ABSTRACT
One current discourse on the urban condition is embodied in the concept of the ‘smart city’. 1 This idea describes the city as a system of information and flow, which although complex and wayward, can be controlled, manipulated and optimised to increase efficiency in sectors such as transportation infrastructures, health care, etc. The aim is no less than the betterment of culture as a whole. With respect to infrastructure, for example, one concrete proposition is the use of complex and self-reflexive computations of streetlights that are monitored through sensors and constantly adapt to the ever-changing traffic flow, thus aiding people’s way through the city whilst at the same time saving on energy. From such propositions, the smart city propagandists move directly to visions of a more sustainable, economic, beautiful, seamless and happy society. This way of thinking takes for granted that the city is an entity that can be experienced and comprehended in the same way by everyone in it. It thus extrapolates a vision of civic order from the idea that a common goal of optimisation can be identified in a way that would enable purposiveness and meaning to come together in the built environment. However, as this chapter will show, the way in which we approach the urban realm is influenced by our different backgrounds, and diverging levels of understanding, interests, and attentions, to such an extent that the idea of order as a system of optimisation seems highly unlikely. While the idea of the smart city thus constitutes an attempt to formulate a vision of civic order, it raises questions about to what extent this can ever be a system.
