Digital City

Digital City, Is it a tool, medium or it is an aim?
-- Mohamed El-Sibaey, February 8, 2000


i think digital city is a medium , to interact and to feel in the real sense the meaning of the term 'a global community'.thanks
-- Harshada Deshpande, March 1, 2000


Digital city is the place people interact, get information, make some time good use of it, and so.It can no way be the aim untill every body gets a free link which is impossible.It can be a medium, but basically it is a tool which is one of the option to interact and get information.Reply to other answer the "global community" is somthing has to be common for all,but we can see that the work here is with power, wealth, or so, which is the wrong meaning for global world.
-- Muhammed Atif Shaikh, March 11, 2000


The technological relevancy has apparently changed over time. To wire every public to the digital city is now so possible, the issue still lies in the role of the digital cities. I am currently pursuing PhD in the area of 3D modeling and visualization in urban design and planning and still searching for the gaps. I plan to develop a digital city model integrating GIS information and use it to find the critical issues to direct my studies. Please advise.
-- Mimi Zaleha Abdul Ghani, August 12, 2008


A combination of 'medium' and 'tool', but more inclined towards the latter. What can be motives behined treating Digital Cities as aim? and, above all (Lolz)... What exactly do we mean by a 'Digital City' here?
-- Prashant Das, August 13, 2008


Different roles of DC i guess. The "aim" is to respond to the global digital demand, and the "tool" is to improve delivery of information about the city and enhance communication about the city among stakeholders. But I presume the tool is more than a tool and it can actually produce better design and control for the city as people understand their cities better with the digital information. What exactly do we mean by a 'Digital City' here? The editorial writing by Michael Batty in 2001 for Env and Planning B; Planning and Design 2001, vol 28 pgs 479-480 gives some food for thoughts and I find still relevant. Regards.
-- Mimi Zaleha Abdul Ghani, August 13, 2008


Interesting reading, Mimi! Thanks for posting the details. This debate really gets interesting now! Indeed, Michael has described at least three ways 'Digital' cities are being interpretend: 1. The "Content" theory: "...Digital cities would then constitute ways in which infrastructure and behaviour are being augmented by hardware, software, and data ..." 2. The "Method" theory: "...thinking of the nondigital aspects of cities digitally, by using computer methods, or by thinking of the ways digital infrastructure and related behaviour is developing in cities..." 3. the "VR" theory: "...thinking about the city as a material artefact in contrast to a social process..." So far, only the third interpretation seems to be closer to treating Digital Cities as "Aim". The other two, perhaps consider DC only as tools/media to achieve a better quality of life. The third theory, I believe, has been debated and questioned for its intent. May be, a 'fear of the unknown'; but apart from 'virtual pleasure', I don't see any strong reason why DC could be treated as an 'aim'. Please share your thoughts on it.
-- Prashant Das, August 15, 2008


sorry to interrupt, but i'm just curious about one thing: in this Digital City, what happens to those who are not on-line?
-- Jofer Magsi, August 17, 2008


A very sharp question, Jofer. The contributors may want to check this book by William J. Mitchell (1996) City of Bits: Space, Place and Infobahn, MIT Press. You can read excerpts at http://books.google.co.uk/.
-- Ziad Aazam, August 17, 2008


I agree with you Ziad, City of Bits by Mitchell is definitely the book to shift your thinking about "the digital world". Another one is "Recombinant Architecture" by the same author. There are many issues; cultural, social relating to the use of this new media that will reshape our traditional ways. A simple example Mitchell gave is how the internet has changed our daily lives from how we start our mornings. Back to the digital city, as with other tools can be destructive. There should also be a limit to the idea of "wired" and I am not a taker to the Singapore's idea of "Virtual 2000". Taking all into consideration, there are the good points to digital media which is becoming more inevitable today and digital city is one. Please excuse me if I am wrong, but I believe there is just no other way but to embrace the new paradigm.
-- Mimi Zaleha Abdul Ghani, August 17, 2008


Jofer, I hope my opinion did not seem arrogant, just my personal view on this fast digital wave. I too have many reservations on this new tool but whether we like it or not, many cities worldwide are adopting this, spearheaded by digital cities in Japan and London for different purposes including to increase public participation. There is a project, I think by CASA, they had 'wired kiosk' stationed at the housing site to facilitate online participation by those 'unwired'.
-- Mimi Zaleha Abdul Ghani, August 18, 2008


Your attitude Mimi towards the paradigm of 'digital space', I believe, is the right one. We do need to invest in understanding digital possibilities and actualities, specially their effects on the largest human artefacts being that of cities and buildings. We simply cannot afford not to, and because some of us (my view is global) have already been part of a digital city/world for at least a decade now. We are affected by 'digital space' in ways we still have not evaluated their full extents yet. For example, it appears that a new divide between those who operate within digital space and those who don't has already been established in our collective consciousness. Globally, this divide is seen as a 'sub-condition' of the already established 'Have and Have Not' worlds along with other dichotomies such as democracy/oppression, rich/poor, developed/underdeveloped, 'bullying/bullied', civilised/primitive, progressive/backward, contemporary/traditional, etc. Locally, the divide is reflected in individuals and collective attitudes towards digital space, such as 'I/we hate computers' statement vs. 'I am/we are fully connected' statement. In my view, these global and local conditions of digital space need to be assessed at two dimensions: (1) as a reality in itself and as (2) a perception of reality. To assess these conditions, we need to step back and be critical of them. To be critical is to emancipate oneself from a condition when one is totally immersed without questioning one's act. Why 'digital space criticality' is important and how to be critical of these conditions are questions that require serious answers. But for now we can start with a simple answer that digital space simply affects individuals and society before it affects 'real space' (urban and architecture) and therefore a thorough understanding of how digital space condition affects our well being and social cohesion is a prerequisite to our understanding of material manifestations of our social actions and subsequent shaping of urban and architectural form. To answer these questions we also need to be careful not to confuse the two dimensions mentioned above: that (1) digital space as a reality is just another force of the changing life that we need to deal with in a highly conscious way that reaches our deep essence of being humans, e.g. Google map, satellite images technology and Global Positioning System (GPS) are part of daily life when we need to take a trip somewhere or mobile phones when we need to meet people on the spur of the moment, but how far digital-dependent we afford to be before we lose touch of our human ability to navigate in space and honour our pre-arranged time; and that (2) a perception of reality is what some of us (to avoid 'Them vs. Us' suggesting that we could also be implicated) want you to believe for their own special interest not for humanity's interest, e.g. implication of what may be called 'Western-centric' invented dichotomies that equate all extremes on one end of the continuum with one another, i.e. democracy=rich=developed=civilised=progressive=contemporary, while oppression=poor=underdeveloped=primitive=backward=traditional; which then alters our perception in such a way as to affect our understanding of what is real and true. (Truth is not relative; it is absolute). For example, traditional solutions are not necessary backward, in fact some 'progressive' ideas are now realised that they are harmful to humanity and the only solution is to go 'backward' to 'traditional' ideas.
-- Ziad Aazam, August 18, 2008