Smart cities: Proceed with caution, says Planet 3 Studios' Kalhan Mattoo

We need to be careful about accepting public-private partnerships and technology as the panacea for all ills

Last Updated: Apr 07, 2017, 07:46 IST5 min
Prefer us on Google
New
Image: Sajjad Hussain/ AFP/ Getty Images
Image: Sajjad Hussain/ AFP/ Getty Images
Advertisement

The competitive nature of the Smart City Challenge can spark innovative thinking in urban designImage: Sajjad Hussain/ AFP/ Getty Images

These SPVs are expected to generate funds through feasible financial means. Dipping into existing government policy provisions, secured bonds, debt, etc, will only cover a fraction of the investment required. The real incentive for these corporations for profit is the common assets that can be monetised. Pune is looking at one-third of the Rs 31,000 crore-investment to come from monetised assets and the narrative is similar in other proposals. While unlocking the developmental potential and triggering economic activities is desirable, the risk lies in the valuation of the assets and how the deals are structured. Just because the government is incapable of unlocking value, it does not diminish the intrinsic value of an asset. We need to have adequate safeguards to ensure that we don’t sell jewels for nothing. It’s likely that these corporations will levy ‘fair’ usage charges for the new infrastructure put in place. These are merely new taxes with a corporate tag and cities for profit that focus on timely return on investment question the very notion of a welfare state and social equity.

Profit management by entities is a paradigm shift that will have immense impact on the relationship that citizens share with the government. Public-private partnership (PPP) as the new institutional framework for development is fraught with risk. The last time India was ruled by a corporation, it didn’t turn out so well.

We have always had bubbles of urban socioeconomic efficiency and prosperity—successful SEZs and private developments like Powai’s Hiranandani Gardens are a case in point. But their success hinged on two crucial aspects. One, insulation from the larger urban mess around through local, effective governance, and two, offer of a superior quality of life at higher costs. These happen to be specifically created urban work and life solutions for a particular socioeconomic class. The Smart Cities Mission suggests a rather similar model of development that risks alienating ordinary citizens who lack the requisite ability to pay for more. The isolation of the haves from the have-nots will exacerbate and potentially lead to social strife, which may ultimately derail the very intent to improve our collective condition.

undefinedPreserving a sense of place and memories while embracing change is a worthy smart goal[/bq]

Technology is being sold as a panacea for almost everything that ails our cities. We need to be mindful of the limitations of what technology can achieve. Information and communications technology is a multibillion dollar business and foreign technology comes at a cost. Additionally, embedded hardware is intrinsically a high-risk investment with unplanned obsolescence a real possibility. Cities driven through smartphones, sensors, analytics, open source software, cloud platforms and machine-to-machine communication is a utopian concept and way up on the hierarchy of needs. That pyramid needs a big base of low-tech solid waste management, sewerage, water supply, uninterrupted power, transportation, housing, etc, to support appropriate technology solutions. Data ownership in a surveillance-led monitored society can be an issue since inadequacies in The Information Technology Act, the National Cyber Security Policy and other laws do not offer sufficient safeguards against potential techno-totalitarianism.

What is economically profitable is not always culturally, socially and civilisationally significant. The keeping-faith-in-business-models-over-humanities view has a chance of socio-cultural deprecation. With efficiency, technology and speed as defining features of Smart City Urbanism, we might be creating placeless cities, identities of which exist more notionally rather than physically. Preserving a sense of place and memories while embracing change is a worthy smart goal.

Fixing our dysfunctional cities is critical and it is commendable that the government has put it on priority with the Smart City Mission. However, citizens have to be better informed of the implications and consent has to be sought. Technology can be a great enabler with direct democracy and it’s our right and duty as citizens to demand participation in crafting our collective future.

First Published: Apr 07, 2017, 07:46

Subscribe Now

Latest News

Advertisement