Smart City Experimentation in Urban Mobility—Exploring the Politics of Futuring in Hamburg

  • Philipp SpäthEmail author
  • Jörg Knieling
Part of the Technikzukünfte, Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft / Futures of Technology, Science and Society book series (TEWG)


This chapter explores how a Smart City agenda has influenced attitudes towards the future in contemporary mobility planning in Hamburg. By comparing three recent frameworks of transportation planning, we detect an interesting shift that occurred when Hamburg’s administration embarked on the project of becoming a leading Smart City. At that point in time, an attitude of planning, characterized by the styles of foresight and prediction, by practices of calculating and by the logic of precaution was replaced, or at least complemented and challenged, by an attitude of experimenting towards real-time management, which is characterized by a style of premediation, practices of performing and a logic of preparedness (in terms of Anderson 2010). We discuss multiple implications of such a shift on governance arrangements and prospects for citizen participation and decision making.


  1. Albino, V., Berardi, U., & Dangelico, R. M. (2015). Smart cities: Definitions, dimensions, performance, and initiatives. Journal of Urban Technology, 22(1), 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, B. (2010). Preemption, precaution, preparedness: Anticipatory action and future geographies. Progress in Human Geography, 34(6), 777–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berliner Erklärung (o. A.). (2017). Berliner Erklärung zu Forschung und Innovation für eine nachhaltige urbane Mobilität—Neues wagen! Mehr Mut für innovative Wege in der Mobilität. Berlin: BMBF.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, N., Rappert, B., & Webster, A. (2000). Introducing contested futures: From “looking into” the future, to “looking at” the future. In N. Brown, B. Rappert, & A. Webster (Eds.), Contested futures—A sociology of prospective techno-science (pp. 3–20). Burlington: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  5. Bulkeley, H., & Castán Broto, V. (2013). Government by experiment? Global cities and the governing of climate change. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 38(3), 361–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bulkeley, H., Coenen, L., Frantzeskaki, N., Hartmann, C., Kronsell, A., Mai, L., et al. (2016). Urban living labs: Governing urban sustainability transitions. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 22, 13–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Caragliu, A., Del Bo, C., & Nijkamp, P. (2011). Smart cities in Europe. Journal of Urban Technology, 18(2), 65–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. de Jong, M., Joss, S., Schraven, D., Zhan, C., & Weijnen, M. (2015). Sustainable–smart–resilient–low carbon–eco–knowledge cities; making sense of a multitude of concepts promoting sustainable urbanization. Journal of Cleaner Production, 109, 25–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Evans, J., Karvonen, A., & Raven, R. (2016). The experimental city. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goldsmith, S., & Crawford, S. (2014). The responsive city: Engaging communities through data-smart governance. John Wiley & Sons, ISBN: 1118910931, 9781118910931.Google Scholar
  11. Grunwald, A. (2011). Energy futures: Diversity and the need for assessment. Futures, 43(8), 820–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grunwald, A. (2012). Technikzukünfte als Medium von Zukunftsdebatten und Technikgestaltung (Vol. 6). Karlsruhe : Karlsruher Studien Technik und Kultur.Google Scholar
  13. Hamburger Senat. (2013). Mobilitätsprogramm 2013 – Grundlage für eine kontinuierliche Verkehrsentwicklungsplanung in Hamburg. Hamburg: Senat der Stadt Hamburg.
  14. Jasanoff, S. (2015). Future imperfect: Science technology, and the imaginations of modernity. In S. Jasanoff & S.-H. Kim (Eds.), Dreamscapes of modernity: Sociotechnical imaginaries and the fabrication of power (pp. 1–33). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kitchin, R. (2014). The real-time city? Big data and smart urbanism. GeoJournal, 79(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kourtit, K., Nijkamp, P., & Partridge, M. D. (2012). The new urban world. European Planning Studies, 21(3), 285–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Meijer, A. (2017). Datapolis: A public governance perspective on “Smart Cities”. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 1(3), 195–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mora, L., Bolici, R., & Deakin, M. (2017). The first two decades of smart-city research: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Urban Technology, 24(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Raven, P. G. (2017). Telling tomorrows: Science fiction as an energy futures research tool. Energy Research & Social Science, 31, 164–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Raven, R., Sengers, F., Spaeth, P., Xie, L., Cheshmehzangi, A., & de Jong, M. (2017). Urban experimentation and institutional arrangements. European Planning Studies, 24, 258–281.Google Scholar
  21. Scholz, O. (2014). “Smart City Initiative/Memorandum of Understanding”. Hamburg, FHH. Accessed 30 April 2014.
  22. Scholz, O. (2016). Universitätsgesellschaft – Digitale Stadt Hamburg. Hamburg. Accessed 2 May 2016.
  23. Schwanen, T. (2017). Geographies of transport II. Progress in Human Geography, 41(3), 355–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sengers, F., Berkhout, F., Wieczorek, A., & Raven, R. (2016). Experimenting the city: Unpacking notions of experimentation for sustainability. In J. Evans, A. Karvonen, & R. Raven (Eds.), The experimental city. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Sengers, F., Späth, P., & Raven, R. (2018). Experimenting with smart eco-cities in Dutch and German cities: Discourses, institutions, materiality. In S. Marvin, H. Bulkeley, Q. L. Mai, & K. Mccormick (Eds.), Urban living labs: Experimentation and socio-technical transitions (pp. 74–88). New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sennett, R. (2012). No one likes a city that’s too smart. The Guardian.
  27. Shelton, T., Zook, M., & Wiig, A. (2015). The ‘Actually existing Smart City’. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 8, 13–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Song, C. H., Elvers, D., & Leker, J. (2017). Anticipation of converging technology areas—A refined approach for the identification of attractive fields of innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 116, 98–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Spaeth, P., Hawxwell, T., John, R., Li, S., Löffler, E., Riener, V., et al. (2017). Smart eco-cities in Germany: Trends and city profiles (Smart-eco project). Exeter: University of Exeter.Google Scholar
  30. Townsend, A. M. (2013). Smart cities: Big data, civic hackers, and the quest for a new utopia. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  31. van Lente, H. (1993). Promising technology: The dynamics of expectations in technological developments—PhD thesis. Enschede: University of Twente.Google Scholar
  32. Vanolo, A. (2014). Smartmentality: The smart city as disciplinary strategy. Urban Studies, 51(5), 883–898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Vanolo, A. (2015). Smart city and urban development: Note for a critical agenda. Scienze del Territorio, 3, 111–118.Google Scholar
  34. Vanolo, A. (2016). Is there anybody out there? The place and role of citizens in tomorrow’s smart cities. Futures, 82(Supplement C), 26–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. White, J. M. (2016). Anticipatory logics of the smart city’s global imaginary. Urban Geography, 37(4), 572–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zook, M. (2017). Crowd-sourcing the smart city: Using big geosocial media metrics in urban governance. Big Data & Society, 4(1), 2053951717694384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Environmental Social Sciences and GeographyUniversity of FreiburgFreiburgGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Urban Planning and Regional DevelopmentHafenCity Universität HamburgHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations