Celebrating the Great Union through Smart Digital Solutions: Lessons from Alba Iulia, Romania

Abstract

After World War I, Transylvania became part of Romania in 1918 through what is called the Great Union. After 100 years, Alba Iulia authorities celebrated the Unification Centennial in a symbolic way by testing and implementing 100 smart digital projects. The research question is asked, Is Alba Iulia a true smart city? Methodologically, we centralized the urban regeneration and sustainable development projects, plotting them on a map using geographic information system ArcGIS 16.2 software. The results were interpreted using the arch over time method and emphasized the sustainable development tendencies of the Union City a century later. Its policies and projects make Alba Iulia a model for emergent development despite some unsolved gaps such as social inclusion of marginal communities or real urban smart functionality. Conclusively, the current poor implementation of smart applications certifies Alba Iulia’s digital city status, not as one of smart city.

The spatial development of peripheralisation: The case of smart city projects in Romania

“…The governance of smart cities and urban smart city projects in CEE cities is an under‐researched topic (McElroy, 2020; Nicula et al, 2022; Sikora‐Fernandez, 2018; Varro & Szalai, 2022). Taking the case of the Roma people from the outskirts of the city of Cluj‐Napoca (Romania's third‐largest city), Erin McElroy (2020) claims that the Roma have suffered a double dispossession, in which not only have ‘digital nomads’ indulged technocapitalist fantasies by appropriating Roma identity, but also the Roma have been evicted to make way for the coming of Western digital nomads and IT companies.…”

“…Meanwhile, the struggle for housing justice remains a major issue for the doubly dispossessed Roma people in a digitalised/siliconised/smart city area of Cluj‐Napoca. By contrast, Nicula et al (2022) have highlighted the fact that one particular city in Romania (Alba Iulia) is less smart than the local authorities claim, for the slightly different reason that innovative projects have chiefly been implemented in its central area and do not take account of the city's outskirts or its marginal and vulnerable people. The present study makes a contribution to more critical debates over the politics and development of smart city projects in general, and in particular of smart city projects in the CEE, by illustrating how the uneven spatial development of smart cities in Romania and the implementation of smart city projects in the peripheral areas of a major city have been two significant features of the past decade.…”

“…Previous studies of smart cities in Europe have tended to concentrate on the digital and technological realm as an indicator of the performance of cities. While more recent research into how critical understandings of smart city governance are being implemented through smart city projects in different urban spaces (McElroy, 2020; Nicula et al, 2022; Sikora‐Fernandez, 2018; Varro & Szalai, 2022) has broadened the discussion, there remains room for further work.…”

A Decision-Making Approach Based on TOPSIS Method for Ranking Smart Cities in the Context of Urban Energy

“…In the urban literature of smart cities, there are some discussions of limitations of smart cities, meaning that not all potential desiring smart cities deserve to be named 'smart'. For example, Nicula et al [17] deduced that the current poor implementation of smart applications demonstrates Alba Iulia's digital city status not as one of a smart city. The authors argued that some cities, for instance in Central Europe, could not become smart cities because they still have problems with the social inclusion of marginal people.…”

Multi-Criteria Analysis of Smart Cities on the Example of the Polish Cities

“…Stigmatization of Roma has deeply rooted historical backgrounds. The integration of Roma will be difficult to implement because stigmatization remains in the collective mentality [48,49].…”