The smart city is the urban ideal of our time. Yet its high expectations often run counter against the performance of smart city projects in practice. The Rathenau Institute has studied a number of such projects in the municipality of Eindhoven, a leading city with respect to digital innovation in the Netherlands. To ensure that data is used in a proper manner with respect for public values Eindhoven has applied several strategies, such as privacy by design and the active involvement of its citizens. It has also set up a number of principles for the digital society which helped to negotiate contracts with private partners. Yet the authors’ analysis shows that important legal challenges remain. Some of the principles require more detailed specification. The authors also found that the law is not yet fully appropriated to the new digital context and needs to be adjusted accordingly.

The recently cancelled Quayside smart city project in Toronto by Sidewalk Labs is an example of a top-down, tech-driven, intransparant model of a smart city, where government and citizens got sidetracked in the planning process. This article analyses what went wrong and proposes an alternative approach. Experts in the field – from data scientists to philosophers, sociologists and activists – propose a different kind of smart city. The open smart city is based on principles of open data, public digital infrastructure, and civic participation. It uses technology to strengthen public values, civic participation and human rights, instead of undermining them.

This article deals with the relationship of smart security technologies to broader modes of exercising power and subjugating individuals. It claims that the notion of psychopower is precisely what is missing from post-Foucaultian accounts of the smart city. In the article psychopower is defined as the manipulation of our consciousness in order to channel our desires toward ‘normal’ social behavior, drawing a line between what is ‘acceptable’ and what is ‘unacceptable’. Psychopower raises a series of concerns related to its democratic legitimacy and accountability as behaviorally informed conditioning of the mind runs the risk of constant surveillance, where human agency is diluted in a techno-utopian vision that promises to improve city-wide efficiency, decision-making, and security.

Public values and citizen participation are key terms in smart city discourse that are propagated by all its actors, from governments to corporations and civil society. Nevertheless, the design and development of smart cities are hardly ‘public’ as some publics and some forms of participation are never included. This is particularly visible in current protests against a key enabling technology for smart cities, 5G. These contestations tend to be considered ill-informed and irrational, while their methods are seen as conflictual rather than helpful. In this article the author argues that the public value approach to smart cities is rooted in a deliberative perspective of democracy, while the tensions that are produced by 5G and other forms of anti-technological protest are better understood as part of agonistic democracy. Such conflicts about the new smart technologies that are currently hidden from public sight need to be articulated and constructed as contentious issues for electoral politics, in order for the smart city to acquire its democratic legitimacy.

Steering on public values in Dutch smart cities, let alone their regulation, is complicated. This article situates this difficulty in the vested interests that Dutch local authorities have in public-private smart city projects, and in the fact that public values are narrowly defined in relation to the technology; not in relation to a vision for the city in which its communities thrive. A way out of this deadlock, the article proposes, is to understand smart cities in the Netherlands beyond the typically Dutch consensus politics (the ‘polder’) and, instead, as part of a broader (urban) governance tendency to push urban technologies through the recital of fixed urban problems and public values. Consequently, state regulation of the (Dutch) smart city should principally enable (local) public and political involvement in defining urban problems and urban dreams, and thus in deciding the public values that are at stake.

While smart city initiatives claim to be ‘citizen-focused’ or ‘citizen-centric’, there are several troubling aspects of how citizenship and social relations are produced within them. First, they prioritize technological solutions to social and urban problems from the perspective of businesses and states, rather than serving local communities. With a focus on digital technology, they also exclude a wide range of marginalized publics from the possibility to participate in the smart city and only rarely address issues of social differences in cities. The smart city thus creates new or exacerbates existing challenges to the possibility of all city dwellers to fully enjoy urban life with all of its services and advantages, as well as taking direct part in the management of cities – in other words, it creates challenges for ‘the right to the city’. In this article, the author thus explores the notion of the right to the city in order to inform and recast the smart city in emancipatory and empowering ways, one that would work for the benefit of all citizens and not just selected populations.