Reimagining Smart Cities: From Corporate Control to Citizen-Led Urban Futures

The paper critiques corporate-driven visions of smart cities, warning that datafication and top-down governance risk deepening inequality and surveillance. Instead, it calls for citizen-led, democratic approaches where technology serves community needs and inclusive urban futures.

The article, developed with contributions from leading research institutions such as the University of Cambridge and several international academic collaborators, delivers a sharp interrogation of the smart city idea. It contends that the dominant narrative, driven largely by global technology corporations and influential policy bodies, presents a sanitized and overly optimistic vision of digitally enhanced urban life. Behind the sleek imagery of connected infrastructure and efficient services lies a set of deeper questions about control, ownership, and equity. By reframing the smart city as a political project rather than a technological inevitability, the authors make clear that the stakes are far higher than data dashboards and self-regulating traffic lights: they concern the future of democracy, social justice, and the right to shape urban futures.

Corporate Visions and Public Backlash

At the heart of the critique is the idea of corporate capture. Smart cities are not simply evolving organically; they are being actively molded by the ambitions of large ICT companies that pitch their platforms and systems as indispensable solutions for modern governance. Cities, enticed by the promise of cutting-edge technology, often sign on to projects that embed private systems deep into public infrastructure. Yet, this outsourcing of power risks undermining democratic oversight. The example of Toronto’s Sidewalk Labs stands as a cautionary tale. Marketed as a pioneering model of urban innovation, the project collapsed under the weight of citizen resistance, largely due to concerns over data privacy, corporate accountability, and fears of handing too much urban decision-making to one tech giant. What appeared at first as an exciting experiment soon exposed the vulnerabilities of relying on corporations to define the shape of public life.

Datafication: Citizens as Metrics

The relentless datafication of cities is another major focus of the paper. Through networks of sensors, cameras, and digital platforms, vast amounts of data are constantly harvested, ostensibly to improve services, optimize traffic, or enhance safety. Proponents present this as “smart governance,” but the authors point out that in practice, it reduces citizens to datasets. Algorithms and predictive models increasingly make decisions that affect everyday lives, with little transparency or recourse. Predictive policing technologies and automated welfare systems are prime examples, often reinforcing biases and disproportionately targeting vulnerable populations. In this environment, the rhetoric of efficiency masks a worrying erosion of civic participation, as human judgment and collective deliberation give way to opaque systems that prioritize control over empowerment.

Inequalities in the Smart City

Despite glossy brochures that promise inclusivity and universal benefits, the implementation of smart city projects often reproduces or deepens social divides. Wealthier districts in global hubs are typically the first to receive smart infrastructure, showcasing technologies that rarely reach marginalized neighborhoods. The case of Songdo in South Korea illustrates this paradox: despite its reputation as a fully planned smart city, it has struggled to attract organic social life, resulting in a sterile environment that feels disconnected from genuine civic needs. Meanwhile, cities in the Global South often serve as testing grounds for corporate pilots, reinforcing global hierarchies where technological dependency runs parallel to economic inequality. These patterns raise a pressing question: whose smart city is being built, and who gets left behind?

Grassroots Alternatives and Future Pathways

Yet the narrative is not only one of critique. The paper highlights an array of citizen-led and community-driven projects that demonstrate the potential of technology when guided by democratic values and local priorities. Participatory mapping exercises, community-managed renewable energy systems, and open-source platforms show that smart technologies can serve collective empowerment rather than corporate profit. These initiatives may be modest in scale compared to the billion-dollar ambitions of global tech companies, but they provide a blueprint for rethinking urban digitalization. They reveal that the smart city does not have to be a monolithic project imposed from above; it can instead be a patchwork of local experiments, responsive to the unique needs and aspirations of communities.

Reclaiming the Narrative

The theoretical framing of the article draws from urban political economy and critical data studies, insisting that smart cities cannot be understood outside the context of neoliberal governance and platform capitalism. The authors dismantle the idea that technology will automatically “fix” urban problems, arguing that political choices and power struggles are what ultimately shape outcomes. The conclusion is both a warning and a call to action: if current trajectories persist, smart cities risk becoming engines of surveillance capitalism, deepening inequality, and consolidating corporate power. But if governments, policymakers, and citizens seize the moment to reclaim the narrative, insisting on participatory governance, public ownership of data, and inclusive planning, smart technologies could still contribute to building fairer, greener, and more democratic cities. The future of smart cities, the paper stresses, is not set in stone; it is a contested space where corporate visions and grassroots alternatives are locked in struggle, and where the stakes involve not only technology but the very fabric of urban life.