1. 1
Smart
is
a
Relative
Term:
Evaluating
the
Flawed
Thinking
Behind
Smart
Cities
By
Douglas
Hinkel
Progress
is
forward
movement
that
often
subjectively
implies
improvement.
It
can
only
be
relatively
measured
through
the
comparison
of
a
past
and
present
state.
Thus,
progress
is
a
relative
term
that
is
dependent
not
only
on
time,
but
also
on
space
and
place.
Progress
and
the
elements
that
it
consists
of—time,
space,
place,
and
subjectivity—are
important
factors
for
analyzing
the
topics
and
themes
of
this
essay,
which
explores
the
naturally
progressive
attitude
of
human
beings
and
how
it
results
in
a
constantly
changing
society.
These
changes
can
be
largely
attributed
to
a
relentless
pursuit
of
efficiency
that
is
accomplished
through
innovation,
implementation,
and
building.
While
beneficial
in
the
short
term,
progress
and
increased
efficiency
add
new
layers
of
complexity
to
the
global
system,
which
can
exacerbate
undetected
issues
or
give
rise
to
new
problems.
The
full
extent
of
progressive
human
ambition
was
demonstrated
during
the
Industrial
Revolution.
With
building
and
consumerism
rising
to
the
forefront
of
Western
civilization,
the
nineteenth
century
was
a
time
of
great
economic
prosperity.
However,
the
wealth
did
not
come
without
a
cost—the
revolution’s
long-­‐
term,
adverse
effects
are
now
being
realized
with
a
growing
number
of
global
problems.
This
variety
of
problems—climate
change,
the
energy
crisis,
population
overload,
and
food
and
fresh
water
shortage
—are
what
Glen
Kuecker
refers
to
as
the
“perfect
storm”
because
they
are
all
threatening
to
simultaneously
culminate
and
feed
off
each
other.
For
example,
Earth’s
rising
population
means
more
food
and
fresh
water
will
be
needed
and
consumed,
but
climate
change
and
pollution
will
decrease
the
amount
of
available
farmland
and
drinkable
water
(Kuecker
2007).
With
developing
countries
like
China
and
India
growing
rapidly,
these
conditions
will
only
worsen.
The
United
States
is
the
second
most
environmentally
harmful
country
in
the
world,
second
only
to
the
United
Arab
Emirates.
If
every
nation
were
to
live
like
the
United
States,
more
than
four
Earths
would
be
needed
to
sustain
conditions;
thus,
allowing
developing
nations
to
follow
similar
paths
will
be
disastrous
(Elert
2012).
But,
there
are
ethical
issues
in
preventing
nations
from
growing
through
building
and
innovation:
the
United
States
did
it
so
why
shouldn’t
other
countries
be
allowed
to
experience
the
same
financial
benefits?
Consequently,
it’s
essential
for
devising
a
solution
that
allows
developing
nations
to
grow
economically
without
inflicting
the
same
environmental
harm.
Focusing
on
cities
is
key
for
mitigating
the
“perfect
storm”
while
not
harming
economic
prosperity.
For
the
first
time
in
history,
more
than
fifty
percent
of
the
global
population
now
lives
in
urban
areas.
By
2050,
the
world’s
population
is
projected
to
surpass
ten
billion
people
with
approximately
two
thirds
of
them
calling
a
city
their
home
(World’s
Population
Increasingly
Urban
2014).
Cities
are
commonly
thought
of
as
concrete
havens
swarming
with
cars
and
filled
with
air
and
noise
pollution,
but
if
designed
correctly,
they
are
the
most
ecologically
mindful
option.
The
density
of
a
city
reduces
motorized
vehicle
usage
and
makes
it
easier
to

2. 2
travel
by
walking,
cycling,
and
using
public
transit.
The
individuals
behind
a
new
trend
of
smart
cities
are
hoping
to
capitalize
on
the
city’s
untapped
potential
and
offer
a
solution
to
the
globe’s
worsening
conditions.
Smart
cities—a
recent
creation
of
progressive
human
thought—aim
to
use
technology
to
make
cities
more
connected,
efficient,
and
ultimately,
more
enjoyable
living
environments.
They
present
themselves
as
cities
of
the
future
that
will
improve
upon
the
poor,
inefficient
designs
of
past
cities
by
offering
new
ways
of
thinking
and
living
that
are
more
environmentally
friendly.
There
is
no
clear
definition
for
what
a
smart
city
is,
but
technology
will
certainly
play
a
large
part.
Sensors
will
be
placed
throughout
the
city
to
monitor
things
like
traffic
patterns,
pollution
levels,
and
energy
consumption.
Data
will
arguably
be
the
smart
city’s
most
valuable
asset,
as
it
will
be
used
to
predict
patterns
and
make
the
city
more
efficient.
Anthony
Townsend,
author
of
Smart
Cities,
defines
them
as
“places
where
information
technology
is
combined
with
infrastructure,
architecture,
everyday
objects,
and
even
our
bodies
to
address
social,
economic,
and
environmental
problems”
(Townsend
2014,
15).
Unfortunately,
while
they
appear
sleek,
innovative,
and
new,
smart
cities
fall
into
the
same
Cartesian,
mechanistic
thinking
trap
(discussed
in
Theme
3)
that
causes
more
problems
than
it
solves.
This
essay
will
use
smart
cities
to
illustrate
the
conceptual
problems
with
the
way
we
are
thinking
about
progress,
problem
solving,
and
the
future
condition
of
our
planet
(sustainability
versus
resilience).
Smart
cities
will
be
analyzed
through
multiple
lenses
that
implore
examples
and
arguments
crafted
by
key
individuals
behind
urban
design.
The
recently
built
South
Korean
smart
city,
New
Songdo
City,
is
analyzed
using
key
concepts
such
as,
Christopher
Alexander’s
“A
City
is
Not
a
Tree”
and
Steven
Johnson’s
exploration
of
emergence.
Alexander’s
claim
that
designers
are
thinking
about
cities
in
the
wrong
way
(i.e.
as
a
tree
structure
instead
of
a
much
more
complex
structure)
will
support
postmodern
scientific
thought
and
complexity
thinking.
Johnson’s
concept
of
complex
adaptive
systems
and
emergent
properties
explains
the
organic,
bottom-­‐up
structure
from
which
cities
naturally
develop
and
the
extreme
complexity
and
interconnectedness
at
which
our
society
is
currently
operating.
The
street-­‐level
actions
and
beliefs
of
Jane
Jacobs,
author
of
The
Life
and
Death
of
the
American
City,
will
support
Johnson’s
claims.
These
ideas
will
be
contrasted
with
the
top-­‐down
organizational
approach
in
which
smart
city
designers
are
undertaking.
Theme
1:
Sustainability
vs.
Resiliency
When
evaluating
the
effectiveness
of
smart
cities,
distinctions
must
be
made
between
the
term
sustainability,
specifically
sustainable
development,
and
resiliency.
Defining
either
term
is
difficult
since
they
both
encompass
a
broad
variety
of
concepts
and
practices.
One
of
the
most
widely
accepted
descriptions
of
sustainable
development
is
found
in
the
United
Nations’
1987
Brundtland
Report,
which
says,
“Sustainable
development
is
development
that
meets
the
needs
of
the
present
without
compromising
the
ability
of
future
generations
to
meet
their
own
needs”

3. 3
(Development
and
Economic
Co-­‐operation).
The
importance
of
resilience
becomes
evident
upon
the
realization
that
sustainable
development
is
a
contradictory
term
since
it
is
impossible
for
anything
physical
to
grow
indefinitely
(Caring
for
the
Earth).
At
some
point
every
system
reaches
a
point
when
growth
is
no
longer
possible
and
collapse
happens.
Theme
2
will
demonstrate
why
society
is
nearing
peak
growth
and
the
reason
we
should
be
focusing
on
resilience
building
instead
of
sustainable
development.
Sustainability
and
resilience
differ
in
the
following
ways:
• Sustainability
operates
under
the
assumption
that
there
is
still
time
to
change
society’s
destructive
habits
and
prevent
collapse.
Resilience
operates
under
the
assumption
that
it
is
too
late
to
correct
certain
issues
and
prepares
for
unavoidable
problems.
• Resilience
refers
to
the
ability
of
a
system
to
withstand
a
shock
by
adapting
and
changing
without
sacrificing
its
fundamental
structure
and
organization.
Sustainability
does
not
even
anticipate
a
shock.
•
Sustainability
views
the
“perfect
storm”
as
solvable
and
curable.
Resiliency
plans
for
the
“perfect
storm’s”
worst
case
scenario
(Newman,
Beatley,
Boyer
2009,
6).
Smart
cities
are
focusing
predominantly
on
sustainability.
Constructed
around
the
turn
of
the
new
millennium,
South
Korea’s
smart
city,
New
Songdo
City,
demonstrates
how
most
smart
cities
are
approaching
eco-­‐design.
The
city
boasts
features
such
as
an
electric
public
transit
system
and
a
ubiquitous
communication
system,
which
aims
to
digitally
connect
everyone
and
everything.
The
city
is
designed
to
encourage
walking
and
cycling
with
open
space
and
public
parks
accounting
for
about
forty
percent
of
the
city’s
total
area.
For
longer
distances,
the
electric
rail
system
will
ideally
reduce
motorized
vehicle
usage.
The
ubiquitous
approach
reduces
energy
consumption
and
the
use
of
environmentally
harmful
vehicles
by
encouraging
citizens
to
converse
screen-­‐to-­‐screen
in
lieu
of
face-­‐to-­‐face
interaction.
In
Songdo,
for
example,
visiting,
business
meetings,
and
even
some
schooling
are
conducted
virtually
(Songdo
IBD).
Sustainability
and
a
ubiquitous
approach
are
part
of
most
smart
city
aspirations;
though
the
intentions
are
good,
the
thinking
and
designs
are
drastically
decreasing
resilience.
Resilience
means
preparing
for
the
worst,
or
performing
disaster
risk
reduction
(DRR).
There
is
no
exact
formula
for
building
resilience
because,
like
progress,
it
is
subjectively
dependent
on
place
and
time.
Coastal
cities
will
need
to
consider
rising
sea
levels
and
hurricane
threats.
New
Orleans
is
an
example
of
a
city
that
could
have
saved
lives
and
lessened
damage
costs
by
anticipating
the
worst-­‐case
scenario
in
the
event
of
a
hurricane
strike.
When
Hurricane
Katrina
hit
New
Orleans
in
2005,
little
DRR
had
been
done.
Properly
performed
DRR
would
have
identified
high-­‐risk
factors
such
as
the
city’s
weak
levee
and
poor
highway
system
that
provided
citizens
with
only
one
way
out
of
the
city.
The
catastrophic
2011
earthquake
in
Christchurch
offers
another
example
of
how
better
DRR
could
have
been
performed
to
prevent
unnecessary
casualties
and
city
destruction.
Both
cities
are
now
rebuilding
with

4. 4
better
preventative
measures,
but
unfortunately,
it
took
a
large-­‐scale
disaster
to
convince
city
officials
of
the
importance
of
DRR
(UNISDR).
One
has
to
wonder
if
it
will
take
a
similar
global
disaster
before
most
cities
start
taking
resiliency
building,
such
as
DRR,
more
seriously.
If
a
city
is
not
walkable,
then
it
is
not
resilient.
Walking
and
cycling
decrease
carbon
dioxide
emissions,
alleviate
reliance
on
a
motorized-­‐transport
system,
and
frees
society
from
its
dependence
on
energy.
But
even
more
significantly,
a
walking-­‐based
city
builds
community—the
core
of
resilience.
It
is
important
to
ask
questions
such
as:
what
are
the
processes
by
which
we
can
get
groups
of
people
to
collaborate
and
work
together?
Facilitating
“localism”
will
make
citizens
more
aware
of
the
problems
facing
their
community
and
generate
a
better
sense
of
“we’re
all
in
this
together”
(Newman
136).
Community
building
will
also
give
citizens
a
greater
voice
and
help
return
city
design
to
a
bottom-­‐up
structure.
No
one
understood
the
importance
of
civic
participation
and
communication
better
than
urban-­‐activist,
Jane
Jacobs
(discussed
in
greater
detail
later),
who
recognized
a
city
based
around
the
sidewalk,
and
not
the
street,
was
important
for
generating
a
flow
of
information
between
city
residents.
Sidewalks
are
a
catalyst
for
“relatively
high-­‐bandwidth
communication
between
total
strangers,
and
they
mix
large
numbers
of
individuals
in
random
configurations…
Sidewalks
provide
both
the
right
kind
and
the
right
number
of
local
interactions.
They
are
the
gap
junctions
of
city
life”
(Johnson
2001,
94).
Songdo’s
ubiquitous
technology
approach
discourages
the
random
sidewalk
encounters
Jacobs
identified
as
essential
for
the
city’s
community
building.
By
encouraging
walking
while
also
promoting
teleconferencing
instead
of
traveling,
Songdo
is
contradicting
itself.
If
the
chance
meetings
of
strangers
are
lost,
then
the
sense
of
“localism”
will
also
vanish.
By
increasing
sustainable
practices
with
ubiquitous
connectivity,
smart
cities
forego
a
primary
benefit
of
sidewalks.
A
walkable,
localized
city
is
resilient,
but
a
city
where
people
leave
their
homes
less
often
is
not;
it
is
only
sustainable.
Theme
2:
Panarchy
and
Exponential
Growth
Smart
cities
propose
a
technological
interconnectedness
design,
and
while
this
concept
could
result
in
more
sustainable
living
(by
reducing
travel
time
and
increasing
efficiency
in
the
case
of
Songdo),
it
will
ultimately
cause
more
harm
than
good,
largely
by
decreasing
resilience.
As
a
city
becomes
more
connected,
it
loses
its
ability
to
adapt
since
a
shock
to
one
part
of
the
system
will
affect
all
other
connected
parts.
Smart
cities
are
“places
whose
possibilities
are
activated
by
the
arcane
workings
of
computational
systems,
to
the
degree
that
they
are
incapable
of
functioning
as
intended,
should
those
systems
default”
(Greenfield
2013).
Adaptability
is
another
necessary
element
of
resilience.
Evaluating
the
progress
(or
lack
thereof)
of
American
industrial
cities
demonstrates
the
importance
of
maintaining
an
adaptable,
and
thus
resilient,
city
model.
In
the

5. 5
1950s,
six
cities—Buffalo,
Cleveland,
Detroit,
New
Orleans,
Pittsburg,
and
St.
Louis—
were
prospering
urban
areas.
Raw
and
industrial,
they
were
places
where
the
average
high
school
graduate
could
make
a
comfortable
living
working
a
plant's
assembly
line.
Sixty
years
later,
in
an
age
where
education
is
increasingly
important
and
robots
and
computers
have
assumed
much
of
the
industrial
grunt
work,
these
six
cities
have
lost
more
than
half
of
their
population.
But
why
is
it
places
such
as
Detroit
and
Pittsburg
have
declined,
while
other
previous
industrial
cities
have
flourished?
Why,
for
example,
is
Boston
no
longer
associated
with
smokestacks
despite
practically
being
the
capital
of
the
American
Industrial
Revolution?
The
answer
can
be
explained
by
adaptation
and
a
return
to
fundamental
practices
that
initially
made
cities
successful—“specialized
skills,
small
enterprises,
and
strong
connections
with
the
outside
world”
(Glaeser
2011,
42).
Many
industrial
cities
fell
because
they
mistakenly
abandoned
vital
aspects
of
city
life,
and
instead,
tried
to
breed
prosperity
through
building
housing
projects,
high-­‐rise
offices,
and
high-­‐tech
transit
systems.
These
mistakes
were
a
result
of
“the
all-­‐too-­‐common
error
of
confusing
a
city,
which
is
really
a
mass
of
connected
humanity,
with
its
structures”
(Glaeser
43).
Alexander
says
the
mind
cannot
fully
comprehend
the
extreme
overlap
between
forces,
however,
smart
cities
believe
computers
might
be
the
answer
to
human’s
limitations
(i.e.
with
the
correct
programming
and
mathematics,
a
computer
could
potentially
predict
future
outcomes
by
evaluating
the
entirety
of
a
city’s
interactive
elements).
Smart
city
designers
have
identified
computers
as
being
more
equipped
to
interpret
complex
adaptive
systems,
but
they
are
still
falling
into
the
Cartesian
trap.
Technology
such
as
computer
analytics
and
communication
could
play
a
beneficial
role
in
solving
problems,
but
it
should
not
be
seen
as
the
solution.
Smart
cities
are
placing
too
much
faith
in
the
power
of
predictive
and
communicative
digital
systems
to
solve
problems.
Supporting
Jacobs’
love
for
the
simplistic
power
of
the
sidewalk
and
the
empowerment
of
civil
society,
Peter
Newman,
Timothy
Beatley,
and
Heather
Boyer,
authors
of
Resilient
Cities,
say,
“change
is
not
primarily
about
technology,
but
about
how
cities
function
at
a
basic
cultural
level”
(Newman
85).
Smart
cities
want
to
solve
problems,
as
well
as
prevent
them
from
ever
occurring,
by
utilizing
programmed
technology
to
turn
the
city
into
a
computerized
machine—something
that
is
proving
much
more
difficult
than
reductionist
thinkers
anticipated.
Designers
are
leveraging
flawed
mechanistic
thought
to
quite
literally
transform
a
city
into
a
machine.
Evidence
of
a
failed
effort
can
be
found
in
IBM’s
recent
attempt
to
develop
a
computer
capable
of
predicting
a
city’s
future
happenings.
IBM
described
their
creation
as
a
“decision
support
system”
that
intended
to
help
policy
makers
by
informing
them
of
the
ripple
effects
that
would
occur
due
to
the
city’s
interdependencies.
Using
a
system
of
algorithms,
IBM
quickly
realized
their
overzealous
ambitions.
Quickly
accumulating
more
than
seven
thousand
equations,
the
program
spiraled
out
of
control
and
crashed
(Townsend
83).
IBM’s
fiasco
is
a
reminder
of
the
city’s
immense
complexity
and
difficulty
humans
face
in
trying
to
develop
solutions
for
significant
problems.

6. 6
A
digitally
controlled
city
is
not
the
answer
to
the
“perfect
storm,”
but
instead,
the
latest
entry
in
a
long
line
of
prior
transitory
and
short-­‐term
technological
fixes.
Advancements
in
transportation
are
responsible
for
sprawling,
inefficient
urban
design,
whereas,
increased
global
interconnection
is
the
result
of
progress
in
communication
technology.
Now,
companies
designing
smart
cities,
such
as
IBM,
are
turning
to
technology
once
again
to
prepare
for
the
great
urban
migration
and
coming
“perfect
storm.”
These
advancements
and
worsening
conditions
have
materialized
due
to
progressive
actions
taken
over
hundreds
of
years.
Progress
and
time
can
also
be
used
to
consider
smart
city
creation.
Smart
cities
are
hoping
to
leverage
the
power
of
computers
and
analytic
software
to
generate
solutions,
however,
time
is
an
important
factor
with
rapidly
advancing
technology.
Relative
to
other
city’s
long
history
of
slow
emergence
and
self-­‐
organization,
smart
cities
are
being
built
at
an
incredibly
fast
rate,
building
something
in
a
matter
of
years
that
previously
took
hundreds,
if
not
thousands,
of
years
to
develop;
Songdo
was
built
in
10
years,
while
Rome
has
a
history
dating
back
thousands
of
years.
Conversely,
relative
to
technology,
10
years
is
a
long
time.
Smart
cities
are
being
designed
around
the
most
current
innovative
practices,
yet
by
the
time
cities
are
built,
they
risk
already
being
technologically
dated.
Devising
plausible
solutions
by
today’s
assumptions
risks
underestimating
or
incorrectly
predicting
sudden
and
rapid
change.
As
Townsend
explains,
“With
smart
cities,
trends
that
only
recently
appeared
small
on
the
horizon
now
loom
larger
and
larger.
Everything
seems
to
be
speeding
up,
getting
bigger,
or
getting
worse
than
was
expected”
(Townsend
322).
The
idea
follows
closely
with
the
relentless
pursuit
of
perfection
and
how
it
is
defining
a
more
concrete
rule-­‐set.
Realizing
the
role
of
innovation
in
preventing
collapse
will
help
explain
the
flaws
in
sustainable
thinking
and
the
need
for
increased
resilience.
In
the
Ted
Talk,
“The
Surprising
Math
of
Cities,”
physicist
Geoffrey
West
talks
about
the
rapid
growth
of
cities;
when
a
city
doubles
in
size,
it
more
than
doubles
in
nearly
every
other
aspect
including
energy
consumption,
crime,
wealth,
and
consumerism.
As
the
popularity
of
cities
continues
growing
at
steeper
rates,
humanity’s
consumption
and
production
rates
will
similarly
increase,
which
will
eventually
cause
us
to
reach
a
level
that
can
no
longer
sustain
the
growth
rate.
When
this
level
is
reached,
collapse
follows.
West
believes
there
have
been
several
times
in
history
when
society
has
been
on
the
verge
of
collapse,
but
society
found
a
way
to
prevent
it
through
innovation.
Each
time
the
growth
rate
is
maximized,
a
new
innovation
is
introduced
and
the
cycle
begins
again.
The
issue
is
that
each
time
the
growth
rate
is
restarted;
it
takes
less
time
to
reach
a
point
of
collapse,
thus
decreasing
the
time
before
a
new
innovation
is
needed
(“The
Surprising
Math”
2011).
The
“Waves
of
Innovation”
theory
and
graph
(below)
presented
in
Resilient
Cities
supplements
West’s
observations.
The
theory
argues
we
are
entering
the
Sixth
Wave
of
industrialism,
which
is
“a
complete
reorientation
of
industrial
society
to
a
different
set
of
technologies
and
a
rethinking
of
how
we
organize
cities”
(Newman

7. 7
52).
The
graph
that
explains
the
theory
depicts
each
wave
as
building
upon
the
previous
in
the
form
of
an
arch
that
becomes
taller
and
skinnier.
The
point
at
which
one
wave
overlaps
with
the
next
is
representative
of
a
potential
systemic
tipping
point
for
collapse.
With
“Innovation”
on
the
y-­‐axis
and
“Time”
on
the
x-­‐axis,
increasingly
taller
and
narrower
arches
means
innovation
is
advancing
at
an
exponential
rate.
West’s
“Surprising
Math
of
Cities”
and
the
“Sixth
Wave”
theory
explain
that
with
each
innovation,
growth
happens
quicker
and
there
is
less
time
to
innovate
before
collapse.
Eventually
we
will
reach
a
wave
in
which
the
transition
is
too
quick/steep
and
not
manageable.
Building
sustainably
will
slow
the
progression
of
these
arches
down,
but
it
will
only
postpone
the
inevitable
collapse.
Similarly,
Buzz
Hollings’
“panarchy
theory”
explains
why
the
“perfect
storm”
of
global
problems
must
be
addressed
with
great
urgency
and
why
growth
cannot
continue
indefinitely.
His
theory
proposes
that
all
systems
go
through
an
“adaptive
cycle
of
growth,
collapse,
regeneration,
and
again
growth”
(Homer-­‐Dixon
2006,
226).
According
to
the
model,
as
a
system
grows
it
increases
in
interconnectivity
and
efficiency,
but
ultimately
becomes
less
resilient
since
high
connectivity
reduces
a
system’s
ability
to
absorb
and
withstand
shock.

8. 8
(Thomas
Homer-­‐Dixon)
Hollings
uses
the
ecosystem
of
a
forest
to
further
demonstrate
this
concept:
During
the
early
growth
phase,
the
number
of
animals
and
plants
rapidly
increase
as
they
arrive
to
exploit
the
forest’s
ecological
benefits.
The
flows
of
energy,
activity,
and
genetic
material
become
more
complex.
As
this
happens,
the
forest
develops
more
ways
to
maintain
stability
and
self-­‐regulate.
By
the
time
it
reaches
latter
stages
of
the
growth
phase,
“the
mechanisms
of
self-­‐regulation
become
highly
diverse
and
finely
tuned.”
This
results
in
all
species
adapting
and
becoming
dependent
on
a
specific
range
of
circumstances
so
that
“when
a
shock
pushes
the
forest
far
outside
that
range,
it
can’t
cope.
Also,
the
forest’s
high
connectedness
helps
any
shock
travel
faster
across
the
ecosystem”
(Homer-­‐Dixon
227).
We
are
currently
in
the
late
growth
phase
and
on
the
cusp
of
collapse,
but
resilient
cities
offer
a
solution
for
preventing
the
extreme
collapse
that
would
result
in
a
massive
decrease
in
population
and
in
political/economic/social
complexity
(Newman
37).
Smart
cities
are
the
latest
entry
in
a
list
of
innovations
that
temporarily
postpone
collapse.
Individuals
behind
Songdo
claim
to
have
built
a
city
of
the
future,
but
they
are
actually
building
for
the
past.
Sustainability
was
a
solution
when
there
was
still
time
to
reverse
humanity’s
progressive
actions
and
prevent
the
“perfect
storm,”
but
that
time
has
long
passed.
The
longer
each
new
innovation
delays
collapse,
society
advances
one
step
higher
on
an
unstable
ladder
destined
to
tumble.
Theme
3:
Cartesian
thought
vs.
Complexity
Thinking
Sustainability
and
resiliency
fit
into
a
larger
scope
of
conceptual
debate
between
Cartesian
thought
and
complexity
thinking.
Modern
Cartesian
thought
began
in
the
17th
century
when
popular
philosophers
like
Rene
Descartes
propagated
a
new

9. 9
perspective,
which
saw
the
natural
world
as
mechanistic,
predictable,
and
consequently,
controllable:
“To
the
modern
mind,
nature
is
conceived
as
something
that
can
be
understood,
mastered,
and
put
to
human
service”
(Kellner
and
Best
1997,
200).
Cartesian
Dualism
is
the
separation
of
the
mind
and
body
or,
more
generally,
the
separation
of
the
mental
and
physical.
Thinking
about
the
world
as
something
that
could
be
manipulated
according
to
the
laws
of
physics
was
much
different
from
previous
perspectives
that
viewed
the
entire
world
as
living
entities
(e.g.
Mother
Nature
and
Father
Sky).
Cartesian
thought
and
its
controlling
attitude
towards
nature
embedded
itself
within
cultural
practices,
such
as
French
garden
architecture
of
the
17th
and
18th
centuries:
Naturally
spawning
and
self-­‐organizing
flowers
and
shrubs
were
reconfigured
and
sectioned
into
patterns
until
the
artfully
designed
garden
resembled
a
“mathematician’s
blueprint”
(Brammann
2004).
Smart
cities
are
being
reimagined
in
a
similar
fashion,
granted
on
a
much
grander
scale.
Many
smart
cites
are
being
built
entirely
at
once
with
the
construction
process
taking
a
structural
approach
by
following
a
pre-­‐planned
city
blueprint
that
outlines
the
city
as
a
grid
with
space
and
place
clearly
defined
and
separated.
In
the
book
Emergence,
Steven
Johnson
says
cities
are
comparable
to
nature
because
they
are
self-­‐organizing
meaning
they
are
not
built
or
conceived
by
a
higher
authority,
but
rather,
gradually
emerge
as
many
smaller
elements
converge
in
one
collective
area.
Much
like
the
evolutionary
growth
and
development
of
plants,
this
bottom-­‐up
process
(as
opposed
to
top-­‐down)
was
slow
and
self-­‐occurring
without
any
preconceived
notions.
Because
of
these
qualities,
cities
are
“complex
adaptive
systems
that
display
emergent
behavior”
(Johnson
18).
Contrary
to
pre-­‐modern
cities,
smart
cities
are
no
longer
emergent
or
self-­‐organizing
properties
because
they
are
intentionally
planned
and
built.
Cartesian
thought
began
in
the
18th
century,
but
it
wasn’t
until
the
Industrial
Revolution
that
it
inspired
a
greater
authoritative
attitude
towards
cities
and
nature.
James
Scott,
author
of
Seeing
Like
a
State,
refers
to
the
progressive
attitude
and
relentless
pursuit
of
efficiency
that
occurred
in
Western
Europe
and
North
America
from
1830
to
World
War
I
as
“high
modernism,”
which
was
centered
on:
“A
supreme
self-­‐confidence
about
continued
linear
progress,
the
development
of
scientific
and
technical
knowledge,
the
expansion
of
production,
the
rational
design
of
social
order,
the
growing
satisfaction
of
human
needs,
and,
not
least,
an
increasing
control
over
nature
(including
human
nature)
commensurate
with
scientific
understanding
of
natural
laws”
(Scott
1998,
89-­‐90).
At
the
forefront
of
this
extreme
Cartesian
perspective
were
individuals
such
as
the
French
architect
and
planner
Charles-­‐Edouard
Jeanneret,
who
is
better
known
as
Le
Corbusier.
He
found
incongruity
and
disarray
repulsive
and
sought
to
design
a
city
of
straight
lines
and
right
angles.
Le
Corbusier
envisioned
the
“ideal”
industrial
city
with
graphic
simplicity
and
feared
the
chaos
of
complexity
(Scott
105-­‐107).
He
wanted
to
standardize
entire
cities
so
that
every
part—from
city
blocks
to
door

10. 10
frames
to
single
screws—adhered
to
uniform
code
(Scott
109).
Christopher
Alexander’s
essay
“A
City
is
Not
a
Tree”
critiques
the
simplified
approach
taken
by
urban
planners
and
helps
to
better
understand
the
problems
with
the
Cartesian
view
and
“high
modernism.”
Humans
have
difficulty
accepting
and
interpreting
postmodern
thought
and
instead
reduce
the
city
to
specified,
separated
areas
because
we
struggle
to
comprehend
the
entirety
of
the
city’s
intricacies.
Alexander
suggests
urban
areas
are
consistently
designed
incorrectly
because
the
mind
is
not
capable
of
comprehending
the
city’s
full
complexity
(Alexander
1965,
18).
Instead,
human’s
primitive
psyche
leads
the
mind
to
think
of
the
city
as
a
tree
structure
where
“no
piece
of
any
unit
is
ever
a
connected
to
other
units,
except
through
the
medium
of
that
unit
as
a
whole”
(Alexander
10).
Exhibiting
postmodern
thought,
Alexander
argues
the
city
is
far
too
complex
to
be
analyzed
as
a
tree
due
to
the
tremendous
influential
overlap
between
units,
which
results
in
an
extremely
more
interdependent
city
than
a
tree
structure
permits.
Consequently,
urban
planners
are
thinking
about
cities
too
simplistically:
“It
is
this
lack
of
structural
complexity,
characteristics
of
trees,
which
is
crippling
our
conceptions
of
the
city”
(Alexander
5).
Alexander’s
differentiation
between
thinking
about
a
city
as
a
tree
instead
of
a
much
more
intricate
“semilattice”
structure
demonstrates
the
extreme
difficulty
associated
with
properly
designing
a
city.
A
“semilattice”
is
a
collection
of
elements
that
overlap
and
influence
each
other,
both
directly
and
indirectly.
Ironically,
smart
cities
seek
to
add
another
layer
of
complexity
by
creating
a
more
technologically
interconnected
(ubiquitous)
city.
If
cities
are
to
distance
themselves
from
the
Cartesian
design,
then
embracing
complexity
thinking
is
essential.
Doing
so
will
shift
the
perceptions
of
urban
planners
so
that
they
have
a
“multiple-­‐use,
mixed-­‐use
view
of
cities
and
regions”
(Townsend
77).
By
embracing
this
new
stance,
planners
will
understand
that
seemingly
unrelated
things
will
often
share
commonalities
and
influence
with
each
other.
Schools
should
not
be
seen
as
just
schools,
nor
should
libraries
be
seen
as
just
libraries,
but
rather
they
should
be
evaluated
in
terms
of
how
they
are
related
and
affect
each
other
(Townsend
77).
The
university
city
of
Cambridge,
for
example,
demonstrates
that
university
life
overlaps
with
activities
like
going
to
the
movies,
having
coffee,
and
pub-­‐crawling.
Cambridge
is
a
natural
city
“where
university
and
city
have
grown
together
gradually,
the
physical
units
overlap
because
they
are
the
physical
residues
of
city
systems
and
university
systems
which
overlap”
(Alexander
14).
Cambridge
is
an
example
of
how
progress
and
growth
have
created
a
more
complex
system.
Understanding
the
interconnectedness
and
influence
among
different
systems
is
a
key
element
in
complexity
thinking.
Supporters
of
this
postmodern
scientific
thinking
claim
“that
the
modern
scientific
paradigm
is
giving
way
in
the
20th
century
to
a
new
mode
of
scientific
thinking
based
on
concepts
such
as
entropy,
evolution,
organism,
indeterminacy,
probability,
relativity,
complementarity,
interpretation,
chaos,
complexity,
and
self-­‐organization”
(Kellner
and
Best
195).
Many
of
these
concepts
are
explored
throughout
this
paper.

11. 11
The
modern
Cartesian
idea
of
sustainability
advocates
for
the
employment
of
new
techniques
to
solve
unintended
issues
caused
by
previous
progressive
actions,
while
the
post-­‐modern
(complexity
thinking)
idea
of
resilience
introduces
a
different
type
of
progress—one
that
acknowledges
certain
issues
cannot
be
fixed
and
prepares
for
their
effects.
Resilience
is
complexity
thinking
because
it
understands
some
things
are
beyond
the
control
of
humans
and
exhibits
a
new
type
of
progressive
thought
and
action
that
aims
for
mitigation
instead
of
fixation.
This
distinction
is
important
because
smart
cities
are
addressing
and
practicing
sustainable,
but
not
resilient,
living.
As
a
product
of
Cartesian
thought,
smart
cities
embrace
sustainability
because
it
suggests
humans
can
still
determine
our
destiny.
They
are
not
building
for
resilience
because
that
would
be
admitting
to
a
loss
of
control.
Sustainable
thinking
is
flawed
because
it
often
involves
simplifying
the
complex
so
it
can
be
“understood,”
mastered,
and
controlled.
Theme
4:
Capitalism
and
Poor
Johnson
supports
Alexander’s
argument
that
the
mind
has
a
tendency
to
group
and
classify
the
unknown
by
writing,
“When
we
see
repeated
shapes
and
structures
emerging
out
of
apparent
chaos,
we
can’t
help
looking
for
pacemakers”
(Johnson
40).
A
pacemaker
is
effectively
a
god-­‐like
figure
that
creates
and
designs
a
system.
The
absence
of
a
pacemaker
is
a
key
aspect
of
Johnson's
emergent
properties
idea,
which
says
pre-­‐modern
cities
spawned
from
the
bottom-­‐up
in
a
self-­‐organizing
fashion.
Over
time,
they
slowly
became
more
intricate
and
interconnected
due
to
advancing
technology
and
increasing
population.
They
progressed
to
more
complex
“semilattice”
structures,
without
an
authority
figure
overseeing
the
city’s
initial
emergence.
With
many
smart
cities
being
built
in
a
short
time,
there
is
now
an
apparent
pacemaker
presence.
These
pacemakers,
who
include
companies
like
IBM
Corporation,
Siemens
AG,
and
Cisco
Systems,
are
failing
to
understand
the
difficulty
in
the
ambitious
task
they
are
undertaking.
Pacemakers
are:
“Weaving
an
array
of
new
technologies
–
the
Internet
of
Things,
predictive
analytics,
and
ubiquitous
video
communications
–
into
the
city
on
the
scale
of
the
electrical
grid
a
century
ago…much
of
what
they
have
done
to
date
is
simply
cobble
together
solutions
from
off-­‐the-­‐shelf
components,
with
little
investment
in
research
and
development
of
new
core
technologies”
(Townsend
10).
Corporate
involvement
solidifies
the
modern
city’s
transition
from
a
bottom-­‐up
to
a
top-­‐down
construct.
Originally,
cities
were
nothing
but
a
self-­‐organizing
manifestation
of
physical
interactions
that
resulted
from
a
natural
clustering
of
individuals.
Cities
gradually
became
more
controlled
as
patriarchal
societies
gave
rise
to
government
philosophies.
Still,
the
ruling
bodies
were
overseeing
an
originally
self-­‐organized
structure,
which
is
no
longer
the
case
with
huge
corporations
tackling
multi-­‐billion
dollar
city
projects.
Adam
Greenfield
says,
“It’s
as
if
the
foundational
works
of
twentieth-­‐century
urbanist
thought
had
been
collectively
authored
by
United
States
Steel,
General
Motors,
the
Otis
Elevator

12. 12
Company
and
Bell
Telephone”
(Greenfield).
The
fight
for
the
“right
to
the
city”
(Harvey
2008)
between
Jane
Jacobs
and
Robert
Moses
offers
an
appropriate
example
to
summarize
the
high
modernist
takeover
of
the
city.
As
previously
mentioned,
Jacobs
advocated
for
a
city
created
and
run
by
citizens—random
sidewalk
interactions
can
shape
a
city—and
understood
the
implications
of
top-­‐heavy
influence.
Moses,
an
urban-­‐development
tycoon,
was
a
Cartesian
mastermind
of
designing
the
city
like
a
“tree.”
In
1961,
Moses
announced
plans
to
build
a
highway
through
the
heart
of
SoHo,
which
would
disrupt
a
vibrant
community
(shaped
from
the
bottom-­‐up)
filled
with
“artists,
writers,
Puerto
Rican
immigrants,
and
working-­‐class
Italian-­‐Americans”
(Johnson
50).
Jacobs
triumphantly
defeated
Moses
and
his
destructive
plans
arguing
that
learning
from
streets
that
do
work
is
a
better
solution
than
bulldozing
and
starting
over.
Unfortunately,
Jacobs’
victory
over
the
higher
controlling
bodies
is
not
a
common
occurrence.
Her
work
to
empower
everyday
citizens
and
preserve
culture
came
from
an
understanding
of
cities
as
complex
adaptive
systems—products
of
many
years
of
self-­‐organization
and
influences
from
varied
cultures—and
from
an
understanding
that
destroying
and
rebuilding
does
not
solve
problems,
but
rather
only
causes
more.
The
rise
of
smart
cities
suggests
individuals
like
Johnson
and
Jacobs
are
the
minority
in
the
battles
against
their
Robert
Moses
counterparts.
A
significant
problem
with
smart
city
design
stems
from
the
capitalistic
mindset
of
current
key
players
who
“are
making
choices,
about
technology,
business,
and
governance,
with
little
or
no
input
from
the
broader
community
of
technologists,
civic
leaders,
and
citizens
themselves”
(Townsend
110).
Ultimately,
this
line
of
thinking
has
resulted
in
top-­‐heavy
input
by
wealthy
individuals
and
neglect
in
listening
to
the
everyday
citizen,
especially
lower-­‐class
individuals.
Songdo
has
publicized
itself
as
a
sustainable
smart
city,
yet
a
closer
look
reveals
the
underlying
neoliberal
inspiration.
In
2001,
the
national
government
granted
Songdo’s
development
rights
to
the
South
Korean
company
POSCO
Engineering
and
Construction.
Partnering
with
Gale
International,
an
American
based
building
design
firm,
the
two
companies
soon
established
themselves
as
the
main
pacemakers
behind
Songdo’s
development
(Songdo
International
Business
District).
Originally
designed
as
a
global
city
for
commerce,
the
city
has
assumed
an
“outward-­‐oriented
and
relatively
cosmopolitan
sensibility.”
The
city
is
now
branding
itself
as
an
“international
business
hub”
because
of
its
prime
location.
Located
near
the
Incheon
International
Airport
and
built
within
the
Free
Economic
Zone
(IFEZ),
Southeast
Asia’s
first
free
economic
zone,
Songdo
caters
towards
wealthy
business
travelers
and
foreign
investors.
In
doing
so,
Songdo
is
encouraging
the
colonization
of
international
companies
that
do
not
have
a
presence
anywhere
else
in
South
Korea.
As
the
prominent
global
business
center
of
IFEZ,
Songdo
citizens
have
access
to
goods
and
services
not
offered
to
the
rest
of
South
Korea,
such
as
private
medical
institutions
that
can
import
cheap
medical
treatments
that

13. 13
are
illegal
elsewhere
in
the
country
(Incheon
FEZ
Overview).
With
Songdo
under
corporate
control
and
largely
influenced
by
foreign
investors,
the
smart
city
design
is
viewed
as
a
means
to
attract
international
and
domestic
corporations,
instead
of
a
solution
to
the
“perfect
storm.”
The
freedoms
Songdo
enjoys
by
existing
within
the
boundaries
of
an
economic
free
zone
raise
questions
about
sovereignty
issues.
The
IFEZ
allows
companies
operating
in
Songdo
certain
privileges
not
permissible
by
the
South
Korean
government,
thus
giving
the
city
autonomous
decision-­‐making
powers;
Songdo
corporations
are
fully
exercising
their
free
economic
zone
rights
and
emerging
as
the
city’s
primary
decision
makers.
With
a
completion
date
slated
for
2020
(Incheon
FEZ
Overview),
the
IFEZ
is
still
developing,
but
Songdo’s
access
to
a
diverse
offering
of
foreign
investors
and
companies
has
already
fashioned
a
noticeable
separation
from
all
other
cities.
Free
economic
zones
are
a
product
of
neoliberal
globalization
that
has
sought
to
privatize
and
liberalize
public
sector
monopolies
and
inject
economic
prosperity
into
the
global
economy
by
moving
industry
to
developing
countries
and
benefitting
from
the
cheap
labor
and
new
markets.
This
“commodification”
of
urban
services
(McDonald
and
Ruiters
2005)
explains
the
emergence
of
not
only
IFEZ
but
Songdo,
as
well.
Gale
and
POSCO
took
advantage
of
the
open
global
market
that
catered
towards
private
sector
investments.
Songdo
demonstrates
why
smart
cities
are
the
latest
development
spawning
from
the
neoliberal
configuration
of
globally
networked
cities,
described
by
Mark
Swilling’s
“Conceptualizing
Urbanism,
Ecology,
and
Networked
Infrastructure.”
The
privatization
and
exploitation
of
urban
areas
have
resulted
in
what
Swilling
calls
“splintered
urbanism.”
The
term
indicates
the
fading
vision
of
an
inclusive
society
and
any
hope
for
global
minorities
benefitting
from
globalization.
Smart
city
designers
are
the
modern-­‐day
equivalent
to
Robert
Moses
and
Le
Corbusier,
both
of
which
favored
progress,
efficiency,
and
control
over
civic
well
being
(Swilling
2011,
84).
By
appealing
to
the
wealthy,
smart
cities
like
Songdo
perpetuate
the
divide
between
the
rich
and
the
poor.
Essentially
one
large
computer,
smart
cities
are
gated
communities
separated
technologically
rather
than
by
physical
structures
(Hodson
and
Marvin
2009).
Such
a
separation
between
smart
cities
and
surrounding
communities
could
pose
future
problems
by
perpetuating
further
class
stratification
and
marginalization.
In
the
essay
“The
Right
to
the
City,”
author
David
Harvey
argues,
“Quality
of
urban
life
has
become
a
commodity,
as
has
the
city
itself,
in
a
world
where
consumerism,
tourism,
cultural
and
knowledge-­‐based
industries
have
become
major
aspects
of
the
urban
political
economy”
(Harvey
31).
The
result
has
been
a
configuration
of
market
niches
within
the
modern
urban
space.
The
proliferation
of
urban
sprawl,
such
as
shopping
malls,
fast
food
restaurants,
and
supercenters,
is
treating
privileged
wealth
holders
to
a
delusional
urban
experience,
which
Sharon
Zukin
cleverly
calls
‘pacification
by
cappuccino’
(Harvey
31).
Free
market
capitalism
and
the
notion
of
possessive
individualism
have
made
the
rich
richer
and
the
poor
poorer,
thus
leading
to
cities,
especially
in
the
developing
world,
that
are:

14. 14
“Splitting
into
different
separated
parts,
with
the
apparent
formation
of
many
‘microstates’.
Wealthy
neighbourhoods
provided
with
all
kinds
of
services,
such
as
exclusive
schools,
golf
courses,
tennis
courts
and
private
police
patrolling
the
area
around
the
clock
intertwine
with
illegal
settlements
where
water
is
available
only
at
public
fountains,
no
sanitation
system
exists,
electricity
is
pirated
by
a
privileged
few,
the
roads
become
mud
streams
whenever
it
rains,
and
where
house-­‐sharing
is
the
norm.
Each
fragment
appears
to
live
and
function
autonomously,
sticking
firmly
to
what
it
has
been
able
to
grab
in
the
daily
fight
for
survival”
(Harvey
32).
Smart
cities
are
ostracizing
the
poor
and
creating
a
closed
loop
system
that
will
continue
decreasing
resilience.
Neoliberal
globalization
is
adding
greater
structure
to
a
rule-­‐set
already
dangerously
close
to
overshoot
and
collapse.
The
ever-­‐
increasing
levels
of
hierarchical
order
require
a
pacemaker
to
function
as
they
continue
on
a
Cartesian
path
seeking
total
and
efficient
control.
As
the
progress
continues
and
the
rule-­‐set
becomes
more
defined,
resilience
is
declining
and
collapse
is
nearing.
Meanwhile,
the
global
south
maintain
a
standard
of
living
that
is
relatively
more
sustainable
and
resilient.
Conclusion
There
is
incredible
irony
in
the
smart
city
boom.
First
world
countries
are
wealthier
because
they
have
emerged
successful
in
a
capitalistic
world.
Their
prosperity
has
led
to
greater
consumption
and
environmental
harm.
To
combat
the
eco
issues
that
they
primarily
created
through
previous
progressive
actions,
first
world
countries
are
creating
a
new
capitalistic
product
(smart
cities)
that
will
continue
the
trend
of
innovating
to
generate
temporary
solutions.
All
the
while,
the
poor
remain
excluded
and
marginalized.
Yet,
the
progress
of
the
globalized
minority
and
developing
nations
will
be
the
defining
factor
in
determining
the
world’s
future.
The
many
issues
surrounding
capitalism
raises
the
question:
is
resilience
possible
in
a
capitalistic
system?
The
answer
is
that
it
is
possible,
but
the
best
form
of
resiliency
is
not
possible.
If
complexity
thinking
and
building
for
resiliency
(instead
of
sustainability)
become
more
common,
resilient
cities
can
be
developed.
Still,
the
solitary,
competitive
attitude
of
capitalism
is
a
contrast
to
resiliency
thinking,
which
has
little
to
do
with
the
“individual”
and
identifies
community
building
as
a
necessary
component.
As
long
as
corporations
are
the
main
pacemakers
in
designing
and
controlling
a
smart
city,
Cartesian
thought
will
be
at
the
forefront
of
smart
city
development.
Transitioning
away
from
this
thought
process
and
towards
a
postmodern
mindset
means
narrowing
the
gap
between
corporations,
governments,
and
grassroots
communities.
In
order
to
build
resiliency,
competition
between
groups
needs
to
become
cooperation,
meaning
top-­‐down
pacemakers
must
work
with
bottom-­‐up
proponents.

15. 15
If
Johnson’s
description
of
emergent
properties
and
Jane
Jacobs’
theory
on
cities
as
being
a
bottom-­‐up
phenomenon
is
any
indication
of
how
to
approach
resiliency,
then
the
solution
lies
in
the
grassroots,
community
projects.
The
grassroots
may
be
where
solutions
lie,
however,
their
influences
will
not
happen
quickly
enough
because
of
the
“perfect
storm.
Songdo
demonstrates
companies
are
concerned
with
profits,
while
local
communities
don’t
have
the
necessary
resources
or
power
to
implement
strategies
fast
enough;
thus,
the
solution
appears
to
be
with
policy
makers
to
unify
the
two
contrasting
groups.
They
will
need
to
employ
companies
to
build
and
design
solutions
that
benefit
entire
communities,
not
just
the
rich.
If
the
smart
city
is
successful,
it
will
likely
be
due
to
bottom-­‐up
initiatives
that
slowly
make
new
contributions
to
the
city
over
time,
not
unlike
the
Internet’s
progress.
The
Internet
is
a
result
of
communal
citizen
participation,
which
is
essential
for
implementing
an
effective,
lasting
smart
city
model.
Promoting
a
trans-­‐disciplinary
culture
is
important
because
it
promotes
community
building
by
uniting
different
groups
of
people
through
shared
commonalities.
Walled-­‐off
smart
cites
that
are
crafted
from
input
primarily
from
corporations
negatively
affects
trans-­‐disciplinary
culture.
Just
as
Cartesian
thought
is
a
product
of
Western
philosophy
and
civilization
so,
too,
is
individualism.
Rene
Descartes
is
often
deemed
the
“father
of
modern
philosophy”
because
of
his
groundbreaking
work
theorizing
the
“solitary
self.”
Descartes
emphasis
on
individualism
“is
as
defining
a
characteristic
of
our
present
civilization
as
capitalism,
materialism,
technology,
and
global
expansion”
(Brammann).
Smart
cities
are
a
product
of
these
reductionist
characteristics;
therefore,
complexity
thinking
and
postmodernism
are
largely
absent
in
smart
city
design.
Jane
Jacobs
successfully
preserved
poor
neighborhoods
by
opposing
a
highway
expansion,
however
her
victory
over
capitalism
is
rare.
Smart
cities
mark
the
latest
capitalistic
step
in
city
development
because
“as
people
become
richer,
they
have
increasingly
chosen
cities
based
on
lifestyle,”
which
has
birthed
the
consumer
city
(Glaeser
10).
As
long
as
capitalism
continues
fueling
cities,
the
“wall”
surrounding
cities
will
climb
to
greater
heights.
Bibliography
Alexander,
Christopher.
"A
City
Is
Not
a
Tree."
Architectural
Forum
(1965).
Rudi.net.
Web.
11
May
2015.
Brammann,
Jorn
K.
"Descartes:
The
Solitary
Self."
Frostburg
State
University.
2004.
Web.
11
May
2015.
<http://faculty.frostburg.edu/phil/forum/Descartes.htm>.
Caring
for
the
Earth:
A
Strategy
for
Sustainable
Development.
Rep.
IUCN,
UNEP,
WWF,
Oct.
1991.
Web.
14
May
2015.
<https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/documents/CFE-­‐003.pdf>.

16. 16
Development
and
Economic
Co-­‐operation:
Environment.
Rep.
United
Nations
General
Assembly,
4
Aug.
1987.
Web.
14
May
2015.
<http://www.channelingreality.com/Documents/Brundtland_Searchable.pdf
>.
Elert,
Emily.
"Daily
Infographic:
If
Everyone
Lived
Like
An
American,
How
Many
Earths
Would
We
Need?"
Popular
Science.
19
Oct.
2012.
Web.
11
May
2015.
<http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2012-­‐10/daily-­‐infographic-­‐
if-­‐everyone-­‐lived-­‐american-­‐how-­‐many-­‐earths-­‐would-­‐we-­‐need>.
Glaeser,
Edward
L.
Triumph
of
the
City:
How
Our
Greatest
Invention
Makes
Us
Richer,
Smarter,
Greener,
Healthier,
and
Happier.
New
York:
Penguin,
2011.
Print.
Greenfield,
Adam.
Against
the
Smart
City.
1.3
ed.
Do
Projects,
2013.
Kindle.
Gunderson,
Lance
H.,
and
C.
S.
Holling.
Panarchy:
Understanding
Transformations
in
Human
and
Natural
Systems.
Washington,
DC:
Island,
2002.
Print.
Harvey,
David.
"The
Right
to
the
City."
New
Left
Review
53
(2008).
Web.
11
May
2015.
Hodson,
Mike
and
Simon
Marvin.
"The
Right
to
the
City
-­‐
Energy
and
Climate
Change."
Critical
Currents
6
(2009).
Print.
Homer-­‐Dixon,
Thomas
F.
The
Upside
of
Down:
Catastrophe,
Creativity,
and
the
Renewal
of
Civilization.
Washington:
Island,
2006.
Print.
"Incheon
FEZ
Overview."
Korean
Free
Economic
Zones.
Web.
14
May
2015.
<http://www.fez.go.kr/en/incheon-­‐fez-­‐overview.jsp>.
Johnson,
Steven.
Emergence:
The
Connected
Lives
of
Ants,
Brains,
Cities,
and
Software.
New
York:
Scribner,
2001.
Print.
Kellner,
Douglas,
and
Steven
Best.
The
Post
Modern
Turn.
New
York:
Guilford,
1997.
Print.
Kuecker,
Glen.
"The
Perfect
Storm:
Catastrophic
Collapse
in
the
21st
Century."
The
International
Journal
of
Environmental,
Cultural,
Economic,
and
Social
Sustainability
3
(2007).
Print.
McDonald,
David
Alexander,
and
Greg
Ruiters.
The
Age
of
Commodity.
London:
Earthscan,
2005.
Print.
The
Natural
Edge
Project.
2013.
Web.
11
May
2015.
<http://www.naturaledgeproject.net/>.

17. 17
Scott,
James
C.
Seeing
like
a
State:
How
Certain
Schemes
to
Improve
the
Human
Condition
Have
Failed.
New
Haven:
Yale
UP,
1998.
Print.
Newman,
Peter,
Timothy
Beatley,
and
Heather
Boyer.
Resilient
Cities:
Responding
to
Peak
Oil
and
Climate
Change.
Washington,
DC:
Island,
2009.
Print.
Songdo
IBD.
Web.
11
May
2015.
<http://www.songdo.com/>.
"Songdo
International
Business
District."
Gale
International.
Web.
14
May
2015.
<http://www.galeintl.com/projects/songdo-­‐ib/>.
"The
Surprising
Math
of
Cities
and
Corporations."
TED.
N.p.,
July
2011.
Web.
11
May
2015.
<http://www.ted.com/talks/geoffrey_west_the_surprising_math_of_cities_an
d_corporations?language=en>.
Swilling,
Mark.
"Reconceptualizing
Urbanism,
Ecology,
and
Networked
Infrastructures."
Social
Dynamics
37.1
(2011):
78-­‐95.
Web.
Thomas
Homer-­‐Dixon.
2011.
Web.
11
May
2013.
<http://www.homerdixon.com>.
Townsend,
Anthony
M.
Smart
Cities:
Big
Data,
Civic
Hackers,
and
the
Quest
for
a
New
Utopia.
New
York:
W.
W.
Norton,
2014.
Print.
"What
Is
Disaster
Risk
Reduction?"
UNISDR
News.
The
United
Nations
Office
for
Disaster
Risk
Reduction.
Web.
11
May
2015.
<http://www.unisdr.org/who-­‐
we-­‐are/what-­‐is-­‐drr>.
"World’s
Population
Increasingly
Urban
with
More
than
Half
Living
in
Urban
Areas
|
UN
DESA
|
United
Nations
Department
of
Economic
and
Social
Affairs."
United
Nations
News
Center.
United
Natios,
10
July
2014.
Web.
11
May
2015.
<http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/population/world-­‐
urbanization-­‐prospects-­‐2014.html>.