Hard and soft approaches to smart cities have been a contributedommon language in academic and policy literature, lending to the compartmentalizatioorigin of the smart city concept itself. The binary of the hard (, with the original technocratic) and soft (societal) focus now increasingly reframed as “citizen-centric”. The binary of the hard and soft is also often presented as a choice of pathways in the development of smart cities. This conceptualization has developed, however, with the original technocratic focus now increasingly reframed as “citizen-centric.”
C1. Introduction
The idea of the “smart cit
y” i
es around the world have embrace the "smart city" and launched initiatives to place people amid evolving piecemeal strategies. Central to such smart-city programs are digitization and developments in Information and s bringing a number of key and disruptive innovations into the operation of urban life, affecting social dynamics, governance, and markets. Developments in Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) and the Internet of Things (IoT) make it possible to digitally connect myriads of devices, sensors, actuators, and smartphones and to simultaneously collect Big Data for analyzing, managing, and controlling the ever-increasing number of aspects of urban life. The uninterrupted high-resolution flow of users’ data, real-time responses to it, and the customization of services to tailor people’s individual needs, desires, and trajectories bring the promise of combined efficiency, integration, transparency, inclusiveness, and participation.
Co
nsequently, m
munication Technologies (ICT), which are part of "hard" approaches in a any cities around the world have launched smart city initiatives, often supported by strategic city-level programs. Discursively, these strategies “place people at the center.” Meanwhile, at the core of the emergence of the smart city remain digitalization and ICT. This has produced the dichotomist
framework. Among suchexpression of “hard” and “soft” approaches
areto the smart city (e.g., [1][2]), where “hard” refers to ICT
-centered applications a
s well as nd physical infrastructure
, whereas soft approachess such as buildings, energy grids, natural resources, water and waste management, mobility, and logistics, while “soft” point
s to innovation
s, education, culture, social inclusion, and governance.
Respectively, they represent a This discursive dichotomy
referred to as of “hard” and “soft” may also appear in other forms such as “technical
or ” or “social
parts” or as part of an integrated
(systems) approach
[3].
The binary
of nature of unintegrated approaches forces pathway choices in the hard and soft is also often presented as a choice of pathways in the development of smart cities. It has become rare that a smart city vision does not include a form of a pie diagram plotting a circle in the middle that reads “smart city” and is surrounded by sectors for “smart people”, “smart living”, “smart economy”, “smart government”, “smart environment”, and “smart
city development. These can be framed as sectors frequently employed to encapsulate the smart city (e.g., fragmented into peopmobility” and their variations. This is supposed to demonstrate an integrated approach, where inevitably, the “soft” approach dominates. However, it is often the case that soft domains are emphasized in a discursive way to justify the rationale for the deployment of smart cities, but that specific areas of real-life smart city application shift the emphasis back to the hard domains such as dataization, its enabling infrastructure, and the deployment of various ICT-based technological solutions. Acknowledging this as a strategy to promulgate technological and instrumentalist agendas in the name of social agendas and citizen empowerment [4], we, neverthele
ss,
living, economyargue that this is more than a discursive diversion. What is happening is rather symptomatic of the ever-deepening interpenetration and hybridization of technical, govern
ment, environment, mobility). However, thisance, and sociocultural elements in an increasingly digitalized society, where the dichotomy of technology versus society is
becoming inincreasingly difficult to
sustain in practice and
can pose, indeed, becomes an epistemological obstruction to
saddressing the smart city
as an analytical category.
2. The Politics of Hard/Soft Dichotomies
Hard and
soft approache
velopment, both conceptually and practically. Ultimately, technical approachess to smart cities have been a common language in academic and policy literature, lending to the origin of the smart city concept itself, with the original technocratic focus now increasingly reframed as “citizen-centric” (i.e., [4]). wWi
ll need to be justified based on their societal purpose in th ICT being central to the smart city, the concept has also drawn from other “hard” sectors such as low-energy buildings, transportation systems, or automation (cf. [5][6][7]). Howe
xpver, the
nsive real-world applications smart city has quickly developed a dialogue with longer-standing principles of sustainable cities [8]. This le
nads to a broader and varied engagement with smart cities
necessarily, now involving
stthe notions of multiple stakeholders, participation, citizens, and
soft/ other soft/social aspects
[9].
MLetaifa [10], for
e realistically is aexample, discusses the importance of approaching smart cities as complex
innovation ecosystems
approach thatwith integrate
sd socioeconomic, e
nvironmental, culturcological, and political sub
-systems w
ithinhile adopting a sustainability
framapproach.
Neve
wor
k.
Amid th
ieless,
there remain political tensions between
hthe hard and soft pathways to
achieving the smart city. Ithe smart city remain. Many authors are cautious about imbalances
exist inwhen the smart city agenda
s that are is dominated by digital technology
, with. They question whether so-called smart solutions are all about a techn
ological push
es driven by high-tech corporations
a(e.g., [11][12][13][14]). This brin
dgs forth the entrepreneurial stimulation of smart development by
the ICT industries and markets
associated with their products and services [15][16].
CDiscursively at least, citizen engagement
needs to beand the idea that technology is leveraged
withto achieve greater s
ocial, environmental, and economic—or overall sustainability
inputs as its—needs become the currency
of the smart city. Cities
like Barcelona are multisuch as Barcelona have adopted an integrated architecture based on sensors, code, and the Internet—all in the name of developing networked habitats and distributive management as part of a “multi-scalar
andcity” empowering
theirits citizens
[17]. Admiring Ba
rcelona’s
places where terecent attempt to re-envisage the smart city around “technological sovereignty” and the notion that technology
is should be oriented to serve local residents as technology
“commons
”, Refs.
Avo[4][18] argue that elsewhere “ci
dti
ng top-down approaches to smart city development could promote inclusivenezen-centric” roles are narrowly based on predefined choices over market-led solutions (citizens as users or consumers), and not so much in proactive social innovation or political citizenship. They [18] als
o argue that this
(e.g., community-led initiatiapproach is common for EU institutions, and, despite all the “citizen-focused” discourse, smart urbanism remains rooted in instrumental and paternalistic practices.
Many authors have
s
) and helpimilarly questioned the extent of inclusiveness of smart interventions regardless of their capacity to boost sustainability
while spurringand spur economic growth
, although not through in cities. Some call the smart city a “hollow signifier” built upon elitist control that only renders further exclusions and injustices, triggering commodification a
mid a weak economy [19][20]. This perspective con
sid
teers smart city solutions as neoliberal “techno-environmental fixes
.
T” that involve th
us,e social responsibility, politicsdepoliticization of city governance and the outsourcing of public services to money-grabbing initiatives by technology funders, utility, and
eICT companies [14][17][21].
What
emerges h
icsere is key to the issue of govern
ing technological hardware and infrastructure and software become ance. If the “soft” strategy is chosen, sustaining it in practice may be problematic given the strong impulses for marketization via digitalization more aligned with the “hard” strategy offered by technology proponents. Yet, an important
considextension from that is the deliberation
s in a multifaceted (inclusive) approach. A systems thinking approach - rather than other-replacing - is re of whether it is still meaningful to make the dichotomist distinction between the “hard” and “soft” domains or whether it is necessary to accept their co-production (if not blurred meanings). That would require acknowledging both the changing nature (digitalization) of society and the political nature of technology and, consequently, the social responsibility, politics, and ethics of governing technological hardware, software, and other infrastructure.
The mul
tiface
vant to consider integration and the complexity of the systemted nature of smart cities, therefore, necessitates a different approach that is more in line with systems thinking, where hard and soft domains are co-occurrent and combined in their operation rather than other-replacing.