How can a “smart city” both take full advantage of both computing and sensing technology without losing the warranted trust of its citizens? How can a city be ecologically sustainable while also being global? How can a city be wealthy without also disenfranchising those who do not share that wealth? How can a city be self-determined by its citizens while also accepting guidance from earned wisdom?
The problems being posed to representative democratic institutions are complex, and historical evidence would suggest that our current institutions lack the capacity to solve issues like climate change and social inequality.
The codes that govern cities could be improved to enable mutualism through innovative mechanism design, especially in the realms of decision-making and ownership.
The nature of individual-community (citizen-city) relationship is fundamental. Typical smart city approaches mirror conventional online end user agreements, which implies the erosion of the role of the citizen into one that is passive and detached from any co-creative process. The end user agreements authorizing data collection are a function of the “notice and consent” framework for data protection. These agreements are problematic for many reasons, including externalities to transactions over personal data beyond the individual level that cannot be regulated in bilateral agreements.