information. dissemination.
Seamless Systems in Smart Cities
Why we need to rethink the hype around the Internet of Things
For more than a decade, governments and technology companies have sold us a seductive vision of the “smart city”: a seamlessly optimised urban environment where sensors anticipate our needs, algorithms smooth away inefficiencies, and data quietly keeps everything running. It’s a compelling narrative - but one that deserves far more scrutiny than it currently receives.
The Internet of Things (IoT) sits at the centre of this vision. It promises real‑time insight into everything from traffic flow to air quality, energy use to waste collection. Research output has exploded accordingly. A review of more than 14,000 academic papers published since 2010 shows a global research community deeply invested in the idea that IoT will transform urban life. Yet the same research also reveals a set of unresolved tensions that we can no longer afford to ignore.
The promise is real - but so are the problems
There’s no denying the potential. IoT‑enabled mobility systems can reduce congestion. Smart grids can cut energy waste. Environmental sensors can help cities respond to pollution and climate pressures. These are not trivial gains; they matter for sustainability, public health, and economic resilience.
But the dominant narrative - that more sensors, more data, and more automation will inevitably lead to better cities - is dangerously simplistic.
- Security and privacy are not side issues; they are existential ones
IoT devices remain notoriously insecure. Many are deployed with minimal protection, creating vast attack surfaces across essential infrastructure. When a city’s traffic lights, water systems, or energy grids depend on connected devices, “smart” quickly becomes synonymous with “vulnerable”.
- Interoperability is still a fantasy
The research community has been calling for standardisation for over a decade, yet cities continue to deploy fragmented systems that cannot talk to each other. The result is a patchwork of incompatible platforms that lock cities into vendor ecosystems and limit long‑term flexibility.
- Data governance is the elephant in the room
Who owns the data generated by a city’s sensors? Who gets to analyse it? Who profits from it? And who is accountable when it is misused? These questions are often treated as afterthoughts, yet they determine whether smart cities enhance democracy or quietly erode it.
The smart city needs a reset
The problem isn’t the technology itself. IoT can absolutely support more sustainable, efficient, and responsive cities. The problem is the assumption that technological optimisation is inherently beneficial - and that citizens should simply accept the trade‑offs.
A smarter approach to smart cities would start with three principles:
- Put citizens, not sensors, at the centre.
Too many smart city projects begin with the technology and work backwards. Instead, cities should start with lived experience: What do residents actually need? What problems matter most to them? Technology should follow, not lead.
- Treat data as a public asset, not a commodity.
Cities must adopt transparent, accountable data governance frameworks that prioritise public value over commercial interests. Without this, smart cities risk becoming surveillance cities by accident - or by design.
- Build systems that can evolve, not lock in.
Interoperability and open standards are not optional. They are the only way to ensure that cities retain control over their infrastructure and can adapt as technologies change.
The future is still up for grabs
The next decade will determine whether smart cities become engines of equity and sustainability - or cautionary tales of technological overreach. IoT will undoubtedly play a central role, but its impact will depend on the choices we make now about governance, ethics, and public accountability.
The research community has already mapped the opportunities and the risks. What we need now is political will, civic engagement, and a willingness to challenge the assumption that “smart” automatically means “good”.
If cities are to become truly smart, they must first become wise.
