In 2017, Sidewalk Labs secured a contract to transform 12 acres of land along the Toronto Waterfront. They positioned the endeavor as a groundbreaking initiative aimed at fundamentally changing urban construction through innovative approaches designed to create smart cities. Over three years, the Alphabet subsidiary crafted an extensive vision for the area, culminating in a 1,500-page proposal with a $1.3 billion budget. However, this ambitious project was abruptly halted in May 2020, a decision announced by Dan Doctoroff on the same platform where it was promoted.

While the timing of the project's cancellation could be attributed to the challenges presented by the COVID-19 pandemic, a closer examination reveals a more complex reality. On the day of the announcement, Sidewalk Infrastructure Partners, a related organization, disclosed it had secured $400 million from Alphabet and the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan—a significant sum from a pension fund in the very province where Sidewalk was planning its smart city. This suggests that not all major construction projects were feeling the pandemic's financial strain.

The true downfall of Sidewalk Labs’ Toronto initiative can largely be traced to persistent opposition from activists and local residents. Central to their concerns were issues of privacy, data collection, and the fundamental purpose of the city: was it designed to serve the community or merely to harvest their data? Aware of this backlash, Sidewalk engaged nearly 50 lobbyists to promote their project to governmental authorities, yet ultimately, the mounting pressure proved overwhelming.

Disrupt. Revolutionize. Innovate. Make Smart.

With almost a year since the project's demise, and as society begins to recover from the pandemic, it seems fitting to assess the broader landscape of smart cities. According to the World Bank, a smart city is characterized by technology integration, featuring sensors and highly efficient public services powered by real-time data from interconnected devices. Dan Doctoroff described it as constructing a city "from the internet up."

Smart cities have been marketed as idealized environments—not unlike tech-driven economic zones with minimal oversight. This concept has attracted vast investments from those captivated by such terminology. Estimates of smart city projects range widely, from approximately 450 to potentially thousands, with the industry valued at $100 billion in 2019 and projected to exceed $250 billion within a decade. These initiatives are emerging globally, from the Emirates to Japan, Kenya to South Korea, and California to Canada.

Smart city projects vary widely, encompassing everything from WiFi kiosks and LED lighting upgrades to comprehensive developments like Sidewalk’s Quayside and Songdo in South Korea.

Songdo stands out as one of the most ambitious smart city developments, a $40 billion project situated 20 miles from Seoul, designed to accommodate 250,000 residents (currently housing 70,000). While it has made strides toward its vision of a sustainable, high-tech haven, the reality of the city has not met expectations. The design, crafted by Kohn Pedersen Fox, exhibits a sterile quality reminiscent of Brasilia and Soviet-era housing, prioritizing aerial aesthetics over human experience. The layout, with its extensive highways and sparse parks, has been criticized for neglecting pedestrian-friendly spaces, leaving residents feeling more like outsiders in a city built around cars.

Some of this lack of warmth can be attributed to the city's unfinished state, but the foundational issues remain. Master-planned environments often leave little room for organic development, prioritizing technology and public image over the needs of the inhabitants.

Disrupt. Revolutionize. Innovate. Make Smart.

Smart city initiatives are predominantly spearheaded by large tech firms and institutional entities, often reflecting the biases and perspectives of their creators. This disconnection between the creators and the lived experiences of residents can lead to misguided approaches. A prevalent bias among technologists is the belief that internet-derived designs inherently surpass their real-world counterparts, which can result in technology being prioritized over human needs.

When affluent innovators possess near-limitless resources for their ambitious projects, it becomes increasingly challenging to communicate the necessity of considering the communities they impact. This dynamic cultivates skepticism toward top-down initiatives.

The initial outcomes of smart city projects have not dispelled these concerns. Stripped of the grand marketing narratives, the underlying motives often reveal troubling trends. These projects tend to prioritize data aggregation over the creation of vibrant urban environments. For instance, Sidewalk Labs intended to monetize location data from Quayside, while in Rio de Janeiro, IBM collaborated with authorities to implement extensive surveillance during major events, raising significant ethical questions.

In countries like China, facial recognition technology has been used to monitor citizens, enforcing fines for minor infractions and even employing a scoring system that can lead to severe repercussions for those deemed untrustworthy. The implications of such measures are alarming, and similar practices have surfaced in the U.S., where facial recognition has been misused against innocent individuals.

These developments point toward a potential future dominated by surveillance capitalism, prompting a need for caution. We must guard against creating environments that echo dystopian narratives.

Disrupt. Revolutionize. Innovate. Make Smart.

I want to clarify that I am not against technological progress. Innovations have brought about significant improvements in our daily lives. Many advancements, such as traffic management systems and air quality monitoring, can benefit urban areas. We can design neighborhoods that seamlessly integrate technology, but it is crucial that these technologies enhance our lives rather than replace human experiences.

I am passionate about the mission of creating improved living spaces. With rapid urbanization leading millions to cities every week, there is a pressing need for more livable areas. However, these developments must remain closely tied to human needs. The detachment seen in the first wave of smart cities risks transforming individuals from active participants into mere data points.

At best, these initiatives often seem more focused on marketing than genuine urban development, reminiscent of early 20th-century skyscrapers that prioritized bold statements over practical utility. At worst, smart cities risk becoming mechanisms for data exploitation rather than places designed for people, resulting in environments that commodify residents.

Traditional urbanism has always prioritized human experience, adapting over time to meet community needs. The post-war era saw a shift toward car-centric design, leading to environments that are unwelcoming and out of scale. The renewed interest in urban development sparked by projects like Sidewalk Labs' Quayside presents an opportunity to return to a people-focused approach, enhanced by technology.

However, we must tread carefully. A reckless approach may work for software development but fails when applied to the intricate fabric of human environments. We should refrain from the relentless push to disrupt or automate every aspect of urban life. Listening to community desires and being transparent about development goals is essential. The lessons from Sidewalk Toronto should not be dismissed but respected as warnings. As someone who supports many of their objectives, I hope future smart city projects prioritize people over technology.

In a post-pandemic world, smart cities are at a pivotal juncture: will they leverage technology to enhance quality of life, or will they serve as mechanisms for Big Tech to erode the last remnants of our privacy?

For me, a bit of ignorance may not be such a bad thing.