Cities no longer sleep, not only because the neon lights never go out, but because their systems beat like interconnected brains that process millions of data in real time. At the heart of this transformation emerge the so-called “smart cities”, urban spaces shaped by the logic of the Information Society, where technology not only facilitates life, but also directs it. But what does it really mean to live in a city governed by algorithms?
“A city is nothing more than an information network” — Manuel Castells
By: Gabriel E. Levy B.
From the first ideas of urban cybernetics to today’s digitized metropolises, the concept of the smart city was not born overnight. In the 1960s, Jane Jacobs warned of the dangers of dehumanized urban planning and advocated for a more organic view of cities. But it was Manuel Castells, a Spanish sociologist, who laid the most robust theoretical foundations around the Information Society, describing a new social structure based on data flows rather than physical relationships.
In the late 20th century, cities began to integrate sensors into traffic lights, cameras on the streets, and connected surveillance systems. This not only responded to the need for security or mobility, but also anticipated a new rationality: the city as an intelligent organism. The term “smart city” gained traction in the first decade of the 21st century, when companies such as IBM and Cisco began selling urban solutions based on Big Data, artificial intelligence and digital governance.
Today, names such as Songdo in South Korea, Masdar in the United Arab Emirates or Barcelona in Europe are repeated as models of this new generation of cities. But, behind the promise of efficiency and sustainability, there are also questions about control, privacy and the true role of the citizen in this new urban ecosystem.
“Whoever controls the data, controls the city”
The concept of the smart city is intimately linked to the Information Society, a term that describes the shift from an industry-based economy to one based on knowledge and the circulation of data. Castells sums it up in his trilogy The Information Age, where he defines an “informational economy” that depends more on the ability to process and use data than on material production.
In this context, the smart city becomes the ideal laboratory for deploying information and communication technologies (ICT) with the aim of making urban life more efficient. Traffic lights that adjust their rhythm according to the flow of vehicles, energy systems that are regulated by real demand and citizen participation platforms that allow collective decisions to be made: everything seems to indicate that urban intelligence is the next evolutionary step.
However, this transformation also brings with it a reconfiguration of power. According to Evgeny Morozov, a critic of technopolitics, many smart solutions are based on corporate interests rather than citizen needs. Mobility platforms such as Uber or Lime, for example, offer convenience, but they also redefine the relationship between the public and the private, and not always under democratic scrutiny.
In other words, in the Information Society, it is not enough to have access to technology; It is necessary to understand how this structure redistributes power and what social consequences it has. The smart city, in this sense, is not neutral.
Efficiency or vigilance? The urban dilemma of the twenty-first century
While the dominant narrative about smart cities insists on efficiency, sustainability, and participation, there is a latent tension running through them: the conflict between citizen well-being and technocratic surveillance. The digitization of urban spaces makes it possible to collect data on mobility, energy consumption, purchasing habits, and even mental health. But who manages that information? For what purposes?
The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the implementation of monitoring technologies in cities. Thermal cameras, contact tracing applications and predictive behavioural systems were installed quickly, often without a clear legal framework. In China, the “social credit” system has been one of the most extreme expressions of this model, where citizens are scored according to their behavior, which influences their access to public services.
Europe, on the other hand, adopted a more regulatory stance. The city of Amsterdam implemented the “Digital City Strategy” that prioritizes data sovereignty and the right to privacy. In Barcelona, the DECODE project seeks to return control of data to citizens through an open and decentralized platform.
The underlying question is ethical: can a city be truly smart if it does not guarantee the digital rights of its inhabitants? Can there be innovation without inclusion? As Shoshana Zuboff points out in The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, the promise of technological progress often hides a new form of extraction: no longer of oil or labor, but of human behavior.
Between sensors and citizenship: experiences that set the course
There are multiple examples of cities that have adopted different approaches in their transition to urban intelligence. In Singapore, the government rolled out the Smart Nation system, which includes sensors across the country to measure everything from pedestrian flow to air quality. This information feeds a digital brain that makes automated decisions in real time. The model has been praised for its efficiency, but also criticized for its lack of openness to public debate.
In contrast, Medellín, in Colombia, opted for a more inclusive vision. After decades marked by violence, the city promoted a model of social innovation based on citizen laboratories, collaborative platforms and a strong investment in digital education. The use of technology was not an end in itself, but a tool to improve social cohesion and reduce gaps.
In Toronto, the ambitious Sidewalk Toronto project – led by a Google subsidiary – promised to revolutionize urban planning with smart infrastructure. However, after strong criticism for the possible exploitation of citizen data, the project was canceled. Experience has shown that transparency and participation cannot be optional in this type of initiative.
Even in small cities, such as Sant Cugat del Vallès in Spain, local smart city strategies have been developed where residents participate in the design of technology policies, from waste management to electric mobility. The key has always been the same: to put technology at the service of people, and not the other way around.
In conclusion, smart cities represent an immense opportunity to rethink urban life in the digital age, but also a risk if the human dimension is neglected. Beyond sensors and algorithms, what is truly smart will be to build cities that prioritize equity, transparency and the participation of their inhabitants, in a context where information is no longer only power, but also territory.
References:
- Castells, M. (1996). The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture. Alianza Editorial.
- Zuboff, S. (2019). The era of surveillance capitalism. Paidós.
- Morozov, E. (2011). The disillusionment of the internet. Katz Editores.
- Jacobs, J. (1961). Death and life of the great American cities. Random House.
