As discussed in the last chapter, we can learn from the experiences of technological-led change in the past. But this time it's different. Previously, technological disruptions to the city were followed by push-backs and adjustments – high-rise housing and car-designed cities made only partial inroads before public opposition stepped in and balance was restored. Digital and smart are different. Not only are we distracted from the world around us and focused more on ourselves and on the moment, we’re also being encouraged to hand over decisions and our destinies to digital technology and those who are behind it. Some claim we no longer need to worry about the future. Thinking about what is needed to make a city better, where to put new infrastructure, how many new homes are required and where they should go are all part of planning the future of cities. Many of these questions and answers involve choices: we could do A but then we couldn't achieve B. The answers also reflect views and values from different groups and interests: the world and the future looks very different if you’re living in a sink estate than if you’re a commuter from a suburb.

This is the stuff of local politics, but the ‘smart city’ story says that the answer to these questions and the future of the city don't need politics; they just need lots and lots of data which, of course, companies like Google have. Techno-optimists argue that data speaks for itself. There is no need to debate, discuss and hypothesise any more – just run the numbers and look for patterns and correlations. Data and AI can provide the answers that used to be the concern of City Hall. Except, of course, there is still a need for humans to choose what data, to make sense of the results, and to recommend what we should do once the analysis is done. It's just that the humans who set the questions, choose the data and analyse the results are those behind the screens, those who are adept at grabbing your attention and keeping it. Democracy is becoming technocracy.

Technological change isn't necessarily or even ordinarily a ‘bad thing’. Society and cities have evolved and adapted, although the impacts have, at times, been painful and disruptive, even disorderly. Some places have benefited and some have lost out.