No abstract

No abstract

Studies of ‘smart cities’ in Canada primarily focus on large cities but not small, rural and remote communities. As a result, we have a limited understanding of the incentive structures for smaller, remote and rural communities to pursue smart city development. This knowledge deficit is concerning, since the introduction of technology can hold a number of unique benefits for these communities, including easier connections to the rest of Canada and large urban centres, reputation building, improved service delivery and enhanced opportunities for residents. Drawing upon localised forms of knowledge creation, policy development theories, adoption and local competition literature and primary interviews with private and public officials, we examine the challenges and opportunities of ‘smart city’ implementation through case studies of small and rural municipalities in Annapolis Valley in Nova Scotia and a remote community, Iqaluit, Nunavut. We find that collaboration is essential for rural and remote pursuit of smart city development and is necessary to counteract the limitations of capacity, scale and digital divides. Challenges aside, however, the primary rationale for adoption of smart city technology remains the same regardless of size: enhanced quality of life for residents and sustained community health.

No abstract

This article discusses the concept of porosity and what it might offer critical urbanism. It engages recent scholarly and practical writing on the “porous city,” outlining three sets of contributions that porosity offers in analyzing contemporary urbanization patterns and in orienting planning, policymaking, and knowledge production. First, the porous city offers a critical epistemological lens focused on flow and relations, which supports mobile and infrastructural ways of viewing and knowing the city. Second, the porous city suggests the ontological features of interpenetrating geographies and temporalities, which take the urban to be a topological space of potential politics. Third, the porous city entails an ideal to which planning practice should aspire, particularly in relation to forms of urbanism and city-building that are open to multifunctionality, difference, and dynamism over time. While each of these represents a promising direction in critical urban praxis, we argue that porosity also has its limits. The porous city is conceptually malleable and normatively ambiguous and it risks overreach as well as recuperation within exclusionary and exploitative urban development agendas. We claim that the porous city should not be treated as a comprehensive global ambition, but rather, is most valuable when used to discern and build discrete architectures of power.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract