Skip to main content

Table 1 Key differences between the smart city and platform urbanism

From: Beyond the smart city: a typology of platform urbanism

Comparative dimensions

Smart city

Platform urbanism

Area of focus

The city itself. While the concept may be generic (aimed at policy transfer/mobility), it is primarily understood in terms of ‘improving’ an existing city through retrofitting and adding a digital (infrastructure) layer. While the notion of ‘city’ itself is being challenged, the smart city typically relates to materially-recognizable cities. This can be seen in the proliferation of smart city league tables (Albino et al 2015). The key focus of smart urbanism is: a city

The platform, as a socio-technical assemblage. Platform infrastructures rely on dense assemblages (and hence are particularly suited for urban contexts): large number of providers (e.g. taxi drivers, apartment owners, restaurants), and users (residents, workers, visitors, consumers), and technology firms. Typically, a platform is constructed to be scalable to any, or multiple, urban environments. The key focus of platform urbanism is: any city

Rationale

City hall perspective: to ‘upgrade’ the city, to bring greater benefits to residents and to render the city more competitive internationally. Also, against the background of austerity, to make utilities and services more cost-effective

Corporate perspective: to take advantage of increased urbanisation to sell digital systems and technologies to municipalities. The city/urban is seen as a significant growth market (Caprotti and Cowley 2019)

Platform provider perspective: to offer an attractive, digitally enabled interface between service producers and consumers, which can be layered upon, embedded in, and applied across multiple urban contexts. To offer opportunity for investment and stakeholder returns, based on a scalable business model

Platform user perspective: to obtain/consume services through an integrated portal and in prompt, convenient fashion; to engage in complementary social interactions

Spatiality

Bounded: relating to a geographically recognizable, demarcated (if increasingly blurred) area. Even in abstract discussion, the concept mostly refers to the city as a geographical area and governance entity. Furthermore, while the smart city exhibits policy mobility, mobility is discussed in relation to transferable knowledge/practices/lessons from specific cities (Wiig 2015)

Porous and extendable: The platform is territorially defined by the interaction between service providers and users, plus the availability of the underlying technological system. As such it is characterized by geographical and temporal flexibility and fluidity, in turn influenced by urban density. From a user perspective, the platform can be used across different cities (e.g. Uber, Airbnb), whereas a smart city app (e.g. London’s Oyster card) can only be used within the designated city/service

Temporality

Long-term. Smart city investment is fundamental in nature: upgrading infrastructure, improving administrative and governance systems, etc. As smart city policies, strategies and projects ultimately originate from city hall (see below), the smart city’s temporality is at least partly defined by electoral cycles and government periods. While the smart city produces real-time data for instantaneous planning (e.g. traffic management), it is also used for longitudinal analysis to inform long-term planning

Contemporaneous, short-term, instantaneous. The focus is on day-to-day services and interactions, which change and evolve based on market forces. An e-bike scheme may quickly ‘flood’ the city (as part of marketing strategy), but also disappear again depending on market demand and social resonance. However, platforms draw and rely upon long-term and permanent infrastructure, built environment and technology

Governance

City authorities are the main driver of smart city activities, with a strong relationship between city hall and private technology corporations. The smart city may spawn diverse private initiatives and partnerships, but it typically functions under the municipal umbrella. Smart city innovation ultimately serves public governance: facilitating municipal administration, public service delivery, and the relationship between officialdom and citizens

Platform operators self-defining as technology firms, operating across cities with the involvement of local providers and users. Governance is based on legal contracts/relationships: partnership agreements with e.g. restaurants (Deliveroo) and property owners (Airbnb) and ‘workers’; as well as users/consumers (who agree to ‘terms and conditions’ of use). City authorities often become involved as regulators (e.g. London Mayor threatening to ban Uber over passenger safety concerns). It is worth noting that several (European) cities have banned specific platforms (e.g. Uber). Also, several court cases at national and European levels have arbitrated on whether platform providers are technology firms only (and therefore exempt from usual municipal regulations) or instead should be recognized/accountable as city service firms (i.e. a transport company in the case of Uber)

Technology

Smart city technologies as in situ digital infrastructure: interacting with, and between, other ‘fixed’ urban infrastructure and municipal administration, to provide improved municipal services (public transport; congestion charging; smart metering for water utilities; environmental data capture and reporting; online citizen dashboard, e-reporting and e-voting etc.)

Digital technology and data analytics as platform backbones. Real-time data, collected from ‘partners’ (Uber drivers, Airbnb hosts etc.) and ‘users’ (passengers, visitors etc.) using a platform-specific app, is analysed to connect partners and users in the most optimal configurations. The platform provider’s technology infrastructure may be located a long distance away from the platform’s day-to-day urban application