The ‘Internet of Things’ in making cities for people: Does Port-Louis really need to be a ‘Smart City’ to become smart?
The ‘Smart City’ concept was developed in the U.S.A in 2008 by IBM as part of its Smart Planet Initiative. The idea was to use data and technology for urban management and governance in order to make cities more efficient, usable and safe. For example data pertaining to environmental conditions and traffic patterns could be used to manage mass commuting and public safety on a day-to day basis.
The seemingly innovative idea soon caught on globally, predominantly because of its catchy and user-friendly name which made the concept more accessible than the ‘intelligent city’ ideal, which was perceived to be more elitist. Within a few years, various nations across the globe adopted this new approach to city design and became part of a new urban movement. Countries like South Korea, UAE and China began to invest heavily into urban research and formation.
‘Smart City’, has become a universal term, employed by decision makers mostly as a branding and marketing technique, in the same way that a product is branded to increase market presence and sales.
There are 2 underlying problems when it comes to branding the practice of urbanisation:
- City-making is a process-driven exercise, and we cannot brand a process;
- There is no real value to it for anyone, except for those with a vested interest in this ‘product’: those who are investing their capital around it.
The ‘branded’ Smart City, while purported to be idyllic in principle is in reality founded on capital and investment, and often excludes the human being, which should be an integral part of the equation. The Smart City, built on data aimed to attract investment will have little connection to the concerns and feelings of people who live and work in the city. The result is inhuman cities: cities where return on investment for individuals and economic enterprise is prioritized and the urban scape comprises mostly exclusive areas, which leads inevitably to an increase in urban ghettoization and gentrification.
An urban rejuvenation project for Port Louis, which requires an estimated investment of 52 billion rupees from the private sector, with a focus on creating a ‘cloud’ to sustain smart phone apps to reserve parking spaces for private cars and access to businesses is evidence of such an approach. The priority rests on luring investors with business opportunities for service provision.
We can be made to believe that, because our growing population uses smart phones and we all want to be seen as being trendy, we must buy into this kind of scheme, and this is ‘the’ way to make new, innovative, futuristic and ideal cities.
However, we are setting ourselves up for failure. Private investors require a return on their investment, and this will be ensured at the cost of urban quality.
We are not against urban rejuvenation for our capital city. We are all eager to see heavy investment of capital with the aim of revitalising our urban spaces, in Port Louis and elsewhere on the island.
However, the question which must be asked is: do we need to turn Port Louis into an exclusive area, which functions exclusively for businesses by placing capitalist gain as a priority?
We cannot, and we must not talk about futuristic approaches when it comes to urban rejuvenation, until we get the basics right. If we are to embark on an urban redevelopment project for Port Louis, we must first and foremost forget about branding the task. We must focus on improving urban quality in Port Louis through introducing the following concepts , or enhancing them where they already exist:
- A walkable city
- A well-connected city
- A city with diversity and mixed-use development
- Mixed-housing – for all layers of the social strata
- A city with quality architecture and urban design
- A logical urban structure, and a city centre, an edge, adequate and pleasant public spaces, and where most amenities are within 20 minutes walking distance from the transit nodes
- Increased density, where we are to use less energy and resources to make the city function at its best
- Green transportation
- Sustainable and resilient development, where the city is alive even after working hours and over weekends
- Quality of life: where the city has a sequence of well-connected places that enrich, uplift and inspire the human spirit.
The principles listed above are based on the concept of New Urbanism, which places people as the priority in an urban area. The benefits of this method of urban thinking, planning and design practice are widespread and will positively affect:
- The residents – who can enjoy a good quality of life, with areas to live/work/play being accessible within the city. They can also enjoy urban spaces with less congestion, less driving and less stress. This results in higher and more stable property values;
- Businesses: who will see an increase in sales due to increased foot traffic, and more profits due to less money spent on advertising and large signs;
- Developers – who will see more income potential from higher density mixed-use projects due to more leasable square footage, more sales per square foot, and higher property values and selling prices;
- The Municipality – with a stable and increasing tax base.
Port-Louis, by and large, already encompasses these 10 principles of New Urbanism. Therefore, we can certainly argue that our capital city is already smart, and can indeed be further smartened up. It is for this reason that, while encouraging inner city re-development, we must absolutely preserve the city’s essence – that of a capital city housing businesses as well as administration and civic services. Deleting one aspect from this equation to accommodate other functions (housing for instance), will risk killing the very essence of the Port Louis we all know. Removing the civic function from our capital city will not only create space for more (undesirable) exclusive areas within the city centre, but also create urban issues somewhere else on the island where the Government offices will need to be placed, even though the future urban development being branded as ‘Heritage City’ is being proposed.
The concept of Port Louis as a ‘Smart City’ without a civic function is not ideal. Rather an inclusive approach should be adopted whereby more mixed-use development (that accommodates civic and corporate, administrative, commercial, residential and leisure activities) is encouraged. Essentially, while preserving the essence of Port-Louis, we must enhance its embedded value – that of being a city for all.
Any urban redevelopment project for this city cannot be achieved without the authorities truly committing themselves to taking into account the interests of all city users, and particularly the local community. We must not underestimate the value of inclusive growth, where we will avoid social exclusion and create ghettos. Affordable housing must remain an essential component in order to achieve inclusiveness.
Finally, if we are to ‘smarten’ Port-Louis, our focus must shift from a top-down master-planning approach to a strategic-planning process, where we include the public at large by inviting and empowering them through bottom-up social initiatives. The residents and users of the city (not just those who will benefit commercially from projects) must be included in the planning and implementation of urban rejuvenation interventions in Port Louis. After all, a truly smart city is one that responds to the needs of its people rather than providing a platform for technology: the city is for people, not smart phone apps.
Author: Divesh Guttee