The City Is Here For You To Use: 100 easy pieces
On the first of January, 2008, I promised you a book about the things I saw happening at the intersection of emerging networked information technologies with urban place.
Well. It has been a long, long time coming, the book has inevitably evolved from my initial conception of it, and there’s still a great deal of work to be done. But I’m now in a position to at least let you know, in a fair amount of detail, just what The City Is Here For You To Use argues.
Please bear in mind that the following is not an outline, just an accounting of some of the book’s major propositions, in the rough order in which you’ll encounter them. As it happens, some of my favorite passages are acutely underrepresented in this accounting (particularly historical material and that concerning network technology’s implications for subjectivity and the constitution of a metropolitan, cosmopolitan self). What’s worse, a good deal of fairly carefully worked-out argumentation is here compressed into what are more or less bullet points. Unless you and I are already muy, muy simpatico, there’s no reason you should necessarily find all of the arguments as presented here convincing, nor do I expect you to. But I do want you to have a map of the line I’m going to be taking.
Without any further ado, then:
1. We find ourselves at a moment in history in which the nature of cities, as form and experience both, is under pressure from a particular class of emerging technology. The advent of lightweight, scalable, networked information-processing technologies means that urban environments around the world are now provisioned with the ability to gather, process, transmit, display and take physical action on data.
2. As a result, that which primarily conditions choice and action in urban places is no longer physical, but resides in an invisible and intangible overlay of digital information that enfolds the physical city. That is, our experiences in such places are no longer shaped exclusively, or even predominantly, by our physical surroundings, but by the interaction of code and data.
3. While it is impossible to know for certain just how much of the activity going on around us on any given street is there as the explicit result of a network sounding, it is clearly both a nontrivial and a growing percentage.
4. Our ability to use the city around us, our flexibility in doing so, just who is able to do so, will be shaped by decisions made about the technical design of objects and their human interfaces, and the precise ways in which such objects are connected to one another and made visible to the network.
5. There are many modes in which information raised to the network can re-enter the world. The most obvious is for that data to be mediated by a personal networked device, and acted upon at the level of individual choice and behavior.
6. A second clear category of interest is when this data populates urban media interfaces, which is to say the wide variety of shared, situated display and interaction surfaces of all sizes which increasingly layer urban space.
7. A third order of output is when data is expressed as a dynamic alteration to the physical form or other performative qualities of buildings, circulation networks and other infrastructural systems. We find ourselves in the liminal realm of physical form as the dynamic expression of some discrete measured condition.
8. Independent of the platform on which they’re displayed, the velocity and complexity of the data we are presented with suggests that it will increasingly be conveyed to us in the form of data visualizations that in and of themselves may be both dynamic and interactive.
9. An expansive range of everyday urban tasks currently mediated by analogue (or only passively networked) means, from physical access control to the ability to participate in economic transactions, are increasingly mediated by a single converged interface object, the smartphone…
10. …or disappearing into behavior altogether.
11. Just as Bourdieu argued that we learn the social roles and performances expected of us, in part, from our engagement with material and manufactured objects, we now learn those roles from our interactions with digital interfaces.
12. Digital placemaking tools etch away at the professions of architecture and urban planning, eroding their claim to sovereignty over the authorship of plan, movement and the capacity for transaction.
13. We increasingly share the space and time of cities with semi-autonomous agents of a nonhuman, indeed nonbiological, nature, from drones to algorithms.
14. These inevitably have their own embedded rhetorics and immanent logics.
15. Equally, there is a determinism implicit in the software used to design spatial relations, from 3D design packages to agent-based modeling tools.
16. The grandeur in determining the conditions of urban existence increasingly resides with those who produce networked objects and services and the interfaces to them.
17. The technologies we are concerned with here achieve their effect not as discrete objects, but as functional ensembles.
18. In many ways, the capabilities and affordances associated with any given ensemble remain distressingly hard to understand, even to people exposed to them on a daily basis.
19. A strong motivator for the deployment of these technologies is the idea that they will render previously obscure, occult and opaque urban processes transparent to inquiry, and therefore actionable.
20. For a variety of reasons, technologists have tended to treat the environments in which the things they design are deployed as what Deleuze called “any-space-whatever”: abstract, generic, unconditioned spaces, containing infinite potentials for connection. But as insightful observers of technology like Paul Dourish and Malcolm McCullough have pointed out, this isn’t so, and can never be: space is always some particular space, systems are always given meaning by being situated in a specific locale and human community, with all the limitations and constraints which go along with those things.
21. Conversely, of course, the urbanists that might have supplied technologists with vital corrective insight have tended to be correspondingly far from the cutting edge of technical development.
22. These technologies are at present offered to us in two guises: the smartphone app and the smart city. Neither is satisfactory.
23. The smart city, as currently proposed, exists almost solely for the benefit of managerial elites.
24. The smart city is situated in “the proximate future.”
25. The smart city pretends to a perfect knowledge that is nowhere achievable, even in principle.
26. The smart city replicates in substance most if not all of the blunders we associate with the discredited high-modernist urban planning techniques of the twentieth century.
27. The smart city and similar schemes tend to rely on a model that hardwires or literally embeds technical devices and systems too deeply in the urban fabric to accommodate the rate of change we observe in such systems. (The componentry that affords us an informatic service layer will tend to evolve far more quickly than the structural support in which it is housed. Cities ought therefore be designed to accommodate ready maintenance and the constant swapping-out of hardware.)
28. The smart city is predicated on a neoliberal political economy, and in particular presents a set of potentials disturbingly consonant with the exercise of authoritarianism.
29. Most damningly, the smart city has little enough to do with cities.
30. Latent in the ideology underwriting the smart city is the notion that there is one universal and transcendently correct solution to each identified individual or collective human need, and that this solution can be arrived at algorithmically.
31. We should demand to know precisely which models of everyday life, subjectivity and experience are implicit in the smart city.
32. There is an inherent tension between technologies that achieve their beneficial effect only at network scale, and therefore benefit from or even require top-down imposition, and the imperatives and prerogatives of local autonomy.
33. The same set of underlying technical potentials that results in the (rhetorical or actual) performance of the smart city can be turned to far more interesting, vital and responsive ends. These meaningful alternatives can best be realized when organized according to the “small pieces, loosely joined” logic so decisive in securing the uptake of the World Wide Web.
34. A set of technical preconditions exists, which Anthony Townsend has identified as (free or low-cost) robust broadband connectivity; (free or low-cost) personal network-interface devices, of wide availability; fully public interfaces; a robust cloud-computing infrastructure, such that storage and information processing are pulled off of local devices; and, at the policy level, an equally robust commitment to open municipal data.
35. Of course, the data is never “just” the data, not at any point a neutral, objective quantity.
36. Firstly, we measure what can be measured.
37. As Laura Kurgan has pointed out, we measure the quantities that it is politically expedient to measure, or which signify against the metrics and success criteria that between them constitute our incentive landscape.
38. We deploy the sensors that are cheap to deploy.
39. Above all, we measure what we think to measure, looking for explanations in some places and not others.
40. There is always contingency, always a selection process, always a choice of what to gather…and always decisions made by some historical agent about how to label, characterize and represent the information that does get collected.
41. We move toward a time in which every change of state, every transaction, every mediated conversation transpiring in the cities of the developed world is, at least in principle, capable of being captured and retained by the network, assigned some meaning, and grabbed, manipulated and acted upon by some remote system.
42. Where previously human and other processes in the urban fold were lost to insight and to history, the contemporary city’s rhythms speak themselves.
43. Even seemingly innocuous facts or patterns of fact, when subjected to relational, inferential and predictive analytics, may be brought to bear against us in distressing and unforeseeable ways, such nonobvious linkages particularly leading to transitive closure and the revelation of identity.
44. These technologies redefine surveillance. It is no longer something which takes place exclusively, or even primarily, in the audio and visual registers, or, for that matter, in real time.
45. We must henceforth understand surveillance as something that can be assembled retroactively, on demand and in response to an emergent perception of need.
46. When discussing surveillance, and the use of power/knowledge to police and constrain behavior, historically most concerns have centered on the state and its capabilities. We must now extend the ambit of our concern to include both market entities and the collectivity of our peers.
47. As ever, the salient thing is not whether some technical capability exists, but whether some party believes that it does, sufficiently to act upon that belief.
48. The discrete objects that gather information and furnish it to the network are acutely sensitive to the alteration of parameters relating either to their design or their deployment.
49. As Anna Minton has observed, the presence of certain kinds of surveillant artifact in the streetscape empirically diminishes personal safety, by eroding the sense of mutual responsibility that is otherwise the hallmark of an organically functioning neighborhood.
50. New visualization tools endow us with what amounts to an extended sensorium, but only at the risk of privileging the perspectives they encode over others which may well be more salient to the situation at hand. There is a danger that our tools will seduce us into believing we understand the flow of things better than we do, or can.
51. Because predictive analytics are all too often based on straight-line extrapolations from present behavior, they can fail to account for perturbations that knock a metastable system out of its present state and into another basin of stability.
52. Networked technologies erode our long-standing conceptions of public and private space. Instead of “public,” perhaps we are better off constructing these as places one can reasonably expect one’s behavior to be observed.
53. Instead of “private,” by the same token, perhaps we can consider such to be places where behavior, once observed, has a very high probability of being correlated with one’s identity.
54. We are now in a position to see that any meaningful distinction between such spaces is collapsing.
55. The risks to individual privacy posed by the contemporary networked streetscape and the objects in it is compounded by the personal devices we carry voluntarily.
56. Mediated digitally as they now are, many of the activities that constitute the public sphere have evaporated from the public realm, leaving the destiny of our public spaces uncertain.
57. Networked objects capable of collecting information from public space can usefully be placed on a spectrum of concern, evaluated by whether they do not store captured data, store it locally in a persistent manner, or upload it to the network…
58. …allow analytics to be applied to collected data or not…
59. …what their effective range and domain of action is…
60. …whether or not meaningful provisions for consent to and opt-out of attempts at collection are present…
61. …and whether or not there is a clear and immediate public good served by the collection.
62. As presently constructed, certain such deployments represent a unidirectional and involuntary transfer of value from individuals moving through public space to private concerns unknown to them.
63. Coming to terms with the fact that a very wide range of everyday objects and surfaces in our cities will have the capacities discussed here will require a new conception of them as open informational utilities: public objects.
64. What is a “public object”? Any artifact located in or bounding upon public rights-of-way…
65. …Any discrete object in the common spatial domain, intended for the use and enjoyment of the general public…
66. …Any discrete object which is de facto shared by and accessible to the public, regardless of its ownership or original intention.
67. The data streams collected by such objects should, within reason, be open, free, accessible and extensible. You should certainly be able to draw data out of them, and — so long as those functions represent no public harm — to run other functions on top of them.
68. We might more rigorously define the aim here as ensuring that the goods produced by public object data collection are nonrivalrous and nonexclusive.
69. Given the rapidity with which software evolves, it may be exceedingly difficult to subject systems where power/knowledge is brought to bear by provisions resident in code (rather than in discrete hardware) to processes of democratic accountability.
70. Provided with such functionality, urban space itself becomes capable of performing sorting and ordering operations, including differential exclusions with little or no effective recourse in real time.
71. Increasingly, the systems we are exposed to treat us as temporary and contingent aggregates of “dividuals,” distinguished from one another and laminated together only in the act and moment of inquiry. In the absence of traditional markers of mutual in-group recognition and solidarity, it may be difficult for such dividuals to recognize that they do in fact constitute a class.
72. Cities, with their density and diversity, generate two profound goods for free: enhanced information exchange and transactive capacity…
73. …and the forging, through friction, dissensus and the constant exposure to difference, of a metropolitan self.
74. The ability to trivially search the space of a city is leaching away at the constitution of a quality we have always recognized as urban savvy or savoir faire.
75. The persistent retrievability of personal information is undermining the city’s capacity to act as a chrysalis for personal reinvention.
76. Technologies like high-resolution positioning and algorithmic facial recognition are destroying any promise of anonymity we thought the metropolis afforded.
77. Cities depend vitally on informal, illicit, even deviant economies, which are threatened by a regime of eternal, total and trivial visibility.
78. The wish to protect, preserve or even enhance these qualities, when the technologies we now have at hand would seem to cut against them in ordinary use, furnishes us with several clear design desiderata for networked urban systems.
79. Transfer of the tools of placemaking — particularly the ability to make and publish maps — from empowered elites to the general public represents a profound recasting of spatial knowing. The ability to be represented (or, to some degree, to resist representation) is now in popular hands.
80. Equally, the advent of maps that tell you where you are on them represents a profound epistemic break from the entire history of cartography to date.
81. Our conceptions of lived, bodily space and the simultaneity and capacity of time are almost casually transformed by our everyday use of networked artifacts.
82. Many of the things our new tools tell us about the places we live will be circumstances we’re not quite ready to face up to.
83. Equally, these technologies present us with the specter of new and unforeseen failure modes. Such defaults may affect us in multiple registers simultaneously.
84. The ability for any person to physically travel to and occupy any public space of the city at any time of their choosing and without confronting challenge is an absolute precondition for any meaningfully articulated “right to the city.”
85. The present panoply of heterogeneous transportation networks we encounter in most cities cannot accommodate this requirement. They must therefore be bound together in a mesh of finely-grained and fully interoperable networked services — a transmobility field. Information is the substance of this new urban mobility.
86. The ability to claim unoccupied or unutilized space, at least temporarily, by the act of creative use is vital to any meaningful contemporary conception of a “right to the city,” most especially in so-called “shrinking cities.”
87. Present land-use policies and practices cannot accommodate this requirement. Parcels available on short-term, temporary, contingent or negotiated bases ought therefore be made discoverable via a networked service, such that both market and nonmarket service models are accommodated: space as a service.
88. The ability of citizens to enjoy the same real-time synoptic visibility over the unfolding processes of the city available to any manager is vital to any meaningful contemporary conception of a “right to the city.”
89. Present deployments of information technology, especially as made manifest in so-called intelligent operations centers, do not accommodate this requirement. Such consolidated awareness ought therefore be made available via open, shared platforms: frameworks for citizen engagement.
90. The ability to deploy vetted and reliable real-time information in support of collective self-determination is vital to any meaningful contemporary conception of a “right to the city.”
91. Present decision-making procedures, even in places under democratic governance, cannot accommodate this requirement. We ought therefore devise and install, at the lowest reasonable level, a populist deliberative process capable of harnessing networked information, bringing it to bear on challenges before the community and focusing dissensus where it is most productive: evidence-based citizenship.
92. The frictions and constraints that act to keep novel technosocial potentials from bedding in are almost never of a technical nature, but are rather institutional, regulatory and legal.
93. Though some of these constraints may certainly exist for good historical reasons, there is at present an odd and potentially temporary confluence of interests between those invested in a neoliberal retreat of the state from the provision of services and those holding an affirmative vision of collective self-determination.
94. Given the drag generally imposed on government informatics by the unwieldy combination of lowest-bidder procurement policies, the requirement for compatibility with legacy systems and elephantine IT bureaucracies, we stand on the threshold of a world in which the ordinary citizen has recourse to data-gathering, -processing and -visualization tools at least as good as, and often considerably superior to, those which local governmental institutions can bring to bear on a problem.
95. This is especially true when citizen information-processing resources are used in the aggregate.
96. As yet, the majority of urban places and things appear to the network only via passive representations. The networked city cannot come into its own until these are reconceived as a framework of active resources, each endowed with some manner of structured, machine-readable presence, and the possibilities for interaction such provisions give rise to.
97. It is only by consciously and carefully transforming the urban landscape into a meshwork of open and available resources that we can find some upside in the colonization of everyday life by information technology. Such resources ought to be maintained as elements of a core common infrastructure.
98. If place derives its meaning from phenomenology, capacity and history, the technologies under consideration here operate in all three registers.
99. The city is not a finite state machine, something with limited configurations. Networked cities, therefore, must be understood as constituting a grammar that admits to a very large number of valid permutations. Understood correctly, any such place will be ripe with potential for interconnection, recombination and improvisatory structuration — something capable of being extended, enhanced and repurposed by its users as new potentials become available and new desires arise.
100. Considerations, then, for a city and a world newly clothed in code. If we admittedly find ourselves amidst this set of circumstances without much having planned on it, how we respond — what we do now, what cities we make of the potentials before us — is still largely up to us. Now as never before, the city is here for you to use.
14 responses to “The City Is Here For You To Use: 100 easy pieces”
Trackbacks / Pingbacks
- The City Is Here For You To Use: 100 easy pieces [Adam Greenfield] | Landscape Urbanism - 22 December 2012
- The City Is Here For You To Use | Amateur Earthling - 26 December 2012
- This Space Is Not For Sale « SB129 - 2 January 2013
- IDEA9106 Design Thinking - 23 March 2013
- Interface Critique | Words in Space - 10 January 2014
- no-flux - 26 January 2015
- Interface Critique – Words In Space - 27 August 2020
- Siesta City: re-apropiación del espacio público – Francesca Alminyana - 1 June 2022
Leave a Reply
Adam Greenfield on TwitterMy Tweets
- “Against the Smart City”: Introduction to the 2023 Italian edition 29 April 2023
- The Lifehouse: Distributed community support centers for the Long Emergency 10 April 2023
- The mission is terminated. 18 June 2020
- «Окей, бумер»: ForbesLife Russia interview, December ’19 6 December 2019
- Reminder to self 31 October 2019
Being discussed now
- Des églises aux Maisons de vie | Trahir on Antecedents of the minimum viable utopia: Cliff Harper’s “Visions” series
- The Lifehouse: Distributed community support centers for the Long Emergency – This day’s portion on The Lifehouse: Distributed community support centers for the Long Emergency
- Stuff that matters: Unpicking the pyramid | Imaginaries Lab | Dr Dan Lockton on Public objects
- Report: Most people just trying to get by | Imaginaries Lab | Dr Dan Lockton on A fuller and more balanced toolkit
- As we may understand: A constructionist approach to â€˜behaviour changeâ€™ and the Internet of Things | Imaginaries Lab | Dr Dan Lockton on The kind of program a city is
Tremendously interesting, even in this raw form. Virtually every point has sparked a thought on something i’d like to look into in more detail.
I’d love to know when we might be able to see the thing in it’s full glory. Or should i just keep my eye on nearby digital bus shelter ;)
Thanks, Matt, that’s very kind of you to say. It’s exactly the effect I hoped for.
I’ve learned the hard way not to make any promises about this book…but it’s closer to being finished than it ever has been, if that helps. : . )
Sounds very interesting! Regarding the ideas of ‘open data’, I was wondering whether you had spoken to data scientists to get a rough idea of how far this can take you when the piles of data become huge. In particular, if the analysis and interpretation of such large tranches of data is in practice restricted to a small number of people/organizations with the computational resources and mathematical skills to make use of them, then it will remain restricted to those with a financial incentive to use it, and so the output of the models built on top of this data will remain rivalrous. I don’t know enough to judge whether requiring the models to be open/public as well would be enough to fix this.
Very interesting lines of enquiry – and quite balanced about the positive/negative effects this networked urbanization could hold. It sparked off a lot of thoughts in my mind too. I particularly agree with the potential for total and constant surveillance, and the threat this poses.
A couple of questions, i assume given all the negative aspects that there would be some resistance to this developing reality, i wonder how some people in the city would retreat from code, from electronics and monitoring, would the networked city necessarily give rise to a luddite underbelly within it? Perhaps manifesting itself in equally high tech forms of material resistance (materials which dont allow electronic signals to pass through them) or simply through ghettoization and exclusion – think Minority Report’s off radar zone – uncontrollable either due to its population density or lack of necessity. In terms of surveillance and monitoring, its not clear whether it will be a benefit to monitor everyone, in some cases the traditional solution of the wall/barrier forming the open prison will easily suffice – gaza/kowloon/favelas provide urban models with every hint of futurity.
Secondly, as to the impetus – i can follow the rationale of your argument that the potential promised by such technologies will be the main driver for action, but i see real difficulty in imagining the development of such techno/reality occurring in a peer to peer, decentralized manner. For one, because the infrastructural aspect will necessitate some form of co-ordination in its distribution – protection and upkeep, you mention that current models of networking devices lend themselves to central control, i’d agree. And again because the explosion of the physical realm into a reconfigurable zone of digital and urban potential would be a nightmare for any governing body to keep track of. I think here we should look to the lessons of history, which shows over and over that power likes to ossify itself in understandable and controllable form (in its own terms). So while i can’t see how this technology would distribute itself, neither can i see the impetus for a governing authority to make it happen either.
As an aside – all too often i think the decentralization of the web gives us an illusion of control, we forget that its decentralized interface is contingent on massively centralised (physical) industry for its production/distribution and maintenance. Getting away from that will be a real challenge.
Thirdly – do you have some idea of a time frame for your studies? Are we talking 50 year predictions, longer or shorter?
Thanks very much for posting this – i’m coming at this from an architectural/urban perspective – i hope my questions make some sense.
All great points, Dan (and ael), and at this point all I can ask is your patience until I can replay at the length your comments deserve…in the form of a book.
My intention, by the way, is to post the entire text of the book at some point soon after its release, on a platform that will allow for sentence-level commenting, discussion and disputation.
Absolutely agree with your points on Smart Cities, a terrific list; thanks! I think we need to design for Social Cities, I’ve been working on Ambient Learning Cities (in Manchester – which displays particular restraints) and summarised that in Social Cities of Tomorrow http://www.slideshare.net/fredgarnett/social-cities-of-tomorrow-2012