From Smart Cities to Experimental Cities?



Calzada examines in this chapter the ways in which the hegemonic approach to the “smart city” is evolving into a new intervention category, called the “experimental city.” While this evolution presents some innovations, mainly regarding how smart citizens will be increasingly considered more as decision makers than data providers, likewise, some underlying issues arise, concerning the hidden side and ethical implications of the techno-politics of data and the urban commons. These issues engage with multi-stakeholders, particularly with the specific Penta Helix framework that brings together private sector, public sector, academia, civic society, and entrepreneurs. These innovations in urban life and its governance will inevitably bring us into debate about new potential models of business and society, concerning, for instance, the particular urban co-operative scheme employed.


  1. Albino, V., Berardi, U., & Dangelico, R. M. (2015). Smart cities: Definitions, dimensions, performance, and initiatives. Journal of Urban Technology, 22(1), 3–21. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Almirall, E., & Wareham, J. (2011). Living labs: Arbiters of mind-and ground-level innovation. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 23(1), 87–102. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amin, A., & Thrift, N. (2016). Seeing like a city. London: Polity.Google Scholar
  4. Anttiroiko, A. (2016). City-as-a-platform: Towards citizen-centre platform governance. Presented at the RSA Winter Conference 2016 on New Pressures on Cities and Regions, 24–25 November, London, UK.Google Scholar
  5. Anttiroiko, A., Valkama, P., & Bailey, S. J. (2013). Smart cities in the new service economy: Building platforms for smart cities. AI & Society, 29, 323–334. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. BITS, Barcelona Initiative for Technological Sovereignty. (2016). Retrieved from
  7. Bollier, D. (2016). The city as a commons. Retrieved from
  8. Bollier, D., & Helfrich, S. (2016). Patterns of commoning. The Commons Strategies Group. Retrieved from
  9. Borch, C., & Kornberger, M. (2015). Urban commons: Rethinking the city. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Calzada, I. (2013a). Knowledge building & organizational behaviour: Mondragon case. In F. Moulaert, D. MacCallum, A. Mehmood, & A. Hamdouch (Eds.), International handbook of social innovation. Social innovation: Collective action, social learning and transdisciplinary research (pp. 219–229). Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.  10.13140/RG.2.2.30748.69766 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Calzada, I. (2013b). Critical social innovation in the smart city era for a city-regional European horizon 2020. Journal of Public Policies & Territory P3T, 2(6), 1–20.Google Scholar
  12. Calzada, I. (2015). Benchmarking future city-regions beyond nation-states. Regional Studies Regional Science, 2(1), 350–361. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Calzada, I. (2016). (Un)plugging smart cities with urban transformations: Towards multistakeholder city-regional complex urbanity? URBS, Revista de Estudios Urbanos y Ciencias Sociales Journal, 6(2), 25–45. Retrieved from Google Scholar
  14. Calzada, I. (2017a). The techno-politics of data and smart devolution in cities-regions: Comparing Glasgow, Bristol, Barcelona, and Bilbao. Systems, 5(1), 18. Retrieved from CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Calzada, I. (2017b). Transforming smart cities with social innovation: Penta Helix multi-stakeholders framework. Presented in the SS21 Beyond Smart & Data-Driven City-Regions? Rethinking Stakeholder-Helixes Strategies, in the RSA Annual Conference 2017, 6th June, Dublin, IrelandGoogle Scholar
  16. Calzada, I., & Cobo, C. (2015). Unplugging: Deconstructing the smart city. Journal of Urban Technology, 22(1), 23–43. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Campbell, T. (2012). Beyond smart cities: How cities network, learn and innovate. Oxon: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  18. Casual Synthesis Report. (2016). Co-creating attractive and sustainable urban areas and lifestyles: Exploring new forms of inclusive urban governance. Nordregio & JPI Urban Europe.Google Scholar
  19. City of Things. (2016). Discover today the possibilities of tomorrow’s smart cities. Retrieved from
  20. CNN. (2016). Yinchuan smart city future. Retrieved from
  21. Ersoy, A. (2017). Smart cities as mechanism towards a broader understanding of infrastructure interdependencies. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 4(1), 1–6. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. European Commission-H2020. (2017). SCC1 clustering meeting minutes on 24th March 2017, Nottingham.Google Scholar
  23. Evans, J., Karvonen, A., & Raven, R. (2016). Experimental city. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Finn, E. (2017). What algorithms want: Imagination in the age of computing. Cambridge, MA and London, UK: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Flamenco Project. (2016). Flanders mobile enacted citizen observatories. Retrieved from
  26. Forbes. (2016). Cities cannot be reduced to just big data and IoT: Smart city lessons from Yinchuan, China. Retrieved from
  27. Foster, S., & Iaione, C. (2016). The city as a commons. Yale Law & Policy Review, 34(2), 2. Retrieved from Google Scholar
  28. Gartner. (2016). Gartner says smart cities will use 1.6 billion connected things in 2016. Retrieved from
  29. Giorgino, V. (2014). Contemplative methods meet social sciences: Back to human experience as it is. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 45(4).
  30. Gray, J., & Lämmerhirt, D. (2017). Data and the city: How can public data infrastructures change lives in urban regions. Cambridge: Open Knowledge.Google Scholar
  31. Habermas, J. (2015). The lure of technocracy. New York: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  32. Hackair Project. (2016). Collective awareness for air quality. Retrieved from
  33. Hajer, M., & Dassen, T. (2014). Smart about cities: Visualising the challenge for 21st Century Urbanism. Amsterdam: naio19 publishers/pbl.Google Scholar
  34. Harari, Y. (2016). Yuval Noah Harari on big data, Google and the end of free will. Retrieved from
  35. Hemment, D., & Townsend, A. (2013). Smart citizens. Manchester: FutureEverything.Google Scholar
  36. Herrschel, T., & Dierwechter, Y. (2015). Smart city-regional governance: A ‘dual transition. Regions, 300(4), 20–21.
  37. Hughes, B. (2016). The bleeding edge: Why technology turns Toxix in an unequal world. London: New Internationalist.Google Scholar
  38. Karvonen, A., & van Heur, B. (2014). Urban laboratories: Experiments in reworking cities. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38(2), 379–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Keith, M., & Calzada, I. (2016). European smart citizens as decision makers rather thank data providers. Urban transformations ESRC report on 14th November 2016 Workshop entitled ‘(Un)Plugging Data in Smart City-Regions’.
  40. Keith, M., & Headlam, N. (2016). The urban living global challenge: A prospectus. Comparative international exemplars urban and living labs.Google Scholar
  41. Kitchin, R. (2016). Reframing, reimagining and remaking smart cities. The Programmable City Working Paper 20.Google Scholar
  42. Kontokosta, C. E. (2016). The quantified community and neighbourhood labs: A framework for computational urban science and civic technology innovation. Journal of Urban Technology, 23(4), 67–84. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Krivy, M. (2016). Towards a critique of cybernetic urbanism: The smart city and the society of control. Planning Theory, 1–23.Google Scholar
  44. Latour, B. (1983). Give me a laboratory and I will raise the world. In K. Knorr-Cetina & M. Mulkay (Eds.), Science observed: Perspectives on the social study of science. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  45. Leminen, S. (2015). Living labs as open innovation networks: Networks, roles and innovation outcomes. Doctoral dissertations 132/2015.Google Scholar
  46. Lewontin, R. (2000). The triple helix: Gene, organism, and environment. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Leydesdorff, L., & Fritsch, M. (2006). Measuring the knowledge base of regional innovation systems in Germany in terms of a triple helix dynamics. Research Policy, 35(10), 1538–1553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Marvin, S., Luque-Ayala, A., & McFarlane, C. (2015). Smart urbanism: Utopian vision or false dawn? London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  49. Marwick, A., & Boyd, D. (2010). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media & Society, 13(1), 114–133. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. McCullough, M. (2013). Ambient commons: Attention in the age of embodied information. Massachussets: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  51. Morozov, E. (2014). The rise of data and the death of politics. Retrieved from
  52. Morozov, E., & Bria, F. (2017). Roundtable session—A new deal on data: What role for cities? Smart city expo world congress. Retrieved from
  53. Morozov, E., & Eno, B. (2017). Debat. Brian Eno i Evgeny Morozov Una conversa sobre tecnologia i democràcia. Retrieved from
  54. NESTA. (2015). Data for good: How big and open data can be used for the common good.Google Scholar
  55. Noveck, S. (2015). Smart citizens, smarter state: The technologies of expertise and the future of governing. Boston: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. OECD/KIPF. (2016). Fiscal federalism 2016: Making decentralisation work. Paris: OECD Publishing. Google Scholar
  57. Oström, E. (2010). Beyond markets and states: Polycentric governance of complex economic systems. American Economic Review, 100, 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. PWC. (2016). From concept to applied solutions: Data-driven cities.Google Scholar
  59. Ratner, C. (2009). Cooperativism: A social, economic, and political alternative to capitalism. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 20(2), 44–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Ratner, C. (2013). Cooperation, community, and co-ops in a global era. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ratner, C. (2015). The politics of cooperation and co-ops: Forms of cooperation and co-ops, and the politics that shape them. New York: Nova Publishers.Google Scholar
  62. Ratti, C., & Claudel, M. (2016). The city of tomorrow: Sensors, networks, hackers, and the future of urban life. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Rossi, U. (2015). The variegated economics and the potential politics of the smart city. Territory, Politics, Governance, 4(3), 337–353. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sabato, S., Vanhercke, B., & Verschraegen, G. (2017). Connecting entrepreneurship with policy experimentation? The EU framework for social innovation. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 30(2), 147–167. Google Scholar
  65. Satyam, A., & Calzada, I. (2017). The smart city transformations. New Delhi: Bloomsbury Academic and Professional Publishing.Google Scholar
  66. Schuurman, D., De Marez, L., & Ballon, P. (2016). The impact of living lab methodology on open innovation contributions and outcomes. Technology Innovation Management Review, 1(6), 7–16. Retrieved from Google Scholar
  67. Shilton, K. (2016). When they are your big data: Participatory data practices as a lens on big data. In C. Sugimoto, H. Ekbia, & M. Mattioli (Eds.), Big data is not a monolith. Massachussets: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  68. Subirats, J. (2012). The commons: Beyond the market vs. state dilemma. Open Democracy. Retrieved from
  69. Thomas, V., Wang, D., Mullagh, L., & Dunn, N. (2016). Where’s Wally? In search of citizen perspectives on the smart city. Sustainability, 8(3), 207. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Uraia Nicosia Guidelines. (2016). The impact of smart technologies in the municipal budget: Increased revenue and reduced expenses for better services.Google Scholar
  71. Waag. (2016). A manifesto for smart citizens. Retrieved from
  72. West, J., & Bogers, M. (2016). Open innovation: Current status and research opportunities. Innovation, 19(1), 43–50. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Oxford, Urban Transformations ESRC programmeOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations