The smart city is a shifting promise defined by current objectives. This means that smart cities redefine themselves as issues such as connectedness, sustainability, or equality become politically, commercially, and or socially more or less appealing. Certain seemingly invisible factors can impact the extent to which the promise of smart governance and infrastructure come to fruition. This paper examines Amsterdam's internal “smart” soft infrastructure, from politics, to policies, to practice. This overview, stemming from interviews and reports, uncovers how policies, funding, and government structure determine what the smart city is and the extent to which it can be inclusive and accessible for all. The Amsterdam case reveals that similar smart cities have the potential to suffer from short term projects, ethical issues unextractable from data dependency, and conflicting needs of diverse city-dwellers. These concerns make it such that independent self-funded forces with long-term visions may wield comparative power in smart urban development. • Qualitative analysis of Amsterdam reveals soft infrastructure roadblocks. • Political shifts drive Amsterdam to reject the specific smart city label. • Short-term pilot projects hinder sustainable, long-term urban inclusion. • Diverse citizen needs create conflicts in smart infrastructure design.
Ebe-Güzgü et al. (Thu,) studied this question.