One day you may never again sit in traffic at 4pm in the rain, hear that song from 20 years ago on the radio and then wonder whatever happened to your ex from college. There is no need because you will never sit in traffic, the radio is customized to your listening profile, and you still talk to your college ex on Facebook. You still talk to all your exes actually, so you never need wonder "what might have happened?" had you stayed with that person. The relationship never died.
Urban planners use tools like zoning, economic development hubs, urban design, and historic preservation to create a better living environment. Yet better for whom? The question of values has frequently been discussed within planning theory, and over the years planning has shifted to include participatory processes, advocacy models, and mixed systems of governance. There is no universal definition of better, and yet, I would argue while attempts have been made to diversify the planning process, a preconceived ideal still dominates the outcome.
Today the "big thing" is the creation of smart cities. Distributed systems of digital sensors and wifi networks blanket over 140 cities in the world to create highly efficient traffic systems, disaster relief, and energy efficiency. Computing heavy weights like IBM and Microsoft are heavily involved in creating the technologies and working with governments on such systems. Media channels cycle through progressive articles on these smart systems. Whoever designs the software designs the future.
I have a love/hate relationship with these technological systems for urban management. I am a technology creator so obviously I subscribe to many of the benefits. Yet for smart cities, it seems that all of these efficiencies are narrowly fine tuned to accommodate a universally implied yet generally undefined ideal. Replicated across cities, and undercurrent of imposed values channel all societies toward a particular standard for living and all cities eventually conform. By putting efficiency before humanity, the buzzing chaos of auto-rickshaws in New Delhi or the thumbing bass of Kenyan matatu's ripping down the city streets could easily become a thing of the past.
The economic advantages are obvious. We could solve the problem of climate change. But I foresee that these technologies allow us to mechanize cities to achieve maximum capital valuation of land and space. While Hernando De Soto advocated the creation of legal documents to turn shanties into real estate, these newer technologies transform real estate into machines. Mechanized and optimized, our buildings generate lower carbon footprints and buses run unobstructed.
But the data never dies. It simply accumulates, ever minute of every day, for hundreds of years. Every fluctuation of weather is documented, and so is every criminal act and social protests. Market fluctuations are recorded and correlations are identified deep within the data architecture that would be considered by most observers to be entirely spurious. But the algorithm knows. It builds it's own programs within programs. It doesn't need us to understand. In the essence of being participatory, our urban technology centers dump terabytes of data back into cyberspace every quarter second to be picked up by sophisticated trading algorithms.
Perhaps eventually the persistence of digital memory supersedes the collective. We forget ourselves and we forget the notion of environmental change. The city can no longer transform across time because it is too hyper-efficient to necessitate change and civilization is halted as every social process. We forget ourselves and fade away. All that is left is a digital memory, factored into a NASDAQ exchange, stored in a hard drive, and then lodged away in darkness.