Debunking Smartness of the City

With a vague set of guidelines and widespread political pomposity, we are often told that the majority of Nepal’s population now lives in urban areas. Yet most municipalities lack even the most basic physical infrastructure, let alone public amenities such as parks or museums. The governability of municipal institutions is already in serious question. In this context of infrastructural disorder and limited institutional and financial capacity, the term “Smart City” has been introduced as a supposed solution by political and bureaucratic actors.

The phrase “Smart City” is widely associated with technological sophistication, but it requires closer scrutiny. Are our current cities considered “dumb”? Is smartness necessarily good for them? More importantly, what exactly is meant by a “smart” city? International discourse generally defines smart cities as urban environments that integrate information and communication technologies (ICT) to enhance efficiency, effectiveness, and productivity. There is no universally accepted definition. Nepal’s National Planning Commission offers a contextual interpretation, describing a smart city as one that incorporates ICT in public service delivery through public participation, accessibility, and sustainability, aiming to improve people’s quality of life. This vision echoes broader global aspirations for 21st-century cities.

It is important to address the core issue. About a year ago, the Government of Nepal announced plans to develop smart cities in Pokhara, Lumbini, and Palungtar. The list was later expanded to include many others. During the local elections, political leaders from nearly every party promised to make their municipalities smart, regardless of whether they were urban or rural. As a result, many municipalities have allocated funds to hire consultants for preparing smart city reports. Many planners, including myself, are caught in this unproductive wave of planning activity.

This is not simply a matter of political rhetoric. Bureaucratic leaders are equally involved, often contributing to what appears to be institutionalized corruption through inflated consulting contracts. It is widely understood that larger projects often carry higher percentages of corruption within the departments and institutions responsible for them. This situation is even more troubling when the cities in question lack basic urban form and functionality. For political leaders, smart cities may serve as campaign slogans. For bureaucrats, however, there is a responsibility to provide practical and accountable solutions to urban problems, not abstract visions of smartness.

At its core, a smart city involves the use of information and communication technology to improve day-to-day governance. Some scholars critique it as a market-driven agenda pushed by global tech companies. Even setting aside such critiques, there is still a question of readiness. Are our communities equipped to adopt and adapt to these digital systems? Smart governance, in principle, involves using ICT tools to improve the quality, efficiency, and transparency of public service. In some definitions, smart cities are described as a marriage between the physical environment and the digital world. If so, the question remains: are our cities ready for this relationship? Is Palungtar truly in a position to become a smart city?

There is a valid argument that smart cities may represent the future of urban development. On a theoretical level, I am not entirely opposed to this vision. However, within the current Nepali context, the emphasis on smartness often appears to be more about rhetorical performance than real urban improvement. What our cities urgently need are integrated data systems, reliable infrastructure, and well-functioning governance. These foundational elements do not require the additional label of smartness.

As we evaluate whether cities are becoming smarter, we also need to ask whether they are becoming more sustainable and inclusive. In reality, urban residents need more access to basic services such as public toilets and clean drinking water than to free Wi-Fi. They need wide sidewalks and clean air, not just newly paved roads for automated vehicles or trenches dug for fiber-optic cables. Now is the time to resist being swept away by buzzwords and instead invest in making cities more livable, inclusive, and grounded in everyday needs.

Many advanced cities that once pursued high-tech solutions are now shifting back to human-centered urbanism. Unless Nepal is attempting to build a model city like Masdar, smartness should not be prioritized over basic urban services. Cities like Oslo already have the infrastructure and amenities to support digital enhancements. In Nepal, we first need public spaces such as parks and civic squares. We need inclusive and accessible public transportation before we can think about smart mobility. We need accountable and transparent leadership before imagining smart governance.

Cities are to be beautiful, happy, and giving — not smart and calculative.

What our cities need most are spaces rooted in culture, history, and community, guided by values of dignity and social justice. Cities should be beautiful, livable, and inclusive. They should not be reduced to technological laboratories obsessed with data and control. Urban life is not just about efficiency; it is also about meaning, connection, and shared purpose.