data- driven city spurs unconventional forms of civic engagement, rooted in a complex calculus of urban boosterism, intellectual curiosity, and expertise. I introduce “civic entrepreneurs” — a network of local tech entrepreneurs, urban transit advocates, members of nonprofits, and entrepreneurial public officials — who not only promote these nascent technologies, but also encourage a new style of civic engagement (problem-solving).

On the contrary to the expectation that data-driven cities solve, or intend to solve, extant urban problems, I show that many on-the-ground efforts consist of an ongoing search for problems. problems. Civic entrepreneurs constantly hunt for new problems (“Why does water consumption dramatically increase on Wednesdays?), or new ways of measuring (“Is there a relationship between domestic violence and ownership of air-conditioning?”) to prototype solutions rather than attending to pressing visible problems. This new style of civic action that is predicated upon “seeing what the data say” in any direction rather than using data to solve pre- determined problems, I suggest, radically challenges the very mundane definition of civic engagement, that is, collectively solving problems for the common good.

Is this “searching for problems” model of engaging with the city another implication of the so-called “big data” revolution wherein excessive faith is placed on mathematically superior models to govern cities? Or is it self-delusion on the part of the civic entrepreneurs who, inspired by the cultural influence of Silicon Valley, believe tech innovation could solve all our collective problems? And at what point -- and how -- can we distinguish a genuinely valuable approach to social change? Boundaries between market and civic sectors are rarely clear (Lichterman and Eliasoph 2014). My paper underscores this fact by showing the strengths, weaknesses, and trade-offs of civic engagement when market expectations intersect with collective attempts to improve urban life.

Author

• Burcu Baykurt, Columbia University