Editorial: Smart liveable cities: plans or forms? Free

Our interest in the topic of smart cities, as both city developers and residents, was piqued by the discussion about the inevitability of transforming existing and new cities into smart cities. When we learn more about what smart cities are from theorists’ descriptions, this interest turns into bewilderment and uncertainty. This concept is bewildering partly because of its relationship with other concepts emerging around the same time, such as competitive, liveable, and sustainable cities. Regarding uncertainty, it was recognised at the practice levels. The question turned now to: is this concept related to architecture, city planning, urban planning or urban design? And, at the scale of urban form, is it possible to design a smart city? To answer these two questions, some definitions of the smart city were consulted, which, in the opinion of many theorists, are still ambiguous and need to be clarified. In contrast, others have settled on a definition.

Among those interested in the economic competitiveness trajectory are Hollands (2008), Nam and Pardo (2011), Deakin and AlWaer (2012), Shannon et al. (2013), Coccia (2014), Sassanita et al. (2016), Li (2020) and Abusaada and Elshater (2021a). Announcing metrics for smart cities, focusing on improving city performance and enhancing city competitiveness compared to other cities.

According to Hollands (2008), a ‘smart city’ has been described as a high-tech change in the entrepreneurial city. He presented tapes about how technology is a double-edged sword, as (1) IT deepens social divisions in cities rather than raising living standards for all city dwellers. A city cannot be transformed and improved by IT alone. Human capital is made up of people. For innovative societies to develop, there must be space for people to become accustomed to information technology so that it can be used socially in ways that enable them to be educated, engaged, and participate in a political debate about their own lives and the urban environment in which they live. (4) It is imperative that there is a fundamental shift in the balance of power between businesses, governments, communities, and ordinary city dwellers when it comes to the use of information technology. (5) Keeping economic growth in balance with sustainability.

While Nam and Pardo (2011) highlighted the concept's ambiguity, as it encompasses many aspects of urban life, such as urban planning, sustainable development, environment, energy network, economic development, technologies and social participation, moreover, smart cities are categorised by three distinct domains, including technology in the form of the digital, smart and wide city, diffusion, wired, hybrid, informatics, and people in the form of creative cities, learning cities, human cities, knowledge cities, and smart local communities. Holland's statement is very similar to mine. By overlapping the concepts of the smart port and the digital city, Cocchia (2014) has confirmed ambiguity. Due to the overlap between the smart city, the digital city, the information city, the entrepreneurship city, and finally, the sustainable city and the green city, ambiguity is still increasing. Its adherents, however, define the smart city according to two tracks: economics, information technology, and digital and human physical information systems.

A smart city is an innovative concept and model for planning, constructing, managing, and integrating cities based on modern information technologies, such as the Internet of Things, cloud computing, big data, and spatial data integration. According to the International Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission ISO/IEC (2015), technology is an important component of smart cities. Smart city development can promote simultaneous development, industrialisation, information, urbanisation, agricultural modernisation, and sustainable city development.

To develop a smart city, the following objectives should be pursued: the suitability of public services, the sensitivity of city management, liveability, the smartness of infrastructure, and the efficiency of long-term networks. To achieve a prosperous, sustainable, and inclusive future for its citizens, a smart city effectively integrates physical, digital, and human systems. Furthermore, it is a city known for its innovation, which has improved quality of life, operational efficiency, urban services, and competitiveness without sacrificing the needs of present and future generations and economic, social, and environmental issues.

Smart cities combine economic and technical tracks with improving economy, technology, and environment (Ersoy, 2019; Ghaffarianhoseini et al., 2018). Additionally, smart cities significantly strengthen their social, economic, and environmental (sustainability) outcomes by radically improving the way it operates. The concept of how intelligent cities apply leadership styles in response to challenges like climate change, rapid population growth, and political and economic instability is also discussed in urban planning and design literature (Deakin and Waer, 2012; Elshater et al., 2022; Kitchin, 2015). A cooperative approach, how it works across disciplines and city systems, and how it utilises data information and modern technologies. In this regard, residents, businesses, and visitors will receive better services and a better quality of life for many years to come. Initially, smart cities were seen as a new market for companies selling controllers and sensors to drive smart systems, according to Glasmeiera and Christopherson (2015) and Kitchin (2015).

Abusaada and Elshater (2021a) and Sameer et al. (2022) identify four principles that govern smart cities: smart people, smart governors, smart technology, smart economy and smart places. They concluded that it is necessary to develop this concept to include the creation of place-making and public participation in nations’ future visions. Another research recommends searching for scopes of distinctiveness at the scale of urban form that can provide a better quality of life (Abusaada and Elshater, 2019). Therefore, this editorial search for a theoretical framework to collect between the scale of urban plans and urban forms.

The concept of liveability has been an essential part of regional planning worldwide since the mid-seventies, focusing on preventing the waste of resources and making a place desirable now and in the future (Salzano, 1997). It also refers to neighbourhoods, public places, and urban spaces (Ley and Newton, 2010; Salama and Wiedmann, 2016). Liveability provides a place to play, meet and talk to each other (Metcalf, 2002) and delightful and desirable public spaces (Timmer and Seymoar, 2005). Likewise, liveability discusses desires relating to contentment with life in a particular place (de Chazal, 2010); the stability of the built environment (Shamsuddin et al., 2012), and environmental sustainability (Valcárcel-Aguiar et al., 2021).

Research discusses liveability as a desire related to contentment with life, reflecting on sustainability and imageability (de Chazal, 2010; Elshater et al., 2019). Aspects of liveability include the level of material prosperity as a standard of living (non-material ingredients such as freedom and tolerance) and the quality of life (AlWaer and Cooper, 2017; MacLean and Salama, 2021); the environment around graffiti (Kraftl, 2014); and current conditions in a particular location as a comparison between the desired situation and the reality experienced by residents (Mohit and Iyanda, 2016). Other research groups discuss the affective atmospheres, subjective well-being, and happiness in liveable cities (Abusaada, 2020; Goldberg et al., 2012), considering the differences between place and space, public place and urban space (Abusaada and Elshater, 2021b) and how they could be smart (Abusaada and Elshater, 2021a; Sameer et al., 2022).

The liveability approach encompasses social, cultural, recreational, economic, and political aspects. Comfort, safety, accessibility, mobility, walkability, ease of access, coexistence, participation, social equity, physical, social, and mental well-being, affordability, user satisfaction, well-being, economic competitiveness, development, opportunities, growth, and resilience are all factors that contribute to the quality of life (AlWaer and Illsley, 2017).

In response to the question posed in this editorial, whether city planners and designers are capable of creating a smart city with a focus on urban form, we think that they can. However, there can be no one-size-fits-all solution for creating smart and liveable cities. Variations in the context in which proposals are made may require that different approaches be tackled. This means that teams with specifically selected skills and expertise will be needed to construct innovative ideas or interventions that must be implemented through tailored workstreams (AlWaer et al., 2021). Regardless, this will not be sufficient. The assembly of horizontal, interdisciplinary teams of professionals, regardless of the areas of expertise they bring together, will not suffice (AlWaer et al., 2021). As a result, smart cities can be applicable at the scale of the urban form when coupled with paths of liveability and quality of life (Figure 1).

Our Editorial here explains how urban form brings things to the following levels of practice. Articles in this issue of Urban Design and Planning extend beyond smart cities or liveability to transport resilience. The issue is completed by a discussion on in-depth smart city initiatives and how smart cities can turn our lives into better liveable communities.

The first article by Ferranti et al. (2022) argues that state and municipal strategies for housing, public services, and economic development must consider cities’ resilience to present and future climates. These results were based on investigating the case of Rio de Janeiro, highlighting the need for integration and leadership in the private transportation sector. Without adaptation, existing systemic issues recognised by the framework would be exacerbated by climate change.

In the second article by Özdemir et al. (2022), the authors discuss the urbanisation plans that led to changes in the population distribution in cities and, thus, unbalanced urban development. Their results extend the urban plans to argue that ‘cities are not independent structures.’ Based on their results, cities are part of an ecosystem that includes other cities in the nation; hence, their proportion of the population and reflected urban form should be proportional to the rigidity derived from natural, physical, and economic variables. Their article's theoretical model, whose efficacy was proven by the findings of the hierarchical analytical process, was tested and implemented in Turkey.

Going into depth about smart cities, our last article in this issue by Paskaleva and Cooper (2022) discusses the smart cities initiatives. It reflects their implementation of quality of life in European cities. Their study examines if there is proof that European ‘smart cities’ programmes have enhanced the quality of life of their residents. The results based on bibliometric research on Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar databases answer this question. The implementation of the smart cities initiative in European cities is concise but not conclusive. In this case, and based on their investigation, the verdict was adverse. However, they argue that there is no definitive proof that smart cities are associated with better quality of life, as ‘absence of evidence does not prove absence.’

Our takeaway remarks emphasise the importance of integrating the urban plans of the smart cities initiatives with indicators of liveability and quality of life in terms of urban form. By paying attention to existing and new urban forms, smart cities can be bridged at the urban planning and design level. The development of liveable cities, focusing on liveability and quality of life, can be used to bridge such a gap. The authors of this editorial call for the development of smart cities initiatives shortly.

Urban planning and urban design practices should be combined to achieve the goals of these initiatives on two scales: urban plans and urban forms. When it comes to creating smart, liveable cities, however, there is no silver bullet that will work in every situation. Due to the fact that urban contexts differ, it may be necessary to employ a variety of strategies and urban plans. To accomplish this, specialised groups will need to develop unique designs for urban forms of smart and liveable cities, which will then be implemented by technical and innovative workstreams. It will certainly not suffice. The formation of large, horizontal teams of experts in both urban plans and urban form, even if they encompass many disciplines, would be sufficient. Documentation of illustrations of smart, liveable cities that can be visualised in graphic designs created by city planners and designers would be interesting as well.