Vol. 4, No. 2, 3-22
doi:10.17708/DRMJ.2015.v04n02a01
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 4, No. 2, November 2015 3
‘SMART CITIES’ – DYNAMIC SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES AND CHALLENGES FOR ‘OLD
WORLD’ ECONOMIES: A CASE FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM
Peter Stokes*, Mitch Larson, Natalie Russell, Simon Adderley, Neil Moore, Martin Mathews,
Simon Smith, Jessica Lichy, Peter Scott, Tony Ward, Clare Brindley
*Faculty of Business Enterprise & Lifelong Learning, University of Chester
Churchill House - Queens Park Campus, Chester, UK, H4 7AD
p.stokes@chester.ac.uk
Abstract
The rapid and dynamic rate of urbanization, particularly in emerging world economies, has resulted in a need to find
sustainable ways of dealing with the excessive strains and pressures that come to bear on existing infrastructures and
relationships. Increasingly during the twenty-first century policy makers have turned to technological solutions to deal
with this challenge and the dynamics inherent within it. This move towards the utilization of technology to underpin
infrastructure has led to the emergence of the term ‘Smart City’. Smart cities incorporate technology based solutions
in their planning development and operation. This paper explores the organizational issues and challenges facing a
post-industrial agglomeration in the North West of England as it attempted to become a ‘Smart City’. In particular the
paper identifies and discusses the factors that posed significant challenges for the dynamic relationships residents,
policymakers and public and private sector organizations and as a result aims to use these micro-level issues to inform
the macro-debate and context of wider Smart City discussions. In order to achieve this, the paper develops a range of
recommendations that are designed to inform Smart City design, planning and implementation strategies.
Keywords: Smart cities, urbanization, technology, innovation and transition
1. INTRODUCTION
Urbanization, in tandem with industrialization,
has been a process experienced in Europe over last
few centuries. Indeed the United Nations estimates
that between 1950 and 2014 the world’s urban pop-
ulation increased from 746 million to 3.9 billion and
it is estimated that the percentage of the world’s
population living in urban areas will increase form
54% in 2014 to 66 per cent by 2050 (UNPD, 2014).
In addition, and strikingly, the past fifty years have
seen economic revolutions in the developing world
that have evidenced economies undertaking rapid
transition from agrarian to industrial, and then
quickly onwards to information-based models of
economy. In recent years, especially in Asia, and
parts of Europe, and the United States of America,
the drive towards industrialization and urbanization
has brought about the emergence of so-termed
‘Smart Cities’. These have raised something of a
messianic vision of a Utopian future where an em-
bedded infrastructure of information and commu-
nications technologies (ICT) provides citizens with
wide-ranging real-time information with which to
make informed choices within their lives. However,
conversely, Smart Cities have also fuelled dystopian
fears about one unequal power structure and set of
dynamics merely being replaced by another con-
trolled by technocrats and public-private partner-
ship organizational arrangements. This paper
explores an attempt, and the related issues, to de-
velop a smart city.
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 4, No. 2, November 2015
Peter Stokes, et al.: ‘Smart Cities’ – Dynamic Sustainability Issues and Challenges for ‘Old World’ Economies: A Case
4
2. THE PHENOMENON OF THE CITY AND
THE ASCENT OF SMART CITIES
The role of the city is more important now than
at any other period in human history. The percent-
age of the European population living in urban areas
is at its highest historical level and set to grow
higher (Caragliu, Del Bo & Nijkamp, 2011). More-
over, as cities grow they will start to merge to be-
come ‘mega cities’. By 2023 there will be 20 mega
cities globally, with 55 percent in the developing
economies of India, China, Russia and Latin America
(Amarnath, 2011). In addition, further important ex-
amples exist in the more developed in the North
American, Scandinavian and Israeli contexts. 
This rapid and dynamic growth, particularly in
the emerging world economies has put significant
pressures on existing infrastructures and urban
modelling has shown that this strain will simply in-
crease. In order to understand this strain, and to
find ways to mitigate it, policy makers and the pri-
vate sector have increasingly turned to technologi-
cal solutions and it is this growth in a technological
underpinning of infrastructure that has led to the
label Smart City.
The term ‘Smart City’ is not new (see Bollier,
1998; Caldwell, 2002; Siemens, 2004; Cisco, 2005;
Dirks, 2009). Harrison & Donnelly (2011: 8) suggest
that the phrase has ‘evolved to mean almost any
form of technology-based innovation in the plan-
ning, development, and operation of cities’. Cara-
galiu & Niikamp (2012) draw on the works of, Cohen
& Levinthal, (1990), Coe, Paquet & Roy (2001),
Glaeser, (2005), Poelhekke, (2006), Abreu, Kitson,
Savona & Grinevich, (2008) and Hollands (2008) to
develop a more detailed definition that identifies six
facets of a Smart City:
  1. The utilization of networked infrastructure to
improve economic and political efficiency and
enable social, cultural, and urban development;
  2. An underlying emphasis on business-led urban
development;
  3. A strong focus on the aim of achieving the social
inclusion of various urban residents in public
services;
  4. A stress on the crucial role of high-tech and cre-
ative industries in long-run urban growth;
  5. Profound attention to the role of social and re-
lational capital in urban development;
  6. Social and environmental sustainability as a
major strategic component.
Displaying some or all of these facets a number
of cities have identified themselves as ‘Smart’. Diez
& Posada (2013) provide a number of examples. They
observe that Barcelona has developed the Smart Citi-
zen Kit – an electronic board and shield based on
open hardware that can capture environmental data
and share it through the internet; Amsterdam Smart
City has involved the establishment of a private and
public sector partnership to pursue a project portfo-
lio focused on energy saving in the form of Sustain-
able-Work, Living, Mobility, and Public Spaces; the
City of Edinburgh has developed a Smart City Vision
project that focuses on ‘e-government infrastructure
to improve the performance and delivery of public
services while supporting access and participation’;
and Manchester has developed ‘a landscape of con-
nected monitoring devices supporting impact
 mapping and program design across social, environ-
mental, and economic domains’. A host of project
ideas are involved in Smart Cities, including: Inte-
grated Databases for the Smart City; Sensing, Net-
working and the Impact of New Social Media;
Modelling Network Performance, Mobility and Travel
Behavior; Modelling Urban Land Use; Transport and
Economic Interactions; Modelling Urban Transac-
tional Activities in Labor and Housing Markets; Deci-
sion Support as Urban Intelligence; Participatory
Governance and Planning Structures for the Smart
City (Batty et al., 2012). Thus, recent technological
advances now allow cities to be ‘instrumented’, facil-
itating the collection of more data points than ever
before, which enables cities to measure and influ-
ence more aspects of their operations. Cities are in-
creasingly ‘interconnected’ allowing the free flow of
information from one discrete system to another,
which increases the efficiency of the overall infra-
structure to meet these challenges and provide sus-
tainable prosperity for citizens and businesses, cities
must become ‘smarter’ and use new technologies to
transform their systems to optimize the use of finite
resources. Much has been written on how such in-
frastructures can “work smarter, not harder.” (see
Mitchell, 1995, 2001, 2003; Graham & Marvin, 2001,
2002; Castells, 2011) Indeed, the creation of a Smart
from the United Kingdom
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 4, No. 2, November 2015 5
Cities program within the MIT Media Lab provided
groundbreaking examples of the ways in which inno-
vation could be seen as the provider of sustainable
solutions to urban problems. Cohen (2012) provides
a holistic model that integrates and summarizes
many of these elements. 
supported its staff to present papers in academic con-
ferences and seminars demonstrating their develop-
ment (Dirks, Gurdgiev, & Keeling, 2010). 
The critical factor in any successful community,
enterprise, organization or venture is its people and
how they interact. Hollands (2008) suggests that
this is because the most important thing about in-
formation technology is not its capacity to create
Smart Cities, but the possibility it offers for them to
empower and educate their citizens so that they can
become members of society capable of engaging in
a debate about their own environment. Further-
more he suggests that technology should:
‘…create a real shift in the balance of power be-
tween the use of information technology by busi-
ness, government, communities, and ordinary
people who live in cities, as well as seek to balance
economic growth with sustainability…In a word,
the “real” smart city might use IT to enhance dem-
ocratic debates about the kind of city it wants to
be and what kind of city people want to live in.’
(Hollands, 2008: 312)
To achieve this, cities that really want to be
‘smarter’ will have to “take much greater risks with
technology, devolve power, tackle inequalities, and
redefine what they mean by ‘smart’ itself, if they
want to retain such a lofty title” (Hollands, 2008:
316). These views are radical in a discourse domi-
nated by the language of ‘progress’, ‘innovation’,
and ‘entrepreneurship’. They pose a serious and
considered insight into the powerful drive behind
the development of technological solutions to soci-
etal problems, and recently they have been taken
further by the concept of ‘smartmentality’ proposed
by Vanolo (2014). He argues that while on the one
hand Smart City policies support new ways of imag-
ining, organizing, and managing the city, on the
other they might be seen to create a new moral
order for the city by introducing specific technical
parameters in order to distinguish between ‘good’
and ‘bad’ elements of the city. In Vanolo’s critical
perspective the Smart City discourse may therefore
be a powerful tool for the ‘production of docile sub-
jects and mechanisms of political legitimization.’
(Vanolo, 2014: 890).
Through an analysis of policy documentation
and funding frameworks Vanolo argues that the
The preceding diagram illustrates the complex sys-
tem of interfaces, interdependencies and dynamic re-
lationships that exist in modern cities. From an
environmental standpoint this parallels well the natu-
rally-occurring dynamism of ecosystems which develop
balance out of the interplay between the forces of na-
ture. We do not mean to say that any modern or
‘smart’ city is a complete ecosystem unto itself as there
will always be external forces exerting themselves on
the system by influencing the “indicators” in the image
above, but that one aim of Smart Cities might be to en-
hance the relationship between individuals and their
environment in ways that provide some kind of bal-
ance to the system, be it justice, social equity, or other
kinds of equilibria. These kinds of targets map very well
onto the goals set by the planners of NOW’s Smart City
bid for European funding. In producing such balance,
the private sector has been and remains key to Smart
City development. IBM for example has led not only a
high-profile campaign to promote Smart Cities but has
Figure 1: The Smart Cities Wheel
Cohen, B. (2012). What exactly is a SMART City?
Retrieved from http://www.fastcoexist.com/1680538/
what-exactly-is-a-smart-city on 31st November, 2014.
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 4, No. 2, November 2015
Peter Stokes, et al.: ‘Smart Cities’ – Dynamic Sustainability Issues and Challenges for ‘Old World’ Economies: A Case
6
concept of the Smart City has been most prominent
in Europe because it has received significant support
from European Commission structural funding.
Moreover the language of the Smart City has been
dominated by ‘a powerful rhetoric including salva-
tion visions of technology and the image of clean,
livable, technologically advanced cities far removed
from the economic crisis.’ (Vanolo, 2014: 894). He
argues that far from empowering citizens to play a
greater role in their society such cities inevitably cre-
ate a new geometry of power dynamics which shifts
towards technocrats and public-private partnerships
– a process he calls ‘smartmentalisation’. For Vanolo
there are two dangers inherent in such a process.
First the wide support for a priori concepts inherent
in notions of ‘smart’, ‘progress’, ‘technological’, ‘in-
novation’, etc. means that critical perspectives of
Smart Cities may be lost and have no voice. This in
turn will mean that those individuals not included
in the new systems (the elderly or the homeless, for
example) could become increasingly excluded from
Smart Cities. Second, by imagining social problems
as essentially technological ones the notion of the
Smart City – in its all-pervading current form – limits
creative solutions which are based on understand-
ing human actions and interactions rather than
leveraging the capabilities of ICT.
Vanolo’s point is not that Smart Cities are inher-
ently bad. Rather he makes the point that Smart
Cities and the technology that support them are as-
sumed by the modern zeitgeist to be so positive
means that there is a need:
‘…for studies and considerations regarding: the
politics engendered by smart city projects; the
geometries of power triggered by strategies; the
relationships between the city and technology;
the role played by different fields of knowledge in
shaping the city of the future; and, finally, the
need to bring the smart city into the political
arena in order to spark a serious debate about the
kind of smart city we want to live in.’
(Vanolo, 2014: 895)
Thus Vanolo urges us to question the justifica-
tions for our beliefs that technology will solve, or is
even capable of solving, serious problems in human
society. It is now time to turn towards the specific
instance of Smart Cities in Old World contexts.
3. ‘OLD WORLD’ SMART CITY TRANSITIONS
While much of the literature and comment has
focused on the relatively historically recent settings
of emergent of New World emergent market eco-
nomic contexts (for example South America, India,
China), there is less discussion that explores the chal-
lenges facing ‘Old-World’ post-industrial economies
(for example, Europe including the United Kingdom)
and the challenging transitional processes that they
have undertaken in order to move from old indus-
tries and infrastructures towards aspirational Smart
City status (Shelton, Zook & Wiig, 2015).
‘Old World’ economies are those economies
which formed part of the earliest Industrial Revolu-
tions (spanning the period 1750-1920). They are sit-
uated predominantly in the Western hemisphere
and, more precisely, mainly although not exclusively
in a relatively small European area. Over the stated
period, the North of England exhibited intense in-
dustrial activity across a number of sectors, includ-
ing, initially, shipping and textiles, and later shifted
into railways, chemicals, and energy. This industrial
infrastructure was based on traditional industries
such as coal extraction (centered in Yorkshire), steel
production (the city of Sheffield), textiles (Manches-
ter), chemicals (Runcorn), and shipbuilding com-
bined with seaports and intercontinental trading
(Liverpool). The twentieth century witnessed the
terminal decline of many of these industries and
consequently extensive structural unemployment
and industrial decay. As a consequence these ‘Old
World’ cities possess an extensive range of post-in-
dustrial derelict “brownfield” sites containing obso-
lete and unused factories, warehouses and storage
buildings.
These aging urban and industrial environments
are often burdened with structural industrial and
labor market transitional issues which are com-
pounded by a range of socio-cultural problems and,
as such, present a particular range of challenges in
relation to their move towards becoming a Smart
City. Consequently, the purpose of this article is to
examine attempts by, and challenges for, cities and
conurbations in ‘Old World’ settings to move to-
wards, and manage, more dynamic ‘Smart City’ sta-
tus and environments. Large segments of developed
economies are forced to confront these issues. This
from the United Kingdom
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 4, No. 2, November 2015 7
article presents, discusses, and analyzes a case
drawn from the North of England. 
Transitions from old (first-generation) industri-
alization and urbanization environments present a
range of challenges for a variety of stakeholders and
their dynamic relationships. The term ‘stakeholders’
presumes a potentially rich collection of individuals
and includes, by way of example: city inhabitants of
various socio-economic and cultural backgrounds,
business owners and directors, local government
authorities and councilors, local institutions such as
schools, and professional advisors and consultants.
Such a variety of stakeholders may of course also be
common to Smart Cities in ‘New World’ and emerg-
ing economy contexts, however, ‘Old World’
economies exhibit relationships, mind-sets and
legacies that are a product of particular combina-
tions of embedded historic industrial and post-im-
perial relations and social structures.
As alluded to above, technology has always
played an integral role in industrialization and its as-
sociated urbanization. It has also been central to the
ascendency of Smart Cities however it is the relatively
recently arrival of the internet and its accompanying
social media that provide the core of the technology
of Smart Cities. In developing the overall commentary
on Smart Cities, it is possible to discern three phases
of the interaction of technology and Smart Cities and
these can also be broadly aligned, in principle, to cer-
tain historic phases in the conception, and the evolu-
tion, of the Smart City phenomenon. These phases,
and particularly Phase III, have particular implications
for ‘Old World’ Smart City transformations in general
and the subsequent case study in particular. Table 1
provides a description of each phase.
Phase I thinking suggests that with the instiga-
tion of various technologies in recent decades Smart
City transformation should be able to take contex-
tual account of ‘Old World’ city economies and that
it might be possible to determine a variegated set
of challenges and potential responses. 
The progression from Phase I type develop-
ment (whereby the solutions to human problems
are seen as mere technological issues, and that the
resolution of ICT shortcomings will lead directly to
a reduction of social problems) to Phases II and III –
where a more comprehensive understanding of the
interface of social, political and economic factors
Phase I
Technology viewed as providing
categorical solutions to urban issues
and challenges.
This represents an early phase in the application of technology to social and economic
issues and is a nascent element of the emergence of Smart City phenomenon. It was
driven very much by the North American military-industrial complex through influential
entities such as IBM and MIT. This approach could be termed the “technological
deterministic approach,” whereby technology is the motor that drives and shapes
human life.
Phase II
Technology not necessarily or
automatically viewed as a solution to
the challenges of urbanization and living
in dense urban spaces such as cities.
This represents a more questioning approach to technology. Rather than viewing
technology as the automatic solution to a range of concerns, technology is seen merely
as a means to an end. It uses technology to inform citizens so that they may act
differently and, indeed, perhaps the value-judgment or subjective implication is, act
‘better’. In broad terms, this Phase may be suggested as occurring before and around
the turn of the millennium but often continues in many ‘New World’ Smart City
settings.
Phase III
This is a heightened cautionary
approach to the use of technology as a
means of enhancing urban life and
experience.
This may be seen very much as the vision guiding a range of Smart City developments.
This is particularly an aspirational position and approach in ‘Old World’ contexts which
need to take account of many longstanding structures and stakeholders. Within Phase
III, there is a concern over seeking uniquely technological solutions to what are, in
essence, human problems. This phase and the perspectives that underlie it tend to
favor local- and district-developed responses rather than the mantle being always
picked up by ‘big business’ and (or) ‘big government’. This overall approach aims to
adopt a more humanistic social and critical perspective approach rather than a
technological deterministic approach of Phase I.
Table 1: Typology of Interactions with Information Technology by Smart Cities
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 4, No. 2, November 2015
Peter Stokes, et al.: ‘Smart Cities’ – Dynamic Sustainability Issues and Challenges for ‘Old World’ Economies: A Case
8
comes into play – is an ideal or aspirational progres-
sion. This is especially exemplified in the case of
transitions to Smart Cities in ‘Old World’ economy
contexts, because it inevitably invokes particular
power dynamics brought about by the motives and
actions of traditional and longstanding stakeholders.
Consequently, there is always a risk and concern
that some stakeholders may be left behind. This is
a problem that many advocates of Smart Cities seek
to avoid and could be seen as the purpose of engag-
ing in Smart City design in the first place: to include
all citizen in the life and vigor of their city. In this re-
gard, while there is no doubt that the private sector
is instrumental in progressing the Smart City agenda
there is also recognition that it must work together
with the public sector in order to ensure it connects
with the widest appropriate body of stakeholders.
It is in the ‘local’ and ‘district’ level responses that
circumscribed and targeted private initiatives can be
anticipated to be most active. Moreover, undertak-
ing these actions within the spirit of Phase Three
might be viewed as the broad overall aspiration.
To restate the focus of the present discussion,
the development of ‘Old World’ economies is the
underexplored aspect of the Smart Cities agenda we
wish to examine in this paper. In particular we are
interested in examining it in relation to the indica-
tive epochal phases of Smart City development sug-
gested above.
In the following section we present a case study
that outlines the challenges and issues faced by a
post-industrial agglomeration in the North West of
England and its tentative attempt to become a
Smart City. In order to preserve anonymity the
name of the agglomeration has been changed to
Northern Old World (NOW) City. Following this we
develop a schema and typology with which to ex-
amine and debate the stakeholder dimensions of
this process and experience.
4. THE CASE OF ‘NORTHERN OLD WORLD’
(NOW) CITY
4.1 Background
The focal case for this study is an urban agglom-
eration in the North West of England which at its
center has a population of over 200,000 residents.
In terms of population, NOW is relatively very small
compared to its ‘New world’ counterparts, however,
this is often a feature of ‘Old World’ and predomi-
nantly European settlements.
The location is strategically located between
two other major cities and their conurbations and
NOW has a long established heritage with a reputa-
tion for being an important progressive environ-
ment. During the Industrial Revolution a range of
industries such as metal processing and manufac-
turing were established, and a canal system was
constructed to facilitate freight transport linkages.
During the 20th century the location continued to
flourish and its strategic importance increased fur-
ther as it became an integral part of the United King-
dom rail and road network. However, despite its
history of success, more recently NOW has encoun-
tered a range of serious challenges. The post-indus-
trial era has brought a relatively successful shift
towards service sector activity, such as out-of-town
retail operations, warehousing and call centers. Ex-
tensive residential developments have also oc-
curred frequently involving conversion of industrial
buildings into apartments and housing projects on
brownfield sites. Along with this structural shift,
NOW has an aging population which is significantly
older than other parts of the United Kingdom. Also,
the transport infrastructure that serves the area and
its immediate locality is experiencing increasing
pressures and, as a consequence, requires signifi-
cant investment to keep pace with growing usage.
Environmental issues and health and well-being
concerns are also highlighted as key challenges.
It should also be noted that ‘NOW’ City has a
strong historical cultural backdrop. Among these
features are musical brass bands (a legacy of the col-
lieries), rugby league sport (the predominantly tac-
tile and demanding Northern-based version of
game of English rugby), a particular ‘northern’ ac-
cent, and a mind-set linked to strong civic pride
which has been tested by varying economic for-
tunes during the end of the last century.
4.2 NOW’s Organizational Engagement with the
Smart City Concept - Issues
The opportunity to explore the idea of creating
a Smart City arose due to the possibility to bid for a
from the United Kingdom
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 4, No. 2, November 2015 9
major tranche of United Kingdom Government fund-
ing through the ‘Future Cities Demonstrator compe-
tition’ led by the Technology Strategy Board (TSB).
TSB is a business-led executive non-departmental
public body established by the United Kingdom Gov-
ernment. Its role is to promote and support research
into technology and innovation for the development
and benefit of United Kingdom business, to increase
economic growth and improve quality of life. It is
sponsored by the central government Department
for Business, Innovation and Skills. 
In response to the competition, NOW aimed to
develop an integrated ‘people-based, place-cen-
tered approach’ that was designed to ‘create a fully
integrated information solution designed to meet
needs of the people of NOW.’ (NOW, 2013: 10-13).
A broad range of stakeholders, including the local
government authority, members of the community,
health workers, police, fire and rescue services, and
local businesses and industry groups were involved
in the design and planning stages of the strategy.
The planned ‘Vision for the City’ utilized an interac-
tive system to facilitate innovative solutions for chal-
lenges in key areas such as mobility, community,
health and well-being, and environmental protec-
tion. Some of the technological components of the
proposed system included superfast (fiber optic)
broadband, tablets and smart phones connected via
Wi-Fi, smart TVs, integrated open data public serv-
ice systems, smart cards for cashless payment and
incentive schemes, and smart meters and sensors
to monitor and control environmental performance.
It was anticipated that the Smart City system would
generate a range of organizational economic, social,
financial, and environmental benefits. Economically
it was hoped and anticipated that better physical
and digital connectivity would enhance business
productivity and facilitate a more streamlined and
transparent commercial environment. From the so-
cial perspective it was anticipated that benefits such
as better access to public services and information,
reduced isolation and deprivation, and more en-
gaged enterprising citizens would accrue. Financial
benefits were expected to include reduced demand
on public services and new revenue generating op-
portunities such as leasing out street lighting for in-
creased Wi-Fi connectivity. Potential environmental
benefits included better air quality, reduced emis-
sions and increased awareness of environmental in-
formation to facilitate decision making. 
However, although the creation of a Smart City
was comprehensively planned and discussed the
project was not implemented; the funding bid to
the TSB was not approved. The following section an-
alyzes and discusses the perceived problems the
project sought to address but which ultimately con-
tributed to the failure of the project.
4.3 NOW: Socio-Economic and Demographic
issues
NOW is a community of stark contrasts, con-
taining some wealthy neighborhoods and also some
of the most deprived areas in the United Kingdom
with regard to the residents’ levels of income. The
main change for NOW people came with designa-
tion as a New Town, which expanded the area rap-
idly in terms of businesses and residents in the early
1970s. The young professionals and families who
moved to NOW in this period are currently nearing
retirement; this explains why NOW has an age pro-
file that is older than much of the rest of the United
Kingdom. The impact on the service needs of resi-
dents is changing rapidly as a result. The total pop-
ulation is projected to grow by another 10% by
2033. The number of older people (aged 65 and
over) is expected to grow disproportionately as well,
estimated to show an increase of 79.7% since 2008,
compared to 65% in England and Wales overall.
As required by United Kingdom law, the local
government authority undertook a Joint Strategic
Needs Assessment, which enabled them to develop
a ‘Strategy for Wellbeing’. This strategy highlighted
that the people of NOW face four main issues:
• Aging population
• Alcohol (misuse)
• Mental health and wellbeing – personal resilience
• The need to reduce demand on services over time
by focusing on prevention rather than cure
These four areas were key to the development
of the foundational Smart City concept as they con-
tributed to forming focused areas for improvement
in the ‘Strategy for Wellbeing’ that a Smart City,
aided by technology, was expected to alleviate.
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 4, No. 2, November 2015
Peter Stokes, et al.: ‘Smart Cities’ – Dynamic Sustainability Issues and Challenges for ‘Old World’ Economies: A Case
10
However these four points did not make up the en-
tirety of the program. The local government author-
ity development team was quick to identify that
other areas of public policy must be strongly con-
nected to this area. These other areas included the
fields of activity indicated below (NOW, 2013: 5-8).
Furthermore, due to generational (e.g. X) issues of
the generally aging population, the adoption of
technology was also a question over the project.
4.4 NOW: Environmental issues
In 2009, the narrow majority of NOW’s carbon
emissions (38%) were from transportation, with in-
dustrial and commercial emissions accounting for
37%, and domestic emissions amounted to 27%.
Emissions per capita in NOW were slightly higher
than the average for its region and for the United
Kingdom as a whole, partly due to its position on a
strategic road network, and partly due to the rela-
tively low density of housing.
There were three Air Quality Management
Areas within NOW, comprising one area around the
motorway network and two in the center. In all
cases nitrogen dioxide was extremely high with the
main cause attributed to road traffic. Those living in
and around these areas (almost 400 properties)
were at increased risk of health impacts related to
air quality. These issues are aggravated by a road
system (outside the nearby motorways) laid out on
an old medieval and Victorian road network. This
network struggles to deal with traffic in peak hours
and it was recognized that even with the most inno-
vative technology the Smart City proposal would
have a major challenge to reconcile in this domain.
There are also almost 7,000 homes, businesses,
and other buildings within the 1 in 100-year flood-
plain area or 1 in 200-year tidal flood extent within
NOW. These properties have a 1% (fluvial) or 0.5%
(tidal) chance of flooding in any given year. This
number rises to almost 15,000 properties when the
extreme 1 in 1000-year fluvial and tidal flood event
is considered. A National Assessment of Flood Risk
in 2009 identified NOW as having the 10th highest
number of properties at significant risk of flooding
in England and Wales.
4.5 NOW: Housing issues
Central to the NOW New Town Development
Corporation expansion plan in the early 1970s was
a targeted increase in population to around 200,000
people by 1991. NOW met those targets and con-
tinues to see growth across the area. Over 90% of
new homes were built on previously developed
land. NOW expects to see an increase of 11,000 new
homes over the next 15 years to 2030.
NOW had fewer ‘non-decent’ homes than the
national average, however 31% of privately rented
homes were still classified as ‘non-decent’. The local
government authority perceived the local housing
market to be particularly susceptible to the then-
envisaged – and later realized, as a result of govern-
ment legislation – housing benefit reforms both in
terms of housing affordability and fuel poverty. The
housing stock presents a challenge for the develop-
ment of a Smart City in terms of engendering effec-
tiveness and efficiency through technology. The
majority of housing and residential zones in NOW
have not been constructed with integrated Internet
and social media applications in mind. This means
that the integration of the networks and materials
has to be overlaid onto an existing and, in many
ways, inappropriate or outdated infrastructure.
Newer developments provide an exception to this
but access to sufficient amounts of electricity in
houses wired three or four decades, or in some
case, more decades ago is highly likely to be inade-
quate over the medium or longer term. In contrast,
newly built homes and conversions of old industrial
buildings (for example, factories, textile mills and
warehouses) possess updated internal infrastruc-
ture and thus can incorporate specifications for
Smart City approaches more readily.
4.6 NOW: Skills and Education issues
There are approximately 100 primary and high
schools in NOW. Many of the high schools include
6th Form (i.e. university preparatory) provision but
there are also two further education colleges offer-
ing programs for youths aged between 16-18 years
alongside adult education courses. A mid-ranking
university has a local campus. NOW is also well
served by access to universities in other urban con-
glomerations within 20 miles.
from the United Kingdom
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 4, No. 2, November 2015 11
In general, educational attainment in NOW ex-
ceeds the national average, however lower educa-
tional attainment for children living in deprived
areas persists. Substantial challenges remain to en-
sure the population has the skills and qualifications
to access local employment opportunities, most
particularly in disadvantaged areas. While the
younger generations (or to employ common termi-
nology – Generations Y and Z) have fluency with the
technologies that underpin Smart City, nevertheless,
a mismatch exists between low educational attain-
ment among some groups and the Smart City aspi-
rational environment. This means that the skill base
on which NOW aimed to construct a Smart City was
not as strong as it might have been.
4.7 NOW: Economic and Corporate
Organizational Issues
NOW is, on some measures, a prosperous com-
munity. Headline gross value added (GVA) within
NOW was approximately £4bn, which means that at
approximately £20k per head it was the highest in
the region. This was expected to increase to around
£28k per head by 2030 despite the projected growth
in population. Moreover, the Centre for Cities report
“Cities Outlook 2012” featured NOW in some of its
key rankings. NOW sat within the top ten cities with
an employment rate over 75%, representing a 3.2%
growth from 2010 and was the only one of 11 centers
seeing its employment rate rise by more than 2%.
NOW also numbered among the top ten with the
highest proportion of private sector employment,
which had helped insulate NOW from the worst of
the public sector spending cuts in the wake of the
2008 recession which affected large swathes of ad-
vanced Western economies. 
Industrial and commercial sectors supported
this economic success and industrial buildings both
in use and converted were much in evidence, in-
cluding a large chemical factory and plant. The
conurbation is close to significant power generating
facilities which generates electricity for many busi-
ness and homes in the region. Other key businesses
in NOW include a venture capital company, a recy-
cling company, and a utilities firm which are highly
ranked in industrial listings. The nuclear power busi-
ness is also very active and a forum was recently es-
tablished with substantial research facilities nearby.
The area therefore has a substantial potential base
on which to build its Smart City approach.
4.8 NOW: Future Economic Development
NOW has ambitious plans for future develop-
ment with a number of high profile projects pro-
gressing in the next few years. The local government
office has worked with developer partners to bring
forward important sites for renovation or reuse to
provide facilities for local people and support aspi-
rations for growth. These projects, which included
significant center regeneration, the development of
a major new waterfront area, and a large distribu-
tion hub amongst others, were forecasted to create
a further 38,000 jobs for the town before 2030
(NOW, 2013: 7).
Nevertheless, by far the biggest economic de-
velopment within the North-West region, and one
which fed strongly into the Smart City planning, was
the development of the Atlantic Gateway. The At-
lantic Gateway proposal is one of the largest infra-
structure projects in the United Kingdom. The
project is backed by a £50 billion investment
granted over a 50-year period and aims to create a
critical mass to achieve a new level of growth not
previously achieved in the United Kingdom outside
of London. Building on four key themes (growth,
connectivity, infrastructure, and sustainability), the
local government authority of NOW believes there
is the potential to achieve up to 250,000 new jobs
in the region covered by the Atlantic Gateway proj-
ect, involving £14bn of local investment. Project
leaders see NOW as one of the key infrastructure
network nodes of the Atlantic Gateway, linking wa-
terborne freight along the canals with the national
rail freight network and the motorway road net-
work. NOW is centrally located to take full advan-
tage of the inward investment in this project.
However, the realities of the increased traffic
that would attend the Atlantic Gateway represent a
potential risk which was a key influencer in the de-
sign of the Smart City project. The increase in traffic
in past years had left parts of the local network
under increasing stress. The main nearby motor-
ways, in parts, suffers from daily stress levels in ex-
cess of 150% of capacity on both the northbound
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 4, No. 2, November 2015
Peter Stokes, et al.: ‘Smart Cities’ – Dynamic Sustainability Issues and Challenges for ‘Old World’ Economies: A Case
12
and southbound carriageways. Increased emissions
from expanded business activity and the greater
number of vehicles expected as a result of the Gate-
way initiative will have a negative impact on the nat-
ural environment and air quality. Similarly, increased
waterborne freight on the canal, though positive in
economic terms, was forecasted to lead to the
swing [road] bridges being raised more often with
the result of further congestion on the roads and in-
creased delays. Thus development pressures, high
levels of car ownership (a third of households in
NOW own two or more vehicles), and a fast growing
economy would all lead to high traffic growth with
concomitant environmental concerns.
The local government authority had a plan to
reduce the carbon footprint of traffic within the
area through the increased use of low carbon buses,
implemented by a publically owned and managed
bus company which operated the majority of local
services, and the encouragement of electric vehicle
use particularly along the strategic routes surround-
ing NOW. The Smart City project was seen as key to
this aim by enhancing the electrical network and al-
lowing improved information to all users of local
transport networks to facilitate better journey plan-
ning, avoid congestion ‘hot spots’ and unforeseen
incidents, and allow people to manage their mobil-
ity choices better.
As the NOW Smart City plans were developed,
the key projects to be funded fell into four general
categories:
Mobility: Efforts would be placed into creating an
improved infrastructure for electric vehicles, cre-
ating and implementing an easily accessible real
time traffic information to enable citizens to avoid
congestion-prone areas at key times of the day,
and promoting public transport. Planners be-
lieved this could be achieved through an interac-
tive platform which would allow innovative
solutions to be developed, integrating traffic sen-
sors, a smart journey planner, “smart ticketing”
and “smart cards” which would be connected to
other reward systems, and initiatives for personal
wellbeing and environmental protection.
Mind and Body: Information technology support
would be offered to help elderly people who
wished to remain living at home to do so – partic-
ularly those with dementia. The incentivizing of
positive public health and active lifestyle choices
might benefit from better information and access
to activities and healthy food networks. An inte-
grated platform together with a smart card system
would provide incentives for activity through a re-
wards program and a healthy eating and commu-
nity activity agenda to encourage sustainable and
active life choices. This system would operate
through a central data platform in conjunction with
learning and training activities in libraries, schools,
leisure and community centers, and care homes.
Environment: The plans include improved moni-
toring and real time information to those at risk of
flooding and those in areas of poor air quality. This
would be achieved through encouraging demand
management of energy in homes and businesses
via smart meters and the initialization of decentral-
ized energy networks in new urban developments.
Moreover the smart monitoring of waste collec-
tion services would improve quality of service and
promote behavioral change such as recycling.
Community: In order to support the changes
above the local government authority promoted
the creation of an open data platform that would
enable individuals and businesses to create appli-
cations to suit their own needs and those of fellow
citizens. In this way the local business community,
and engaged citizens with appropriate skills, could
co-create the infrastructure of the city’s system to
suit local needs as directly as possible.
To summarize, in this respect, the proposals
from NOW reflected earlier work on the “intelligent
city” by Komninos (2002, 2008), that brought to the
fore the citizen’s role in the Smart City through the
last of the four main components, interconnected
infrastructure:
• the application of a wide range of electronic and
digital technologies to communities and cities
• the use of information technologies to transform
life and work within a region
• the [physical] embedding of such ICTs in the city
• the ‘territorialization’ of such practices in a way
that brings information technologies and people
together to enhance the innovation, learning,
knowledge, and problem-solving opportunities
that the technologies offer.
from the United Kingdom
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 4, No. 2, November 2015 13
Reflecting on the issues and opportunities, in
conjunction with the key ambitions and drivers, con-
fronting NOW, Hollands (2008: 306) encapsulated
this concept and vision by identifying Smart Cities as:
‘territories with a high capacity for learning and
innovation, which is built in to the creativity of
their population, their institutions of knowledge
production, and their digital infrastructure for
communication.’ 
The key elements of this definition relate to the
use of networked infrastructures as a means to en-
able social, environmental, economic, and cultural
development. And, this focus upon the ICT infra-
structure (mobile and landline telephones, satellite
televisions, computer networks, electronic com-
merce, and internet services) involves a shift away
from the e-commerce challenges of enterprise ar-
chitecture and transaction-based business logic un-
derlying the development of e-government services
and towards something much ‘smarter’ – the social
capital of networked communities (Halpern, 2005).
Furthermore, importantly this is more than simply
a collection of data garnered from measuring citi-
zens’ activities. Instead, Halpern (2005: 508) asserts
that the social capital inherent in the Smart City in-
cludes “a cluster of norms, rules, values, and expec-
tations; and sanctions.” Implicit is the notion that
users (the citizens) are creating their own norms
and values simply through their interaction with the
systems and that solutions or new systems can and
will emerge from those norms and values rather
than being imposed upon the system from above.
The establishment of dynamic relationships and
connections of these types marks a significant shift
in the social contract between the citizen and the
state, possibly moving onto new ground historically.
No longer is it the state’s role simply to provide serv-
ices to citizens; now it is the state’s role to develop
systems to gather real time information and thus in-
form citizens in such ways that enable them to make
positive choices about their lives. This was some-
thing to which future cities may aspire:
‘While the vast majority of community ICT exper-
iments have to date not met the conditions above
[ecological integrity, equity, democratic renewal,
etc.]…ICT networks may have great potential to
boost local social capital, provided they are geo-
graphically “intelligent,” that is, are smart enough
to connect you directly to your neighbors; are built
around natural communities, and facilitate the
collection of collective knowledge. They have the
potential to connect the work-poor and work-rich.’
(Halpern, 2005: 509-510)
Here is the key difference between “Intelligent”
and “Smart” cities. While many authors have seen
these phrases as synonymous others have seen the
distinction as vitally important:
‘The thing to bear in mind here is that for smart
cities the capacities that intelligent cities have
sought to develop over the past twenty years or
so become the technical platform for their appli-
cation across a host of service-related domains....
For it is here and at this stage of development that
the point of emphasis and intervention begins to
shift from innovation to application, from the
back-office to front-line services, and in policy
terms, the emphasis also shifts from the corporate
to the civic, from the market to the community,
and from the bureaucratic administration of the
economy to a liberal democratic governance.’
(Allwinkle & Cruckshank, 2011: 9)
This distinction thus highlights the perceived
difference between these two forms of civic organ-
ization in the sense that while the intelligent city
gathers the data necessary to become a Smart City,
it is the largely social transition away from market
structures and information asymmetry to commu-
nity engagement and unrestricted access to the sys-
tem which characterizes a truly Smart City. Our
article has mapped out the nature of Smart Cities
and the issues they present in relation to ‘Old
World’ cases such as NOW. We move on next to dis-
cuss the manner in which the challenges unfolded
and why the NOW Smart City project did not
progress as envisioned.
5. DISCUSSION
The issues outlined above facing NOW in its
present state and in its short-term future pose a
number of challenges for local public sector part-
ners. In this case study, we saw that following the
thinking of Hollands above policymakers set out to
address the community’s needs through a focus
upon human behaviors rather than upon technolog-
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 4, No. 2, November 2015
Peter Stokes, et al.: ‘Smart Cities’ – Dynamic Sustainability Issues and Challenges for ‘Old World’ Economies: A Case
14
ical developments alone. This shows a rejection of
Phase I thinking in favor of Phases II and III.
There was a shared conception among the de-
velopment team that the key to a Smart City was not
the design of specific solutions to specific problems
imposed by the state onto the citizenry – that was
seen as a “short-term quick fix” model. Rather, they
wanted to support the citizens of NOW to become
equipped with skills and adaptive behaviors which
would see them able to engage in and solve prob-
lems as they emerged – and this centered on notions
of developing “resilience of the city” (NOW, 2013: 1-
11). The planners wanted NOW to be “stronger, more
adaptable, more capable of dealing with the chal-
lenges ahead” and identified three levels on which
they wanted to achieve this increased resilience: eco-
nomic, environmental and personal (NOW, 2013: 11).
This approach aligns very well with earlier claims that
the upper limit to regional or national economic
growth is ultimately reliant upon the productivity
growth experienced by its workforce (Tyson, 1999).
Better-equipped citizens and workers offer enhanced
long-run economic benefits.
Personal resilience was seen as the most fun-
damental aptitude which would influence both eco-
nomic and environmental improvements in NOW by
producing ‘enterprising citizens’. Enterprising citi-
zens would be more able to cope with the range of
issues that would face them. They would have the
skills and knowledge to find solutions and work cre-
atively to overcome barriers. It was the avowed vi-
sion of the project to foster a community where this
ability would be common to all (NOW, 2013: 11).
The funding would be used to create catalysts in
NOW to build towards a positive ‘tipping point’
which would occur when the behavior and innova-
tion in the community broke through resistance to
establish dynamic relationships and become com-
mon practice and a self-sustaining cycle.
In this sense the technology involved did not
exist for its own sake nor to support improved
measurement of people’s movements and activities.
Instead, it was to be a motivational force which en-
couraged individuals to “act better”. Here then is a
clear perspective of ‘Old World’ development of the
Smart City: this is not a matter of technological pen-
etration and exploitation but a process of structural
industrial and, moreover, psychological change. A
schematic of what developed as a result of this call
for proposals is shown below, with multiple levels
of technological integration from the sensors and
distribution methods (e.g. fiber optic cabling) on the
bottom through the middle-level ‘integrated plat-
form’ where the data from a variety of sources could
be viewed, combined, and sorted, through to the
user-facing applications intended to deliver ‘di-
gested’ information to the citizens of NOW and re-
ceive their feedback. This system aimed to enhance
people’s lives through more informed decision-mak-
ing, better environmental monitoring and control,
and easier access to public services (Figure 2).
But was this achieved? The project was led on
a day-to-day basis by the local government author-
ity’s environmental management supported by
strategic staff whose role was to provide vision for
the future direction of the local government author-
ity. These staff members in turn linked to creative
policy thinkers external to the local government au-
thority in statutory public and in private sector
agencies. Therefore, the spirit and aspiration of the
project was directed towards Phase III approaches
and conversations. However, as the project devel-
oped there was an increasing influence of the tech-
nical needs, capacities and limitations available in
designing the approach. Moreover, the discussions
– perhaps generationally influenced by those hold-
ing office and engaged on the project – increasingly
seemed to revert towards both Phase I and Phase II
thinking. In this way, it was if the aspiration was
transformed into something more technologically
orientated than envisaged at the outset. The final
report was submitted by the local government tech-
nology staff. While they were indeed a dynamic pos-
itive and creative force in the design of the concept,
they were also by their nature technological staff
and well-versed in using the structures and dis-
course of technology rather than the discourse(s) of
community engagement. Indeed, the nature of the
call for proposals meant that almost inevitably the
project eventually settled upon a vision for a future
city which saw technology viewed as a way to sup-
ply comprehensive solutions to urban issues and sit-
uations, that is to say, a Phase I based vision. 
The overall appraisal of the 29 cities across the
United Kingdom which were shortlisted for funding
from the United Kingdom
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 4, No. 2, November 2015 15
found that 26 of them proposed web-based or vir-
tual service platforms, which in the words of the
evaluators:
‘… will allow more efficient and responsive serv-
ices, to be delivered with fewer resources, en-
abling citizens to develop solutions independent
of the local government, and businesses to de-
velop and thrive in an open information market-
place.’
(TSB, 2013:15)
And here resides a key issue, for time after time
the focus upon the cultural capital developed by the
technologies within Smart Cities has under-esti-
mated the bureaucratic reality of installing and de-
veloping the systems needed to develop a truly
Smart City in line with stated visions. While there is
a strong literature on the technological innovations
themselves, often supported by technology compa-
nies working through universities (Greenaway &
Rudd, 2014: 50) and the literature on the develop-
ment of cultural capital is starting to emerge, little
has so far been done to explore the mechanisms
whereby practitioners and policy makers (both pub-
lic and private sector) are able to integrate new
technological concepts into existing, often long-
standing and rigid, local government policies. Nam
& Pardo (2011: 85) point out that ‘[t]here is a gap
in existing literature of a Smart City. Most writers
address only technological aspects. So far the liter-
Figure 2: Northern Old World (NOW) City of the Future
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 4, No. 2, November 2015
Peter Stokes, et al.: ‘Smart Cities’ – Dynamic Sustainability Issues and Challenges for ‘Old World’ Economies: A Case
16
ature has viewed a Smart City as a manifestation of
innovative ideas, mostly neglecting considerations
of the policy and managerial side of innovation.’
Moreover, it may be suggested that this debate is
taking place predominantly in New World economic
contexts rather than in Old World contexts. The his-
torical legacies and issues (and indeed opportuni-
ties) which confront NOW as an ‘Old World’ context
– generational thinking of aging populations, updat-
ing Victorian and Twentieth Century industrial and
transport systems, wrestling with socio-cultural
transformations linked to educational aspiration and
mindsets – mean that the bureaucratic governmen-
tal and working group mechanisms find the varied
and multiple deep-rooted stakeholder mindsets and
governmental and societal structural issues a major
challenge. From the analysis of the case of NOW a
typology of mindsets, competing dynamics and ap-
proaches emerge:
  1. The role of ‘thinker/radical/idealist’ tendencies
in the debate
     In the case of NOW this tendency came most in-
terestingly from the planners in local govern-
ment. Stereotypically we might have
anticipated a more conservative response from
this group with correspondingly more excite-
ment from private business or social activists in
the community. This unexpected response
could arise from a genuine desire to make a
positive change in the life of the local commu-
nity, to establish a legacy of one’s work and ca-
reer, or to use the successful implementation of
a large-scale project as a stepping stone to a fu-
ture career in politics.
  2. ‘Luddite’ Trepidation and Fear tendencies in the
debate
     This tended to come from the lower socio-eco-
nomic groups whose concern boiled down ulti-
mately to “are they going to make us all lose our
jobs?” In the United Kingdom there is also a
sense of widespread weariness with govern-
ment surveillance and closed-circuit video se-
curity systems; a Smart City initiative could
strike many residents merely as increased gov-
ernment monitoring rather than the empower-
ing, educating movement for their own benefit
it was intended to be. Finally, concerns remain
that social groups who are currently difficult to
connect with digitally will remain so in the fu-
ture despite Smart City initiatives, especially the
elderly, the very poor, immigrants with weak
English language skills, etc.
  3. Technocrat[ic] tendencies in the debate
     There are participants in this field who are dis-
connected from the local context, largely if not
exclusively driven by secondary (perhaps per-
sonal) motives, for whom Smart City planning
and implementation is just another political
process. This might be seen as the obverse side
of the coin to the Phase III mindset: rather than
reflecting the cautious, critical-minded and so-
cially-orientated Phase III mindset alongside
many of the other stakeholders, the technocrat
holds a rather cynical mindset which enters the
arena of the post-industrial Smart City develop-
ment, performs a certain service or function,
and then moves on with little regard for the out-
come of the project for the local residents. Such
a person may ‘move on’ to generate another
funding bid for other purposes aimed at na-
tional or international granting agencies.
It might be argued that the private sector has
both substantial capital and innovative thinking
which together may be capable of breaking through
these kinds of barriers. However, in the case of
NOW, a series of meetings was held with key private
sector innovators; these were companies which de-
sign creative infrastructure systems and often im-
plement them as well. While this process offered
ideas and support, it proved unable to modify the
bureaucratic and societal regimes which prevailed
in NOW’s context. The importance of collaboration
and the establishment of dynamic relationships be-
tween the private sector as ‘innovators’ and the
public sector as ‘providers’ in this field has been dis-
cussed elsewhere (see Giaglis, Klein & O'Keefe,
2002; Dois, Llerena, & Labini, 2005; Chesbrough,
2006; Fung & Weil, 2010). Much of this work has
seen the private sector and public sector entering
into collaboration from very different perspectives.
A statement from this perspective might argue that:
‘The main problem in the private sector is the
sourcing of novel and relevant ideas in a search
space enlarged by globalization...In the public sec-
tor, however, where the objective is not exclusively
finding new solutions but also building and acti-
from the United Kingdom
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 4, No. 2, November 2015 17
vating ecosystems to meet the challenges of soci-
ety, the main problem to solve is how to effectively
connect and engage communities around these
challenges.’
(Bakici, Almirall, & Wareham, 2013: 313)
This was certainly the case in NOW. Throughout
the planning stage, local government authority offi-
cers remained aware of three separate but inter-
linked ‘risks’ to the project: 
  1. Commitment from other areas of the public
service sector – most notably social welfare
providers who instinctively distrust partnership
with the private sector;
  2. A critical press which could report that spending
public money on technology was wasteful when
traditional services were being reduced in a re-
cessional ‘Old World’ context;
  3. The willingness of citizens to engage in the pro-
gram. This included fears about citizens who did
not wish to see themselves as public service
users and would not wish to use new technolo-
gies, and those who were intensive users of
public services but see themselves purely as
passive recipients rather than co-producers of
those services.
These three ‘risks’ all shared a similar element:
the general distrust of, cynicism or at least skepti-
cism towards, the state by its citizens. In all three
cases key groups were identified who, it was felt,
were unlikely to respond positively to the wide-
spread use of technology even if it aimed at ulti-
mately beneficial changes in the life of the
community. Indeed, it was strongly assumed by
some public sector workers planning the project
that all three groups would react negatively, would
do so very quickly (probably as soon as they discov-
ered that planning was taking place), and would be
intransigent in their criticism. It should be noted
that these fears came almost exclusively from public
sector representatives and not from private sector
visionaries for whom these planning sessions rep-
resented an opportunity to talk excitedly about the
potential of social change through technology.
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 
The evidence from NOW is that the local gov-
ernment planners undertook planning a transition
to Smart City status with the perspective and mind-
set of achieving a Phase II, or even perhaps a Phase
III, approach. However, very quickly the project was
pulled more towards a Phase I-style of considering
the issue which concentrated on achieving possible
technical solutions rather than more socially- or cul-
turally-informed solutions. While there are a num-
ber of possible reasons for this outcome, an
important one must be that the genesis of this pro-
posal and the work that went into it arose out of a
funding application to the United Kingdom national
government for support. Thus rather than being a
ground-swell movement of NOW residents eager to
embrace a vision of what they interpreted as a bet-
ter and more sustainable lifestyle, this began as a
top-level planning office project with which many
citizens in NOW had little knowledge or sympathy.
Individuals in government worked on the project
diligently to realize the initial goal of winning fund-
ing from an external agency, after which elements
of a Smart City might be developed. Local business-
people, especially those attached to companies
which design, produce, install, or maintain informa-
tion technology architecture, were understandably
enthusiastic because they recognized the business
opportunities a successful bid could generate for
their firms. However, the project brief – based upon
the planning team’s reading of the call for proposals
– gravitated further towards a Phase I interpretation
of Smart Cities than originally intended for three key
reasons. Firstly, the United Kingdom would not be
likely to bestow substantial funds to alleviate social
problems on their own, even if this helped to pre-
pare the ground for a transition to a Smart City in
the near future; the use of information technology
would be expected to play a central role in overcom-
ing such ills, a position which reflects clearly the
Phase I mentality. Secondly, the offers of partner-
ship or assistance from the private sector tended to
coalesce around technological solutions more than
around socially-oriented focal points. This was per-
haps not surprising given the business community’s
desire to participate in what could be expected to
be a massive investment in public infrastructure if
the bid was approved. And finally, the residual sta-
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 4, No. 2, November 2015
Peter Stokes, et al.: ‘Smart Cities’ – Dynamic Sustainability Issues and Challenges for ‘Old World’ Economies: A Case
18
tus quo of historical infrastructure, mindset and de-
mographic spread and disposition – all set against
an Old World economy in post-recessionary maneu-
vering likely to last for a long time – was perhaps
predicated towards quick-fix tangible solutions
rather than longer term community building.
Ultimately, the NOW Smart City project found
itself situated in a dynamic tension of hybrid of
Phase I and Phase II. The significance of the project
starting out with a Phase III orientation but soon ar-
riving at a hybrid of Phase I & II seems indicative
about the inherent tensions of a Smart City transi-
tion in a post-industrial context. Furthermore, the
experience of NOW questions the ability of technol-
ogy to enable social and cultural development of
the citizens of these regions, and illustrates the
deep reluctance some people have about (appear-
ing to be) ceding control to ICT systems because of
what it might mean for the future of urban areas
and their inhabitants. 
We have drawn attention to particular factors
and contexts that might play a role in the ‘Old
World’ post-industrial Smart City context and the
recognition that not only increasing urbanization
but transformation of long-standing urbanization is
a significant, and somewhat overlooked, aspect of
Smart City discourse and action. The most critical of
these issues is perhaps also the most obvious: se-
curing the participation of a wide variety of stake-
holders in the community whose voices can
influence the design and implementation of the
eventual Smart City to be developed. In the case of
NOW, the origins of the idea of the Smart City ap-
peared to arise out of the opportunity to secure
funding from a national source, and thus the fund-
ing agency’s call for proposals, and the conversa-
tions surrounding it, may have shaped the final
outcome in ways that did not serve the city as well
as it may have done had it began as an organic
movement within the city itself. Therefore, the re-
quirement for the application for Smart City funding
to appeal to the perceived desires of those external
to NOW may have led planners to shape the bid in
a manner somewhat alien to the needs and charac-
ter of NOW.
We have contextualized this in a historicization
of the Smart Cities phenomenon and we have pro-
vided a schema and typologies with which to exam-
ine and understand these issues. We remind the
reader that this is an introductory typology and that
we welcome further discussion on it in the future.
This provides a model that has value to practice and
practitioners.
Furthermore, we have provided micro-level
post-industrial data that can be linked to the macro-
debate and context of wider Smart City discussions.
This is timely as the United Kingdom national gov-
ernment sits in the early stages of refining protocols
for considering the design, shape and form of Smart
Cities. This has taken the form of a commissioned
piece of work by the Department for Business Inno-
vation and Skills from the quality framework organ-
ization the British Standards Institute (BSI). The case
of NOW and the resultant models provide a number
of important thoughts to inform such actions. First,
that the Smart City transition for an established ‘Old
World’ economic center could be expensive and
that therefore external funding on a national or in-
ternational level (likely to be awarded on a competi-
tive basis) may be required. The manner in which
that funding offer is structured is likely to influence
heavily the bids that are produced and submitted.
Second, that it is essential that the Smart City
agenda seeks to generate wide support within the
community and thus does not appear to residents
to be a top-down government initiative aimed at
controlling or monitoring residents by the ruling
elite. Whether the project is led by local govern-
ment or by local business, there will always be a por-
tion of the community that is skeptical of the
sponsor’s ultimate goal(s) for the project and will
seek to resist it in favor of the comfortable (if
flawed) status quo. Third, that private companies
across a range of sectors with expertise in collecting,
analyzing, and interpreting complex data get in-
volved at an early stage to inform policymakers and
community representatives of the benefits and, per-
haps more importantly the limitations, of the tech-
nology itself. Fourth, that high-speed digital
infrastructure is a driver for economic growth. In
this context, it is not just about saving money but
about driving the economy and making the step
change into high-value-added job creation and the
eventual transformation of NOW into a digital based
economy. Finally, that everyone involved in the proj-
from the United Kingdom
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 4, No. 2, November 2015 19
ect wants to achieve the highest value for the city
for the money spent; governments – at least in the
United Kingdom currently – means money cannot
be afforded to be spent carelessly, and businesspeo-
ple who are otherwise happy to contribute will de-
mand some reasonable social return for their
money. This is, ironically, part of the goal of the
Smart City – to enable residents to utilize public
services as efficiently as possible to increase the
quality of their lives. Once this virtuous cycle begins
the efficiencies generated hold the potential to cre-
ate greater savings while maintaining, or possibly
expanding, the provision of services in a city like
NOW.
EXTENDED SUMMARY / IZVLEČEK
Hiter razvoj urbanizacije in pojav mega-mest so že v dvajsetem stoletju napovedovali številne
probleme, ki bodo izziv za voditelje in oblikovalce politik tako na razvijajočih se trgih t.i. novega sveta
kot post-industrializiranih gospodarstev t.i. starega sveta. Medtem ko se večina obstoječe literature
osredotoča na vsebine novega sveta, ta članek obravnava izzive dinamičnih odnosov in vprašanj, s
katerimi se soočajo post-industrijska strnjena naselja na severozahodu Anglije, ki poskušajo postati
"pametna mesta".
Za mnoge avtorje ponujajo pametna mesta trajnostno rešitev za izzive, ki jih prinaša tako večja
urbanizacija kot upad pomena industrije. Koncept pametnega mesta vključuje uporabo naprednih
tehnologij pri načrtovanju, razvoju in delovanju urbanih sistemov (Harrison & Donnelly, 2011: 8).
Bolj celovito opredelitev ponujata Caragaliu & Niikamp (2012), ki predlagata naslednje funkcije
pametnega mesta:
  1. uporaba mrežne infrastrukture za izboljšanje gospodarske in politične učinkovitosti ter social-
nega, kulturnega in urbanega razvoja;
  2. osnovni poudarek je na poslovnem vidiku razvoja urbanega okolja;
  3. močna osredotočenost na cilj doseganja socialne vključenosti različnih prebivalcev mest v javnih
storitvah;
  4. poudarjena ključna vloga visokotehnoloških in ustvarjalnih industrij v dolgoročni razvoj mest;
  5. temeljita pozornost je namenjena vlogi socialnega in relacijskega kapitala pri razvoju mest;
  6. socialna in okoljska trajnost kot glavna strateška komponenta.
Prehod iz post-industrializiranih mest oz. širših mestnih območij starega sveta v pametna mesta
odpira veliko vprašanj in sooča z različnimi izzivi. Študija primera v tem članku izpostavlja številne
pomembne vidike, ki bi jih bilo treba upoštevati pri raziskovanju možnosti takega prehoda. Avtorji
so v članku ugotovili, da so pri tem ključna socialno-ekonomska in demografska vprašanja. Na širših
mestnih območjih na primer živi veliko starejšega prebivalstva, ki ima odpor do sprejemanja in
uporabe predlaganih novih tehnologij. Kot potencialno področje težav pri vzpostavitvi projekta so
bila opredeljena tudi okoljska vprašanja. Območje je ob konicah močno obremenjeno s prometom
in to predstavlja celo za najbolj izpopolnjene tehnološke rešitve velik izziv. Poleg tega je na tem
območju veliko starejših gradenj, v katerih ni mogoče izkoristiti vseh tehnoloških potencialov pamet-
nih mest (npr. zastarele električne napeljave ipd.). Ugotovljeno je bilo tudi neskladje med nizko stop-
njo izobrazbe nekaterih skupin prebivalcev na teh področjih in ambicioznim okoljem pametnih mest.
Zdi se, da nivo oz. raven znanja na teh področjih ni dovolj visoka, da bi lahko pametno mesto razvili
in zgradili v celoti.
Obravnava podatkov iz študije primera je omogočila razvoj tipologije miselnosti, konkurenčne
dinamike in pristopov:
  1. tendence vloge "misleca / radikalista / idealista" v razpravi,
  2. tendence "Luddite-ne" zaskrbljenosti in strahu v razpravi,
  3. tehnokratske tendence v razpravi.
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 4, No. 2, November 2015
Peter Stokes, et al.: ‘Smart Cities’ – Dynamic Sustainability Issues and Challenges for ‘Old World’ Economies: A Case
20
REFERENCES
Abreu, M., Kitson, M., Savona, M., & Grinevich, V. (2006).
Regional variations in UK innovation and economic
performance: The role of absorptive capacity. In SPRU
40th Anniversary Conference ‘The Future of Science,
Technology and Innovation Policy. Linking Research
and Practice”. University of Sussex.
Allwinkle, S., & Cruickshank, P. (2011). Creating smart-er
cities: An overview. Journal of Urban Technology, 18
(2), 1-16.
Amarnath, A. (2011). World’s Top Global Mega Trends to
2020 and Implications to Business, Society and Cul-
tures. Frost & Sullivan.
Amarnath, A. (2010). City as a Customer Strategy: Growth
Opportunities From The Cities of Tomorrow. Frost &
Sullivan.
Bakici, T., Almirall, E., & Wareham, J. (2013). The role of
public open innovation intermediaries in local govern-
ment and the public sector. Technology Analysis &
Strategic Management, 25 (3), 311-327.
Batty, M., Axhausen, K. W., Giannotti, F., Pozdnoukhov,
A., Bazzani, A., Wachowicz, M., G. Ouzounis, & Portu-
gali, Y. (2012). Smart cities of the future. The European
Physical Journal Special Topics, 214 (1), 481-518.
Bollier, D. (1998). How Smart Growth Can Stop Sprawl: A
Fledgling Citizen Movement Expands. Essential Books.
Caldwell, R. (2002). Portland, a city of ‘smart growth’, The
Masthead, 54 (20), 29.
Caragliu, A., & Nijkamp, P. (2012). The impact of regional
absorptive capacity on spatial knowledge spillovers:
the Cohen and Levinthal model revisited. Applied Eco-
nomics, 44 (11), 1363-1374.
Caragliu, A., Del Bo, C., & Nijkamp, P. (2011). Smart cities
in Europe. Journal of urban technology, 18 (2), 65-82.
Carley, M. (2006). Partnership and statutory local gover-
nance in a devolved Scotland. International Journal of
Public Sector Management, 19 (3), 250-260.
Carley, M., & Kirk, K. (1998). Sustainable by 2020?: a
strategic approach to urban regeneration for Britain's
cities. Bristol: Policy Press.
Carley, M., Chapman, M., Hastings, A., Kirk, K., & Young,
R. (2000). Urban regeneration through partnership: A
study in nine urban regions in England. Wales and
Scotland Bristol: The Policy Press for the Joseph Rown-
tree Foundation.
Castells, M. (2011). The rise of the network society: The
information age: Economy, society, and culture (Vol.
1). John Wiley & Sons.
Chesbrough, H. W. (2006). Open innovation: The new im-
perative for creating and profiting from technology.
Harvard Business Press.
Cisco, (2005). Dubai: The Smart City. Retrieved on 24th
November, 2014 from http://www.cisco.com/web/
learning/le21/le34/downloads/689/nobel/2005/docs
/Abdulhakim_Malik.pdf.
Coe, A., Paquet, G., & Roy, J. (2001). E-governance and
smart communities a social learning challenge. Social
Science Computer Review, 19 (1), 80-93.
Cohen, B. (2012). What exactly is a SMART City?. Re-
Temelječ na tej tipologiji ter tudi na predhodnih razpravah in analizah študije tega primera, so av-
torji v članku pripravili priporočila, ki so namenjena obveščanju o strategijah oblikovanja, načrtovanja
in izvajanja pametnih mest:
  1. Uvedba pametnega mesta je za gospodarska središča "starega sveta" lahko draga in zato potre-
buje zunanje financiranje na nacionalni ali mednarodni ravni (ki bi lahko bila dodeljena na podlagi
meril konkurenčnosti).
  2. Bistveno je, da se pri uvajanju pametnega mesta doseže široka podpora v lokalni skupnosti in ne
gre zgolj za posledico ukaza na podlagi vladne pobude, s pomočjo katere želi vladajoča elita imeti
nadzor nad prebivalci.
  3. Že v začetni fazi morajo pri projektu sodelovati zasebne družbe s strokovnim znanjem o zbiranju,
analizi in razlagi kompleksnih podatkov različnih sektorjev, da oblikovalce politik in predstavnike
lokalnih skupnosti obveščajo o koristih in, morda še pomembneje, o omejitvah predlaganih
tehnoloških rešitev..
  4. Digitalno infrastrukturo visokih prenosnih hitrosti je treba promovirati kot gonilo gospodarske
rasti.
  5. Delovanje vseh zainteresiranih strani mora biti usmerjeno v doseganje največje koristnosti za mesto
naporabljen denar - to pomeni, da denar ne sme biti porabljen malomarno in da prebivalci lahko
čim bolj učinkovito uporabljajo javne storitve ter si tako povečajo kakovost svojega življenja.
from the United Kingdom
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 4, No. 2, November 2015 21
trieved from http://www.fastcoexist.com/1680538/
what-exactly-is-a-smart-city on 31st November, 2014.
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive ca-
pacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation.
Administrative science quarterly, 128-152.
Deakin, M., & Allwinkle, S. (2007). Urban regeneration
and sustainable communities: The role of networks,
innovation, and creativity in building successful part-
nerships. Journal of Urban Technology, 14 (1), 77-91.
Deakin, M., Lombardi, P., & Cooper, I. (2011). The Intel-
Cities community of practice: The capacity-building,
co-design, evaluation, and monitoring of e-govern-
ment services. Journal of Urban Technology, 18 (2),
17-38.
Deakin, M., & Leydesdorff, L. (2014). The triple helix
model of smart cities: a neo-evolutionary perspective.
Smart cities: governing, modelling and analysing the
transition, 134-149.
Diez, T., & Posada, A. (2013, February). The fab and the
smart city: the use of machines and technology for
the city production by its citizens. In Proceedings of
the 7th International Conference on Tangible, Embed-
ded and Embodied Interaction (pp. 447-454). ACM.
Dirks, S., Gurdgiev, C., & Keeling, M. (2010). A vision of
smarter cities: How cities can lead the way into a
prosperous and sustainable future. IBM Institute for
Business Value. June.
Dois, G., Llerena, P., & Labini, M. S. (2005). Evaluating and
comparing the innovation performance of the United
States and the European Union (p. 32). European
Commission.
Fung, A., & Weil, D. (2010). Open government and open
society. Open Government. Transparency, Collabora-
tion and Participation in Practice. Sebastopol, CA: OR-
eilly Media Inc.
Giaglis, G. M., Klein, S., & O'Keefe, R. M. (2002). The role
of intermediaries in electronic marketplaces: devel-
oping a contingency model. Information Systems Jour-
nal, 12 (3), 231-246.
Glaeser, E. L. (2005). Edward L. Glaeser, Review of Richard
Florida's The Rise of the Creative Class. Regional Sci-
ence and Urban Economic, 35 (5), 593–596.
Graham, S., & Marvin, S. (2001). Splintering urbanism:
networked infrastructures, technological mobilities
and the urban condition. Psychology Press.
Graham, S., & Marvin, S. (2002). Telecommunications and
the city: Electronic spaces, urban places. Routledge.
Greenaway, D., & Rudd, C. D. (2014). The Business Growth
Benefits of Higher Education. Palgrave Macmillan.
Halpern, D. (2005). Social Capital, Bristol: Policy Press.
Harrison, C., & Donnelly, I. A. (2011). A theory of smart
cities. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of
the ISSS-2011, Hull, UK (Vol. 55, No. 1).
Hastings, A. (1996). Unravelling the process of'partner-
ship in urban regeneration policy. Urban studies, 33
(2), 253-268.
Hollands, R. (2008). Will the Real Smart City Stand Up?
Creative, Progressive, or Just Entrepreneurial?. City,
12 (3), 302–320.
Komninos, N. (2008). Intelligent cities and globalisation
of innovation networks. Routledge.
Lathrop, D., & Ruma, L. (2010). Open government: Col-
laboration, transparency, and participation in prac-
tice. O'Reilly Media, Inc.
McWilliams, C., Johnstone, C., & Mooney, G. (2004). Urban
policy in the New Scotland: the role of social inclusion
partnerships. Space and Polity, 8 (3), 309-319.
Malina, A. (2002). Community networking and percep-
tions of civic value. Communications, 27 (2), 211-234.
Malina, A. (2001). Electronic Community Networks. Journal
of Community Work and Development, 1 (2), 67–83.
Malina, A., & Macintosh, A. (2004). Bridging the digital
divide: developments in Scotland. eTransformation in
Governance: New Directions in Government and Pol-
itics, Hershey, PA: Idea Group Publishing, 255-271.
Malina, A., & Ball, I. W. (2005). ICTs and community and
suggestions for further research in Scotland. The jour-
nal of community informatics, 1 (3).
Mitchell, W. J. (1995). City of bits. Space, Place, and the
Info. MIT Press.
Mitchell, W. (1999). e-Topia: urban life, Jim but not as you
know it. MIT Press. 
Mitchell, W. J. (1999). Equitable access to the online
world. In Schön, D. A., & Sanyal, B. eds. High technol-
ogy and low-income communities: Prospects for the
positive use of advanced information technology. MIT
press.
Mitchell, W. J. (2003). Me++: The cyborg self and the net-
worked city. MIT Press.
Nam, T., & Pardo, T. A. (2011, September). Smart city as
urban innovation: Focusing on management, policy,
and context. In Proceedings of the 5th International
Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Gov-
ernance (pp. 185-194). ACM.
Northern Old World City (NOW) (2013). Financial Plan-
ning Report.
Poelhekke, S. (2006). Do amenities and diversity encour-
age city growth? A link through skilled labor.
Roitman, H., Mamou, J., Mehta, S., Satt, A., & Subrama-
niam, L. V. (2012, November). Harnessing the crowds
for smart city sensing. In Proceedings of the 1st inter-
national workshop on Multimodal crowd sensing (pp.
17-18). ACM.
Shelton, T., Zook, M., & Wiig, A. (2015). The ‘actually ex-
isting smart city’. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Econ-
omy and Society, 8 (1), 13-25.
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 4, No. 2, November 2015
Peter Stokes, et al.: ‘Smart Cities’ – Dynamic Sustainability Issues and Challenges for ‘Old World’ Economies: A Case
from the United Kingdom
22
Siemens, (2004). Stadt der Zukunft, Retrieved on 10th No-
vember, 2014 from http://www.siemens.com/inno-
vation/de/publikationen/zeitschriften_pictures_of_th
e_future/PoF_Fruehjahr_2004/SmartCity.htm 
Slack, R. S., & Williams, R. A. (2000). The Dialectics of
Place and Space On Community in theInformation
Age'. New Media & Society, 2 (3), 313-334.
TSB (2013). Solutions for Cities: An analysis of the feasi-
bility studies from the Future Cities Demonstrator Pro-
gramme. Technology Strategy Board.
United Nations Population Division (2009). World urban-
ization prospects: the 2009 revision. Retrieved on 5th
November, 2014 from http://esa.un.org/unpd/wup/
index.htm.
United Nations Population Division (2014). World urban-
ization prospects: the 2014 revision. Retrieved on 5th
November, 2014 from http://esa.un.org/unpd/wup/
index.htm.
Vanolo, A. (2013). Smartmentality: The smart city as dis-
ciplinary strategy. Urban Studies, 0042098013494427.