"Why do smart cities keep failing?"

"Is data collection a bad thing in smart cities?　Why Toronto and Sidewalk Labs Failed"

"Lessons from cities where smart city plans did not go 'smart'"

There are articles with provocative titles as the above.

In my opinion, the reason is "IT".

To put it more simply, it's because "we don't know what they're doing".

-----

Naturally, those who design smart cities grasp the city from a "God's perspective," as if looking at it from air

However, smart city users do not see such design - literally "top-down design" - as such.

In this sense, we can understand what is being done in buildings, facilities, transportation, or "hakomono" such as government buildings, schools, community centers, museums, and theme parks.

In addition, those "failures" and "successes" are also clear from the user's perspective.

Above all, it is important to clarify who to blame (both individuals and corporations) in case of "failure".

-----

I believe that smart cities can be understood by users if their effects can be clearly stated.

For example.

"We'll cut our city's energy use in half, but we'll still be able to maintain our mobility services."

or

"In this city, you don't need to have your own car to get by"

It is enough if they can say it properly in the "user's language".

-----

However, the fact that the service provider for smart cities will be the "government" is troublesome.

"We will halve the number of people at City Hall, but maintain the current level of government services."

The question is, can they say the above phrase to the people at city hall themselves?

Promoting smart cities strangles the people who promote smart cities --

This is the dilemma of smart cities.