I.1. Rethinking the theories of urban planning in light of digital breakthrough

Our challenge is to overcome the divide between “technophiles” and “technophobes” and to focus on the effects, in order to revisit the theories of urban planning in light of this technological breakthrough. The theoretical corpus of planning is of rather Anglophone origin and has not (yet) really been imposed in a sustainable way in French academic debates. We believe, however, that it can be useful to understand the impact of these technologies, not on the city in general, but on the development of the latter through its planning and management.

The definition of planning is subject to debate. For John Friedmann [FRI 87], it concerns the use of knowledge in collective decision-making or simply the link between knowledge and action. Jacques Lévy and Michel Lussault gave a more technical definition, considering it as “a political mechanism aimed at predicting the context and making public and private actions consistent, in a domain and/or space, for a fixed period and time” (translated from Lévy and Lussault, [LÉV 03, p. 720]). Pierre Merlin and Françoise Choay [PIE 00] emphasized the prospective dimension, with the production of plans and resulting decisions. Planning exercises power or at least influences many aspects of future development, including economic development, natural resources, culture, planning or any other territorial dimension.

From a theoretical point of view, planning has developed under the influence of a broad spectrum of ideologies, ranging from the most conservative to the most radical, passing through pragmatism [FRI 87]. In order to delimit the scope of the planning theories field, Andreas Faludi [FAL 73] distinguished between, on the one hand, theories in planning, which cover the substantive and material dimension of planning, that is, the objects of planning and, on the other hand, theories of planning, which question the procedural dimension of planning, that is, planning actors, rules and processes. However, Philip Allmendinger [ALL 09] criticized this distinction between the procedural and substantive, because these two types of theories cannot escape the influence of cultural norms specific to the historical context in which they emerge; thus, any theory would contain a variable mixture of procedure and substance.

This book will not question the material dimension of planning, because the object is not the smart city as such. It is rather a matter of questioning the evolution of the context of urban development in a progressive digitization movement of territorial actors, as well as the methods and processes in which they are engaged. This book therefore rather addresses the procedural dimension of planning, that is, it aims at studying the development of the contemporary city. The city can sometimes claim to be intelligent or digital but, beyond these labels, this entails studying the impact of these technologies on the development of cities which practice digital urban planning.

I.2. Digitization of urban planning methods, actors and processes

This book aims to observe digitization, which can be presented as the action of digitizing, or in other words, representing and translating analog realities by numbers. More specifically, it is an issue of making sense of, and even going beyond, the traditional divide between optimism and pessimism as regards the impact of digital technologies on our societies.

The first approach is cyberoptimist and sees in the emergence of the Internet a possible development of a more open society in the service of a direct democracy, where citizens could participate more freely. The second is a cyberpessimist approach. This approach is diametrically opposed to the first and sees the Internet as a technical development in the service of a new technical elite, which responds to the interests of large private groups, prevents the participation of those who are not technologically up to date or even organizes a generalized monitoring of behaviors. This divide between cyberoptimist and cyberpessimist redefines Lewis Mumford’s [MUM 70] vision regarding the risks that accompany the deployment of industrial civilization, where the promises of modern technology would be betrayed by an authoritarian “megamachine”. In other words, it is an issue of distinguishing between utopia and catastrophism.

As a result, this book aims to answer the following main question: what is the impact of the use of digital technology on urban planning methods, actors and processes? More specifically, this concerns observing the resources offered by digital technology and seeing if they allow us to renew the reading of theoretical debates of urban planning.

This problem leads toward addressing the effects of the digitization of the practice of planning through three major dimensions, namely methods, actors and processes. The study of these dimensions leads us to formulate four hypotheses about the evolution of urban planning styles.

These hypotheses are typical aspects of possible incarnations of this digital city. Using an ideal type makes it possible to better identify the variables of our object and to better structure our qualitative analysis. The construction of ideal types is at the heart of Max Weber’s sociology. The ideal type must be constructed from social reality, by abstraction and synthesis; it must extract and highlight certain characteristics considered representative of a fact or a set of facts. These choices should allow the researcher to carry out a generalization bringing together a multiplicity of phenomena that would otherwise be too particular, heterogeneous and impossible to integrate in a coherent system of thought. The ideal type finally allows us to consider the classification, and then the analysis, of human facts:

“A reflection process based on cases or descriptions of situations consisting of making a ‘transition to the limit’, that is extracting from cases and situations their most ‘typical’ characteristics (the most fundamental) to define an extreme type (‘ideal type’) against which the different concrete cases encountered in research can be prioritized [WEB 65]” (translated from Mucchielli, [MUC 96, p. 92]).

Relative to our research, the development of typical aspects is achieved in the theoretical and empirical fields, and the transition “to the limit” makes it possible to highlight the most typical or even prescriptive characteristics of the uses of digital technology.

Finally, these typical aspects of the digital city are more complementary than contradictory, and thus reflect a variety of possible situations, which are articulated among themselves in new local configurations. They highlight different categories of actors (technical, private, civic and institutional) who participate in the redefinition of the city development process.

I.3. Hypothesis 1: The return of an expert-based urban planning

The issue of urban development methods refers first of all to the evolution of technologies. The Internet offers new communication possibilities, provides access to additional data whose processing is faster because of their automation using digital technology (expression in figures) and thus offers new resources for planning. The smart city is therefore initially based on a technological revolution. From the point of view of the substance of urban policies, the smart city can then take the form of a connected and smart grid or control dashboard shaping the ideal of an environment-friendly city or, on the contrary, leading to a drift toward a control and monitoring of all. Moreover, from the procedural point of view, city development always refers to interactions and power relations between the actors, but the data exchanged become massive (Big Data) and their magnitude can give the impression of a dispossession of urban development to the detriment of citizens.

In light of theoretical debates on the evolution of urban planning styles, we put forth the hypothesis that the digitization of planning methods corresponds to the return of an expert-based urban planning with the domination of technical actors in urban development. This phenomenon would give new life to rational planning, which would now appear in the guise of sustainable urban planning. Originally, this planning model appeared in the 19th Century, when some cities were experiencing strong growth thanks to rapid industrialization [FRI 87, LIN 90]. The rational model then facilitates the interaction of traditional planning actors, policy makers and planners, who act as experts. The goal is to make plans to regulate land use and guide growth by defining zonings, building densities and locations for installation of communal facilities. This model has been questioned since the 1970s, but we can assume that it is experiencing a revival thanks to digital technology, especially with the smart grid feature.

I.4. Hypothesis 2: Urban planning under the pressure of an extension of the urban capitalism sphere

The issue regarding the evolution of actors by the emergence of the digital city can be read in two ways: on the one hand from the private sector and on the other hand from civil society (see Hypothesis 3). We are concerned here with private actors who find new markets thanks to the development of the digital economy. This can refer to the largest urban service groups, which will sell digital technology solutions and thus diversify their activities. There is also the emergence of new urban actors who come from the digital economy world. The largest groups (GAFA: Google, Apple, Facebook, Amazon) see this as a natural extension, and moreover, a number of start-ups will develop new solutions. Sometimes, they will have a considerable impact on the management of cities, for example, Uber or Airbnb.

In light of theoretical debates on the evolution of urban planning styles, we hypothesize that digital technology brings new actors into urban development, challenging the legitimacy and ability of public actors to act by constructing the city outside the classic planning scenes.

It is a continuation of the privatization of the city, which can be correlated with the strategic planning approach. This concept is quite old and originated in the military field; it was then appropriated by the business world. The advent of the global neoliberal reference system [JOB 94] from the 1980s enabled its generalization in the Western world and its application to the public sector, particularly in the field of development and urban planning. The strategic model is breaking with the traditional model, focusing on public action regarding the search for results through the implementation of projects [PAD 89]. In relation to spatial planning, the strategic model is more open to private actors. They are involved in the development of planning contents and then participate in the implementation of strategies through public–private partnerships. By taking into account the effects of globalization of the economy and competition between cities, attractiveness issues become central. With the emergence of digital economy actors in urban development, we can hypothesize a return of this strategic influence in a new form, which could be described as “poststrategic”, with private actors whose influence increases by doubling the classic planning scenes.

I.5. Hypothesis 3: Citizens in search of alternative urban planning

Beyond private actors, the digital city also has a citizen dimension. This involves taking up the spirit of Internet network creators, more or less organized citizens, but still acting within a network, addressing urban issues. Through various sociotechnical devices, they can question or propose new planning policies, which constitute an alternative to the practice of urban planning dominated by public institutions.

In light of theoretical debates on the evolution of urban planning styles, we put forth the hypothesis that civil society actors participate in the same dynamic as private digital technology actors, questioning public actors’ legitimacy and ability to act to develop the city by bypassing the classic planning scenes.

This dynamic is not new; it is the influence of social movements, which are now based on digital technologies and thus reinforce the communication perspective of planning. Like strategic planning, the communication approach is a reconsideration of the traditional planning model [HAM 96]. The origins of this trend emerged in line with social movement theories and have been formalized in the field of territorial planning since the 1990s, as part of the advent of greater pluralism in society. This approach proposes the renewing of planning through communication [HAB 84, HAB 87, HAM 97].

These two dimensions, strategic and communicative, establish in a complementary way the aspect of a renewal of planning, where institutional actors of city development and management are not necessarily only outdated or bypassed, but can also take up digital technology to open urban planning processes.

I.6. Hypothesis 4: The opening up of urban planning institutions

The issue regarding the digitization of urban planning processes refers to the circulation and opening of public data (Open Data) as well as to the new resources offered by technology to create dialog between city actors. As a result, the practice of urban planning by public actors can possibly change. More concretely, the impact of digital technology is reflected in the evolution of participatory planning instruments. The digitization of sociotechnical devices offers new spaces for the discussion and deliberation of urban policies. These platforms can take different forms depending on the nature of the subjects discussed, especially from a spatial point of view, and the degree of openness of the decision.

In light of theoretical debates on the evolution of urban planning styles, we hypothesize that digital technology provides additional resources to make the collaborative milestone in urban planning more tangible. This approach stems from the communication perspective and now largely dominates the theoretical debates. The goal of this theoretical approach is to reach consensus through a successful interaction between a large number of actors:

“In the ideal of collaborative planning, stakeholders representing the differing interests meet for face-to-face dialogue and collectively work out a strategy to address a shared problem. Participants work through joint fact finding and agree on a problem, mission and actions. The players learn and co-evolve. Under the right conditions, this dialogue can produce results that are more than the sum of the parts” (translated from French, Innes and Gruber [INN 05, p. 183]).

In practice, there is a certain gap between theoretical discourses and the reality of power relations. In this sense, digital technologies offer new possibilities to make this turning point more effective.

In the reality of practice, these four theoretical aspects (see Table I.1) of spatial planning converge and articulate.

Finally, these four hypotheses establish a reality of digital technology that cannot be considered under the seal of unity, but rather “as a profusion of contradictory or convergent devices and protocols, whose basic dynamics are to be identified beyond the noise and fury of ideological differences” (translated from Sadin, [SAD 15, p. 36]). This therefore involves four typical aspects of the contemporary city, both contradictory and convergent, which illustrate the diversity of the effects of digital technology on the city and practice of planning. They mainly reflect local configurations where the complexity of territorial and political organizations can explain which of the four aspects dominates in a necessarily hybrid configuration. In other words, the digital city’s reality will differ from Paris to Hong Kong passing through Dubai or Istanbul. Finally, they illustrate largely unfinished processes and are aimed toward clarifying issues and asking questions rather than providing definitive answers.

I.7. Sources and composition

The text presented in this book is developed from a dissertation for a “Habilitation à diriger des recherches” (competence to supervise doctoral research) defended in November 2016 at the Paris Sorbonne University. This work is therefore new, but builds on many previous works. This involves, on the one hand, research on spatial planning without obvious links with the challenges of digital technology and, on the other hand, a series of works, often collective, questioning different uses of digital technologies in urban social movements or the practice of urban planning. In addition, a series of interviews, case studies and observations were conducted specifically for the drafting of this book. The origins of the data collected are mentioned in the bibliography or body of the text.

The ever-changing nature of this field of study gives it a particular aspect. Indeed, the theoretical debates are not stabilized and the practice evolves rapidly. This therefore mainly includes presenting the major issues of the work and asking questions rather than providing definitive answers.

This book is divided into four chapters. The first chapter deals with methods and questions the return of an expert-based urban planning. The second chapter discusses private urban planning actors from the digital economy, who overturn the practice of urban planning. The third chapter focuses on citizens and civil society, who question the legitimacy of public authorities and support the emergence of alternative models. The fourth chapter examines the possibilities offered by digital technology in order to renew city development methods, by making the participatory milestone of planning more effective.