Publications

In all cities and urban areas, the risk faced by people and assets from hazards associated with climate change has increased (high confidence1 ). Urban areas are now home to 4.2 billion people, the majority of the world’s population. Urbanisation processes generate vulnerability and exposure which combine with climate change hazards to drive urban risk and impacts (high confidence). Globally, the most rapid growth in urban vulnerability and exposure has been in cities and settlements where adaptive capacity is limited, especially in unplanned and informal settlements in low- and middle-income nations and in smaller and medium-sized urban centres (high confidence). Between 2015 and 2020, urban populations globally grew by more than 397 million people, with more than 90% of this growth taking place in less developed regions.

This article examines an alternative model of smart city formation, one based on the principle of insourcing technical competencies and capabilities to those responsible for city governance. This model counters the logic of technological outsourcing upon which many assumptions and critiques of the smart city rest, and thus reveals ways in which a more generative discourse can be forged. Drawing on a series of in-depth interviews with senior stakeholders from public and private sector organizations, we develop a case study of Singapore’s Smart Nation initiative. Through coordinated efforts to reorganize the public sector’s technological functions, develop nation-wide skills upgrading programs, and repatriate overseas tech talent, the government strives to assemble an ideo-technical ecosystem of talent, skills, and civic-mindedness in Singapore. This is an ecosystem designed to establish the public sector as the driver of urban innovation, and thus maximize the benefits of “civic tech”.

Land reform in post-independent Singapore was led by compulsory purchase predominantly in the 1960s–70s and resulted in numerous kampungs or villages being demolished. With efficient assembly of land, high-rise public flats were built to accommodate the country’s burgeoning population. Today, 95 per cent of residents reside in high-rise dwellings and Singapore is the 3rd most densely populated country globally. Remarkably, planning regulations protect a housing typology known as ‘good class bungalows’ (GCBs). Though housing less than 0.2 per cent of Singapore households, GCBs collectively take up 7 per cent of the available land for housing. Numbering less than three thousand, GCBs have statutorily required large minimum lot sizes and are situated in Singapore’s choiciest residential enclaves. Development of GCB land to more intensive use is strictly prohibited. In this article, I examine the legal policies and socioeconomic rationale for maintaining this uniquely Singaporean institution, concluding that there are indeed cogent justifications for its existence.