Smart Design Disruption Crisis and The R

Smart Design
This book tackles the emerging smart urbanism to advance a new way of ur-
ban thinking and to explore a new design approach. It unravels several urban
transformations in dualities: economic relationality and centrality, technological
flattening and polarisation, and spatial division and fusion. These dualities are
interdependent; concurrent, coexisting, and contradictory, they are jointly dis-
rupting and reshaping many aspects of contemporary cities and spaces.
The book draws on a suite of international studies, experiences, and obser-
vations, including case studies in Beijing, Singapore, and Boston, to reveal how
these processes are impacting urban design, development, and policy approaches.
The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated many changes already in motion, and
provides an extreme circumstance for reflecting on and imagining urban spaces.
These analyses, thoughts, and visions inform an urban imaginary of smart de-
sign that incorporates change, flexibility, collaboration, and experimentation,
which together forge a paradigm of urban thinking. This paradigm builds upon
the modernist and postmodernist urban design traditions and extends them in
new directions, responding to and anticipating a changing urban environment.
The book proposes a smart design manifesto to stimulate thought, trigger de-
bate, and, hopefully, influence a new generation of urban thinkers and smart de-
signers. It will be of interest to scholars, students, and practitioners in the fields
of urban design, planning, architecture, urban development, and urban studies.
Richard Hu is an award-winning urban planner, and an educator and scholar.

His work and interests integrate urban design, urban science, and urban policy
to address contemporary urban transformations and challenges, with a focus on
the Asia-Pacific area. He is the author of The Shenzhen Phenomenon (2020).
Routledge Research in Planning and Urban Design
Routledge Research in Planning and Urban Design is a series of academic mono-

graphs for scholars working in these disciplines and the overlaps between them.
Building on Routledge’s history of academic rigour and cutting-edge research,
the series contributes to the rapidly expanding literature in all areas of planning
and urban design.
The Narrative Turn in Urban Planning

Plotting the Helsinki Waterfront
Lieven Ameel
Economic Incentives in Sub-Saharan African Urban Planning

A Ghanaian Case Study
Kwasi Gyau Baffour Awuah
Street-Naming Cultures in Africa and Israel

Power Strategies and Place-Making Practices
Liora Bigon and Michel Ben Arrous
Identity in Post-Socialist Public Space

Urban Architecture in Kiev, Moscow, Berlin, and Warsaw
Bohdan Cherkes and Józef Hernik
Sustainable Urban Futures in Africa

Edited by Patrick Brandful Cobbinah and Michael Addaney
Smart Design
Disruption, Crisis, and the Reshaping of Urban Spaces
Richard Hu
For more information about this series, please visit: www.routledge.com/

Routledge-Research-in-Planning-and-Urban-Design/book-series/RRPUD
“The spatial character of any city is constantly evolving driven by the social,
economic, and political trends afforded by emerging technological developments.
Innovations in information technology since the beginning of this century and
learning from the new ways of working developed during the COVID-19 crisis
have opened a world of new possibilities for future urban life. Richard Hu places
smart urbanism and smart space into the socio-political context of cities compet-
ing for global eminence. In doing so he expertly draws on an extensive body of
research and his own experiences in describing the changes taking place in the
spatial distribution of activities and the use of public space. Smart design involves
imagining the future. Hu’s manifesto points the way forward.”
Jon Lang, Emeritus Professor of Urban Design,
University of New South Wales
“Smart technologies are reshaping urban form and function more quickly and
thoroughly than current urban design and planning approaches. At a time when
climate change, migration, and digitalisation challenge our long-standing ways
of working and living, we need new smart design approaches that go beyond
existing paradigms. Richard Hu expertly takes up this important topic, care-
fully exploring diverse international examples. As Hu appropriately concludes:
to engage with the needs and opportunities of today, we need a smart design
manifesto!”
Carola Hein, Professor and Head of the History of
Architecture and Urban Planning,
Delft University of Technology
“In this stimulating and provocative book, Richard Hu undertakes an ambitious

aim: to influence a new generation of urban thinkers and smart designers. His
timing could not be better. COVID-19 is accelerating change and disrupting
the norms upon which our current thinking about urban design was founded.
Hu combines his own experiences from different fields of practice and academia
to imagine a new paradigm of smart design in urban thinking, serving as a cap-
tivating guide and thoughtful provocateur. While he offers no simple solutions
to urban complexities and contradictions, he instead gives us something much
more useful: a smart design manifesto which offers a new way of thinking.”
Riccardo Mascia, AIA, Executive Committee, HOK
Smart Design
Disruption, Crisis, and the Reshaping
of Urban Spaces
Richard Hu
First published 2022
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2022 Richard Hu
The right of Richard Hu to be identified as author of this work has been
asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced
or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means,
now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording,
or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in
writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks
or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and
explanation without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Hu, Richard, author.
Title: Smart design : disruption, crisis, and the reshaping of urban
spaces / Richard Hu.
Description: 1 Edition. | New York, NY : Routledge, 2022. |
Series: Routledge research in planning and urban design | Includes
bibliographical references and index. |
Identifiers: LCCN 2021026180 (print) | LCCN 2021026181 (ebook) |
ISBN 9780367421762 (hardback) | ISBN 9781032132235 (paperback) |
ISBN 9780367822453 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: City planning—Technological innovations. | Urban
policy. | Smart cities. | COVID-19 (Disease)—Social aspects.
Classification: LCC HT166 .H829 2022 (print) | LCC HT166 (ebook) |
DDC 307.1/216—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021026180
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021026181
ISBN: 9780367421762 (hbk)

ISBN: 9781032132235 (pbk)
ISBN: 9780367822453 (ebk)
DOI: 10.4324/9780367822453
Typeset in Galliard
by codeMantra
Contents
List of illustrations ix
Acknowledgements xi
List of abbreviations xiii
1 Smart urbanism 1
2 Relationality and centrality 15
3 Flattening and polarisation 46
4 Division and fusion 77
5 Reimagining urban spaces in COVID-19 111
6 Towards a smart design manifesto 137
Index 161
Illustrations
Figures
1.1 A theoretical framework of smart design 7
2.1 The value of global exports, 1970–2014 18
2.2 Constructing the global space 28
2.3 Beijing’s urban forms 31
2.4 Composition of Beijing’s GDP, 1990–2018 33
2.5 Beijing CBD plan: first-prize plan vs synthetic plan 38
2.6 Beijing CBD model 40
2.7 Beijing Fortune Plaza: pre- and post-development 41
3.1 Innovation clusters in Greater Sydney 52
3.2 Gross domestic spending on R&D, 1990–2018 55
3.3 GDP shares of major industries in Singapore, 1965–2018 65
3.4 Gross domestic spending on R&D in Singapore, 1994–2018 66
3.5 Patents awarded and patents owned in Singapore, 2000–2018 67
3.6 Master plan of one-north, Singapore 71
3.7 Images of one-north, Singapore 72
4.1 Working in public space 84
4.2 Observed human activities in public spaces of Canberra’s city centre 85
4.3 A garage-conversion creative hub in Sydney 88
4.4 Habitat community, Byron Bay, Australia 89
4.5 Job shares by industry: Greater Sydney vs Western Sydney, 2016 94
4.6 Population of City of Boston and Greater Boston, 1850–2018 97
4.7 Restructured land uses in Boston’s Innovation District 101
4.8 Site, site plan, and artistic impression of Seaport Square 103
4.9 Designing District Hall, Boston’s Innovation District 105
4.10 District Hall in the heart of Boston’s Innovation District 106
5.1 Benefits of smart work 121
5.2 Barriers to smart work 122
5.3 Public spaces in COVID-19 130
x Illustrations
Tables
2.1 Number of global firms of advanced producer services in
Greater Sydney 29
6.1 Paradigm shifts in urban design 141
6.2 Major points of Toward an Urban Design Manifesto 146
Acknowledgements
This book could not have come to fruition without the contributions, assis-
tance, and support of many people in various forms. My wife Coco is a graphic
designer. She is the magician who translated my ideas and sketches into several
expertly crafted visuals in the book. She has also been the first listener and critic
of many of the book’s ideas, from its embryonic beginnings to its final shape.
Most of all, her love and encouragement have offered the greatest support dur-
ing the journey of this book and in other endeavours of mine. My six-year-old
son Eddie, with his great playful instinct, has led me to explore many spaces of
interest to him. He has taught me a lot about observing and experiencing the
usefulness and usability of public space from a child’s perspective—a space that
works for children will work for everyone. He is a particular source of my sense
of responsibility and commitment to shaping better communities for our future
generations.
My teaching experiences in urban design and placemaking at the University
of Canberra, Australia, have been a major source of many ideas that formed the
genesis of this book. My students have inspired me: by their questions, to which
I do not always have ready answers; by their curiosity to explore the unknown;
and by their passion to make a difference to our (urban) world. They have greatly
encouraged me to explore new ways to advance the discipline and the profession.
A group of PhD students (Lucas Carmody, Sajeda Tuli, and Edmund Chylinski)
and research assistants and interns (Shaun Allen, Michael Finch, Adam Murray,
and Joseph Sutton) have been involved in research projects and activities that
have contributed to, or are relevant to, this book to various degrees. My friends
Ping Cai and Cindy Chen shared their insights and personal experiences of smart
work and smart space. Justine McNamara has been a great helper with editing
and copy-editing of the manuscript.
The following people and institutions have generously contributed materials
and granted permissions to use them, or shared knowledge and information:
Yuetao Huang; Zhaoming Luo; Wei Wei; Barry Ball; Tiejun Zhang; Guohong
Li from the Beijing Central Business District Management Commission; Zaha
xii Acknowledgements
Hadid Architects; Gustav Hoiland; David J. Hacin and Anna Durkin from
Hacin + Associates; and Joanna Chow from Sasaki.
I feel indebted to numerous colleagues, friends, and thinkers and practitioners
of urban design and urban studies. Although they are not named here, our en-
gagements and their insights have influenced, indirectly or indirectly, the thesis
of the book.
Abbreviations
ABW activity-based work

ACT Australian Capital Territory
AI artificial intelligence
APS Australian Public Service
ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations
BGI Boston Global Investors
CBD central business district
CCTV closed-circuit television
CIAM Congrès Internationaux d’Architecture Moderne
CNU Congress for the New Urbanism
COVID-19 Coronavirus disease 2019
GaWC Globalization and World Cities
GCI global competitiveness index
GDP gross domestic product
GloMo global mobility index
GMI global migration index
ICT information and communications technology
IDEA Innovative Design and Economic Acceleration
IoT internet-of-things
KPF Kohn Pederson Fox
LGA local government area
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
PPP public-private partnership
R&D research and development
WTO World Trade Organization
WWII World War II
1 Smart urbanism
Introduction
We live in a ‘smart age’—a buzzword that defines the world at this time and de-
notes both opportunities and challenges. The coming of a smart age is primarily
driven by, as well as manifested through, economic and technological advances.
These advances are shifting human society and the world in ways that not only
are unprecedented, but also are unforeseeable. The smart age is one of increas-
ing change and uncertainty, encompassing economic, social, environmental,
and political transformations, and impacting almost every dimension of human
well-being. The smart age collides with an urban age, one of the ‘triumph of the
city’ (Glaeser, 2011), and they are jointly creating an emergent smart urbanism
that remains unsettled in scholarship and practice (Marvin et al., 2016). Within
cities, now inhabited by 4.38 billion people or 56 per cent of the world’s pop-
ulation (Ritchie & Roser, 2019), ‘smartness’ is a new normal, disrupting many
aspects of our living and working, as well as our perception, use, and making
of new urban spaces (Hu, 2019). These disruptions both prompt and compel
us to revisit the modernist and postmodernist urban thinking orthodoxies that
have been shaping how we understand, design, develop, critique, and manage
cities since the early 20th century. The COVID-19 pandemic has now further
disrupted the world, and raises many challenging questions about our urban
environment and our relationship with cities and the globe (United Nations,
2020). This global crisis brings urgency to the task of reflecting, holistically and
critically, on our traditional urban thinking, which took root in a pre-smart age;
we need to question its ongoing relevance and validity in a smart urbanism, and
call for a new urban vision.
Several interrelated macro processes are right under way, restructuring cities
and reconfiguring urban spaces, and contextualising the need for a new para-
digm of urban thinking and design approach. The global economy is city-based,
knowledge-intensive, and fluid (Hu, 2017; Sassen, 2018). Information technology
is revolutionising economic activities, globally and locally; it is accelerating the
contemporary globalisation process and forging global cities as new urban forms
(Sassen, 2001; Taylor & Derudder, 2016). These transformative forces are having
profound spatial impacts, disrupting the spatiality of working and living, and are
DOI: 10.4324/9780367822453-1
2 Smart urbanism
thus reshaping the ways we approach urban spaces (Hu, 2019). COVID-19 pre-
sents a compulsory circumstance under which we have to adapt to the disruptions
the pandemic has created. It also presents an occasion when we have to reflect on
the conventional approaches to places and spaces, and to seek new opportunities,
perhaps including re-spatialisation of cities, from this global crisis (Hu, 2020).
Addressing these transformative forces and their spatial impacts and implications
seems to suggest a smart design approach towards new urban spaces, which are
being made and remade along with the macro processes and consequences that
are unique to smart urbanism. This smart design approach is, ideally, marked by
innovation, collaboration, adaptability, and resilience in seeking an alternative to
the dominant modernist and postmodernist urban design traditions.
In this book, I call for debate and I propose a smart design manifesto to ad-
vocate a new urban vison, and a new paradigm of design thinking and approach.
Smart design, as an urban imaginary, is grounded in the urban transformations
of today, and is ultimately future-oriented. The ‘manifesto’ idea owes an intellec-
tual debt to Toward an urban design manifesto, by urban thinkers and practition-
ers Allan Jacobs and Donald Appleyard in the early 1980s, which advocated an
urban design shift from the modernist tradition to the postmodernist paradigm
(Jacobs & Appleyard, 1987). Building upon and extending the postmodernist
urban design ethos, the proposed smart design manifesto has a dual mission of
responding to an emerging urban trend and anticipating an imagined urban
future. It aims to explore and stimulate new urban thinking about, and design
approach to, the urban spaces being shaped by, as well as shaping, the contempo-
rary economic, technological, and spatial transformations in cities.
This introductory chapter sets the contextual, theoretical, and methodolog-
ical scene for the book and describes its aims. It posits the pursuit of smart
design as a soul-searching exercise situated in the many disruptions confront-
ing contemporary cities. The knowledge economy and information technology
have been rapidly evolving and transforming for several decades, and seem to
be reaching a critical point of profound, innovative disruption as we march into
the third decade of the 21st century. Disruptions also occur abruptly, like the
global health crisis of COVID-19 and the associated collapse of the global sys-
tem. These disruptions, both evolving and sudden, have significant impacts on
the ways we use and perceive urban spaces, and they contextualise the effort of
seeking a smart design approach. To unpack the impacts of these disruptions
on urban spaces—this book’s focus—I construct a design-centred conceptual
nexus to link these economic, technological, and spatial transformations to in-
form the smart design proposition. This nexus is the conceptual framework for
investigating each of the transformative dimensions—economy, technology, and
space—and their impacts on and implications for making new urban spaces. This
book combines empirical experiences and observations from major global cities,
reflections on emerging urban trends, and imaginations about an urban future
to propose a smart design manifesto. This manifesto integrates change, flexibil-
ity, collaboration, and experimentation as essentials of smart design for shaping
and imagining new urban spaces.
Smart urbanism 3
Searching for a smart soul in disruptions
The smart age is an age of disruptions, characterised by unprecedented and un-
foreseeable changes. It is in human nature, and in our interests, to seek order
from disorder, and to seek certainty from uncertainty. Proposing a smart design
paradigm is an effort to seek order and certainty about the shaping of new urban
spaces among disruptions. I identify two types of disruptions that are of prime
concern here. One type concerns the dominant forces of the new economy and
the new technology, redefining working and living, and connecting and restruc-
turing the world. The other type concerns COVID-19 and the resultant collapse
of the global system. These two types of disruptions converge, interact, and con-
tradict, fundamentally reshaping or ‘disrupting’ the world. COVID-19 almost
instantly became a global health crisis, a telling illustration of what contempo-
rary globalisation is about. On the other hand, this pandemic is also a deglo-
balising force, collapsing the global system that has been accelerating since the
late 20th century. Interactions and contradictions between deglobalisation and
(re)globalisation have already been at play, in international relational and geopo-
litical senses, in recent years (Garcia-Arenas, 2018; Troyjo, 2017). COVID-19,
as a public health crisis, simply amplifies and dramatises these tensions. These
global forces and processes contextualise this book’s focus, which, geospatially,
is downscaled from the globe to the city, to focus on a disruptive urbanism.
It has almost become a cliché to talk about how the current economic and
technological transformations are qualitatively different from those in history.
Indeed, they are fundamentally disrupting many norms in the ways we live and
work that have been established over hundreds, or even thousands, of years.
They are also accelerating the pace of change, creating new opportunities as
well as challenges not previously seen. In the context of these transformative
processes, innovation holds the key to disruptions—to be disrupting or to be
disrupted (Blakely & Hu, 2019). Our work is being redefined, ‘shifting all work-
ers’ day-to-day time, effort, and attention from executing routine, tightly de-
fined tasks to identifying and addressing unseen problems and opportunities’
(Deloitte, 2018, p. 6). Many jobs become instantly obsolete; many new jobs are
being created, requiring new sets of capabilities and skills. Due to displacement
caused by automation, nearly 40 per cent of current US jobs that involve routine
or physical tasks could shrink or disappear between now and 2030 (McKinsey &
Company, 2019). A university degree does not guarantee a career for life; it just
marks the beginning of a career journey during which graduates need to learn
more new skills to adapt to and survive frequent changes. Two-thirds of early-
career Australians (less than five years’ work experience) expect that their jobs
will not exist, or will fundamentally change, in the next 15 years; 52 per cent
already see their qualifications as not being ‘very much’ relevant to their work
(Deloitte, 2016). In preparing graduates for a knowledge economy, research—
the capacity to discover new knowledge—is not limited to curricula for students
working towards research degrees such as a PhD. It is an essential, indispensable
element of every stage of tertiary education. The traditional university–industry
4 Smart urbanism
binary is being fused into a closer partnership—an innovation ecosystem to in-
cubate knowledge activities and outputs (Pancholi et al., 2020).
A globalised knowledge economy and the digital revolution are rescaling and
reconfiguring spatiality at macro and micro levels. The world is being shrunk,
spatially and temporally, with easy, instant outreach and connection. The ubiq-
uity of information access is de-spatialising many human activities—living,
working, transacting, educating, and entertaining—that are traditionally based
in distinct spaces. Global cities are interlinked urban nodes of a global system;
places are locally based and globally connected; spaces are reinvented and rein-
terpreted to represent both physical and virtual realms. In terms of spatiality, a
mixture of the global and the local, the physical and the virtual, is challenging
our approach to urban spaces, and our comprehension and use of these spaces.
Planners and designers are starting to address a disruptive urbanism—the shar-
ing economy, autonomous vehicles, the internet-of-things (IoT), and cloud
computing—to explore new planning approaches and tools, but there are no
ready or easy solutions.
COVID-19 has come at a critical moment when globalisation seems to be at
a crossroads. The pandemic has had a crippling effect on the global systems of
economic integration and the movement of people, both hallmarks of contem-
porary globalisation, and has exacerbated many existing geopolitical differences
and confrontations. A global health crisis, which requires global collaboration
in scientific discovery and crisis relief, is being politicised and ideologised to
further divide the world. The pandemic seems to be a final stage of the deglo-
balisation process that has been driven by geopolitical forces in much of the
second decade of the 21st century. COVID-19 is also pausing local systems in
cities and communities, restricting physical interactions and social engagements.
Businesses such as restaurants, tourism, sports, and entertainment that require
face-to-face activities have experienced the hardest blow, and many of these have
suffered loss of revenue and jobs, or have simply closed down. Almost all sectors
have been affected by the pandemic to various degrees, but those sectors that
have experienced the greatest economic and technological transformation—the
most knowledge-intensive sectors—seem to be more resilient than those that
are more traditional. Some hi-tech sectors are even finding new growth op-
portunities, including in the e-commerce, fintech, and teleconferencing and
communications industries (The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2020). Working
from home tests the adaptability and resilience of many knowledge activities in a
digital age. Investing in digital infrastructure and developing a digital economy
are prioritised in many countries’ post-COVID-19 economic recovery plans.
COVID-19 is also testing many propositions about spatial disruptions and the
economic and technological transformations that underlie them. Debates on
the pros and cons of smart work—working anywhere and anytime—have been
surging, along with increasing demand for and practice of this as a new way of
working and living (Hu, 2019). COVID-19 has disrupted all barriers and im-
posed a compulsory practice of smart work—specifically, working from home.
Smart urbanism 5
The pandemic has also boosted reflections on and imaginations about urban
spaces, already reshaped in recent decades by economic and technological dis-
ruptions, in a post-COVID-19 world.
These disruptions, whether related to a globalised knowledge economy or
digital technology, or the exposure and dramatisation of these in a global health
crisis, converge on a conceptual core of ‘smartness’. This ‘smartness’ is the en-
gine behind many of the disruptions that permeate the globe, defining the smart
age and differentiating it from the pre-smart age. Generally speaking, the world
witnessed a booming of the knowledge economy and information technology in
the 1990s, and an accelerated and interwoven development of these in the 21st
century (Blakely & Hu, 2019). I broadly refer to this period from the 1990s
on as a smart age; it is a period that has also coincided with an accelerated glo-
balisation process I refer to as a global age. The use of these terms—‘smart
age’ and ‘global age’—does not imply that they are fundamentally different
from each other or mutually exclusive. In fact, they share key attributes such
as knowledge-intensiveness and technological advances. These terms are used
to highlight their different conceptual focuses. The use of the term ‘smart age’
is meant to capture the conceptual core of ‘smartness’ that underpins a vari-
ety of associated disruptions and their influences. These disruptions are related
to many prominent, challenging issues in contemporary cities: competitiveness
and economic transition, innovation and technology, good governance, social
inclusion, and environmental sustainability. The spatial dimension of the dis-
ruptions, in particular, presents an intellectual and practical dilemma. The ur-
ban design orthodoxies—both the modernist tradition and the postmodernist
tradition—have taken root and evolved in a pre-smart age; the new urban spaces,
in emergence and imagination, suggest the need to retheorise urban thinking
to respond to and anticipate a new urban phenomenon in a smart age—smart
urbanism. The proposition of smart design, in this sense, is an attempt to search
for a smart soul in disruptions.
An economy–technology–space nexus
Smart design sits squarely within the discourse of smart urbanism, an emerging
urban phenomenon, vision, and scholarly field. But this book’s use of smart ur-
banism articulates with, but differentiates itself from, the common understand-
ing of the term as described below:
Smart urbanism is emerging at the intersection of visions for the future of

urban places, new technologies and infrastructures … the dominant vision
is of the meshing of interactive infrastructure, high-tech urban develop-
ment, the digital economy and e-citizens. [Smart urbanism] discourses are
deeply rooted in seductive and normative visions of the future where digital
technology stands as the primary driver for change.
(Luque-Ayala & Marvin, 2015, p. 2105)
6 Smart urbanism
As this statement notes, smart urbanism has an explicit techno-centrism: it has
been coined and used to refer to the smart city discourse (Cardullo & Kitchin,
2019; Kitchin, 2014; Luque et al., 2014; Marvin et al., 2016). This techno-
centrism of the smart city, or smart urbanism, despite its growing popularity
in the last decade, has been questioned and criticised. Alternative smart vi-
sions have been proposed: advocacy for smart citizenship to enable the citizens’
right to the city, and community entitlement and participation (Cardullo &
Kitchin, 2019); consideration of a thorough ‘urbanism’—including local socio-
economic, cultural-political, and environmental contingencies—in smart ur-
banism (Verrest & Pfeffer, 2019); and utilisation of technology as a tool to
pursue a ‘smart enough’ city that is liveable, democratic, just, responsible, and
innovative (Green, 2019). Admittedly, smart urbanism is a field in its infancy,
suffering disciplinary fragmentation and lacking the theoretical insight and em-
pirical evidence to assess its potential transformation (Luque-Ayala & Marvin,
2015). This book does not intend to join the scholarly debates on smart ur-
banism per se. Rather, it uses smart urbanism—a transformative phenomenon
at the broad intersection of a smart age and an urban age—to contextualise its
central focus on smart design. It goes beyond a techno-centric perspective to
tackle the economic, technological, and spatial disruptions that are integral to
smart urbanism.
I have created a theoretical framework to illustrate the relationships between
the several focal constructs of this book—economy, technology, space, and
smart design—and the key attributes of each of these in smart urbanism. As
outlined in Figure 1.1, economy, technology, and space—the three major do-
mains of disruptions discussed above—forge a contextual, conceptual nexus that
converges on the proposition of smart design. Structured on this framework,
this book addresses the essential attributes of these constructs and, more im-
portantly, their relationships. The economy–technology–space nexus contains
three dualities, with one duality in each of the three disruptive domains: rela-
tionality and centrality in economy, flattening and polarisation in technology,
and division and fusion in space. Each of these dualities is a paradox—a unity of
opposites that concur, coexist, and contradict in interdependence. None of the
dualities work independently; they work interactively to foster a new paradigm
of urban thinking and design approach—smart design—with a set of distinctive
attributes. These three dualities are the central theses capturing the latest eco-
nomic, technological, and spatial transformations in contemporary cities. These
conceptual dualities are dealt with at length in Chapters 2–4. A brief introduc-
tion to each is provided below.
Relationality and centrality in the economic domain are a function of contem-
porary globalisation and urbanisation processes that work together to reinvent
the roles of cities in a globalised world. The world is city-based, a statement that
has two connotations. First, the urbanisation rate—an important indicator of
human development—passed 50 per cent in 2007, and it is projected that more
than two-thirds of the world population, close to seven billion people, will live
in cities by the middle of this century (Ritchie & Roser, 2019). Second, cities are
Smart urbanism 7
Figure 1.1 A theoretical framework of smart design.
the urban nodes in a netlike structure that is the bedrock of the functioning of
the global economy (Taylor & Derudder, 2016). Urbanisation is being redefined,
from being seen as a demographic phenomenon of rural–urban population con-
version to being understood as the economic transformation of cities as they are
integrated into the global economic system (Hu, 2018). Globalisation is a major
force in shaping the planning and development of cities, large or small, across
the world. As a result, cities are being restructured, both globally and locally.
Globally, intercity relationships are increasingly intense and complex, occurring
through movements of people, goods, services, and information in physical and
digital forms (Sassen, 2018). These relationships are more than a conventional
categorisation of either ‘competitive’ or ‘collaborative’; contemporary cities are
‘relational’ (Hu, 2017). Locally, globalisation is a centralising force within cit-
ies, concentrating global economic activities within certain areas, normally the
central business districts (CBDs), to reconfigure these areas into global spaces
(Sassen, 2001, 2016). These attributes of relationality and centrality have un-
derlined many urban transformations in contemporary global cities, recreating
global spaces to accommodate those global economic activities and to occupy a
competitive position in the global economic system.
8 Smart urbanism
Flattening and polarisation in the technological domain capture how informa-
tion technology is disrupting the world, technologically and non-technologically.
The duality in this thesis, first of all, calls into question the metaphor ‘the world
is flat’, a concept proposed and popularised by Thomas L. Friedman in his
best-selling book of the same title (Friedman, 2007). Indeed, the revolutionary
advances in digital technology are flattening the world, in a geographical sense.
Digital technology has shrunk space, conquered distance, accelerated contempo-
rary globalisation, and constructed a ‘network society’ (Castells, 2000). It is also
the major medium of the knowledge economy, significantly reducing the cost,
and improving the efficiency, of transmitting and transacting knowledge and
information (Pratchett et al., 2017). In these senses, such technology is a flat-
tening force. However, the notion of flattening captures a partial picture only,
and fails to reflect the entirety of the technological disruption. In its early stages,
digitalisation even propelled visions of the death of distance and raised concerns
about the future of cities, but these thoughts were immediately refuted by actual
empirical evidence (Hall, 1998, 2002). Digital technology is also a polarising
force, creating new winners and losers in social, geographical, and geopolitical
senses. The ‘digital divide’, whether stemming from digital literacy or finan-
cial barriers, adds to existing inequalities in broad material, non-material, social,
and educational areas (van Dijk, 2006). Geographically, although the coverage
and outreach of digital technology has flattened in recent decades, the capacity
for inventing and delivering such technology is increasingly uneven—it is con-
centrated in certain locations, often those that have fostered an ecosystem of
place-based innovation (Blakely & Hu, 2019). Places, cities, and nations, as multi-
scalar actors, are participating in a global innovation race to win a competitive
edge. This race is now being mixed with geopolitical confrontations between
major power nations, exacerbating a technology-induced divide. Technology is
not just ‘democratising’ knowledge and information by ‘flattening’ the world, as
often utopianised; it is also polarising the world.
Division and fusion are two opposite forms of spatiality that coexist, and that
both complement and contradict each other. The economic and technological
transformations discussed above are disrupting urban spaces, driving a spatial
transformation along a general trajectory from division to fusion. Space divides;
space is also divided. Conventional planning and design are centred on creating
spatial divisions, mainly through classifying land uses and space uses, and impos-
ing zoning and coding (Hu, 2019). The tools of modern planning and design
have been established in an industrial age; they are an industrial legacy with dis-
tinctive industrial flavour and features. However, this industrial legacy is being
disrupted by the emerging new urban spaces, thanks to the new economy and
technology, which cannot be ‘industrialised’ in terms of spatial divisions. One
prominent feature of this spatial disruption is the increased blurring of different
spaces that were originally created to divide uses and functions. This blurring
signifies a trend towards spatial fusion instead of, and opposed to, spatial divi-
sion. This division–fusion shift marks probably the most profound spatial dis-
ruption in smart urbanism. ‘Mixed-use’ has become a hallmark of postmodernist
Smart urbanism 9
urban design, reflecting a wish to create dynamic, liveable, healthy, and sustain-
able urban spaces (Grant, 2002). But spatial fusion is more than mixed-use: the
former is a fusion of space uses into a new form of spatiality that is not classified
by uses; the latter maintains different space uses but mixes them within a prox-
imity to generate easy accessibility and interaction between them. Spatial fusion
also distinguishes itself from the aspiration of ‘mixed-life’, which captures the
idea of creating public spaces that are diverse, democratic, inclusive, and mem-
orable (Francis, 2011). Spatial fusion, in contrast, involves the transformations
of all space uses—public and private. Further, it extends to ‘space of place’ and
‘space of flow’ (Castells, 2000), fusing both the physical domain and the virtual
domain: a binary representation of spatiality unique to the smart age. Spatial
division and fusion characterise the process of and tension in making new urban
spaces in the context of smart urbanism.
These three disruptions in contemporary cities—as represented by the three
conceptual dualities of economic relationality and centrality, technological flat-
tening and polarisation, and spatial division and fusion—contextualise, drive,
and require a new urban thinking paradigm that aligns to the new urban en-
vironment. Smart design is proposed to capture a disruptive, smart urbanism.
Instead of offering a set of design prescriptions or a toolkit, it advances and
advocates a ‘smart’ urban thinking, building upon and extending beyond con-
ventional urban approaches. Maintaining an intellectual continuity with mod-
ernist and postmodernist urban design traditions, smart design has distinctive
attributes that define it as a paradigm of urban thinking in its own right. Among
other elements, the four attributes of change, flexibility, collaboration, and ex-
perimentation are particularly prominent. These attributes are the essentials of a
smart design manifesto, integrating design vision, approach, process, outcome,
management, and governance (elaborated in Chapter 6). Not only is smart de-
sign a design approach to creating new urban spaces in smart urbanism, but it is
also an advocacy for a culture change to break urban thinking’s path dependence
on the pre-smart age.
Underpinned by a smart design-centred nexus that interlocks economy, tech-
nology, and space in contemporary cities, as outlined above, this book aims to:
• examine the global economy, the global city system, and their spatial im-
pacts within global cities through the remaking of global space
• investigate the digital technology and innovation, and their influences on
smart transformation of urban strategy and development
• unpack the spatial transformation in contemporary cities and the co-making
of smart space
• observe and reflect on the impacts of COVID-19 to reimagine urban spaces
• propose a smart design manifesto to explore and advocate a new way of ur-
ban thinking in the context of smart urbanism.
The structure of this book is aligned with these aims, with each of the aims ad-
dressed in a subsequent chapter.
10 Smart urbanism
Experiential, reflective, and imaginative
I combine experiences, practices, and observations from a suite of urban design,
development, and policy fields to inform reflections on and imaginations about a
new paradigm of smart design in urban thinking. These approaches are centred
on the three conceptual dualities—relationality and centrality, flattening and
polarisation, and division and fusion—that operationalise and represent, respec-
tively, the economic, technological, and spatial disruptions of smart urbanism.
To further illustrate how each of these conceptual dualities—a paradox of op-
posites in unity—work and shape new urban spaces, I conduct a case study of a
major global city for each duality. For economic relationality and centrality, I use
the case of Beijing CBD to demonstrate how the making of global space is both
a spatial impact of the global economy and the result of a local urban strategy to
aspire to global city status. For technological flattening and polarisation, I use
Singapore to showcase the city-state’s smart transformation—‘smartisation’—
through capitalising on the technological revolution to win a leading position
in a global innovation race. For spatial division and fusion, I use Boston’s Inno-
vation District to reveal a co-making process that has transformed an industrial
district—a pre-smart urban legacy—into a smart space and an exemplary area of
place-based innovation.
These cases represent the latest urban developments, policies, practices, and
projects. They either involve a certain smart design approach to creating new,
smart, collaborative urban spaces, or have some implications for smart design
thinking and reveal certain new trends in spatial transformations. These ex-
periences from the field provide an enhanced understanding of the spatial im-
pacts of the new economy and the new technology. They help develop global
best practices and provide lessons in pursuing smart design, collaborative space,
and place-based innovation. Further, I reflect on my own experiences and ob-
servations of the COVID-19 pandemic, using these to envision an urban op-
portunity that is crisis-derived and future-oriented. Fusing this multitude of
experiential and reflective understandings with a critical examination of histor-
ical paradigm shifts in urban design informs a new urban vision and demon-
strates the imperative of pursuing smart design in the shaping and imagining
of new urban spaces.
This book is an exploratory endeavour. Its aim is more to trigger debate and
provoke thought than to provide any ready answer and solution. It aligns several
contemporary discourses—globalisation at a crossroads, the global crisis (pan-
demic and geopolitical), the globalised knowledge economy, new technology,
urban spaces, and sustainability—into a design-centred nexus to establish an
interdisciplinary dialogue to both enhance scholarship and inform practice. In
doing so, it intends to bridge the academic and professional arms of urban de-
sign and broad urbanism through grappling with a disruptive, smart urbanism,
exploring a smart design paradigm, and stimulating, hopefully, a new generation
of urban thinkers and smart designers.
Smart urbanism 11
Overview of the book
In this first chapter, I have outlined the context, framework, aims, and ap-
proaches of this book. The remaining five chapters address the five aims listed
above within these contextual, theoretical, and methodological underpinnings.
Chapter 2 investigates the urban and spatial impacts of the global economy.
In a digital, neoliberal, and globalised world, the nature of the global economy
is being intensified: it is knowledge-intensive, involving borderless knowledge
diffusion and the global mobility of knowledge workers. The global economy
is city-based, creating global space—a new form of urban space—in major cities
to accommodate global economic activities and workers. The global space has
a distinctive feature that is not shared by non-global spaces in our cities. The
global space is designed and developed to enable economic intermediation—the
economic activities that intermediate a complex and interlinked global econ-
omy and thus require a high degree of knowledge-generating capacity. Creating
such global spaces has become a top urban strategy goal in many global cities.
Building them, however, is often a process that involves destruction and recon-
struction, and creates new winners and losers. In Beijing, a global CBD has been
built within two decades, in an urban form that represents a stark contrast to the
ancient capital city. Beijing CBD provides a compelling illustration of the spatial
impacts of the global economy and a government-led global city strategy and
remaking of global space.
Chapter 3 examines the digital technology revolution and its effects on
urban space and urban strategy. The new technology has been growing ex-
ponentially, with the latest round of advances reflected especially in forms of
ubiquitous access to information, automation, and artificial intelligence (AI).
The rapidity of these technological advances is bringing increasing disrup-
tion and is profoundly changing the way we work and live. There has been a
common belief that the new technology is democratising knowledge access
and diffusion, and the world is flattening. This belief captures only a partial
representation of the new technology’s global outreach. At the same time, the
new technology is creating new social divide and spatial polarisation. Global
innovation capacity is uneven, geospatially, between nations, between cities,
and within cities. A global innovation race is intensifying, and all the time in-
creasingly mingled with economic and geopolitical competitions. The recent
smart city movement is largely a techno-centric exercise by many cities to get
involved in the global innovation race and to gain a competitive ‘smart’ edge.
City-state Singapore has exemplified many aspects of the technology-derived
smart transformation. Singapore’s ‘smartisation’ and the pathway it has taken
to becoming a global innovation leader can be attributed mainly to integrated
policy and institutional design in areas of population, infrastructure, indus-
try, and research and development (R&D), which are then translated into
effective downstream implementation through dedicated urban planning and
design.
12 Smart urbanism
Chapter 4 analyses the spatiality of the knowledge economy and new technol-
ogy through the lenses of smart work and smart space. Smart work is character-
ised by the two distinct attributes of temporal-spatial flexibility and collaborative
consumption–production; it is a mode of work that is unique to smart urbanism.
Smart work breaks the conventional divisions of time, space, consumption, and
production, and fuses them into a new way of working and living, and into a
new form of spatiality. Further, it deconstructs and reconstructs a new type of
space—smart space. Smart work and smart space pose a question about the va-
lidity of traditional land use and space use classification and coding—legacies of
an industrial, pre-smart age—as the basis of our design thinking and approach
in the smart age. The discourses of smart work and smart space are mingling
with a growing global interest in pursuing place-based innovation to inform a
‘smart’ approach for urban strategy, design, and placemaking. Boston’s Inno-
vation District presents a case of transforming an underdeveloped tract of land
into a smart space to incubate innovation and help transform the local economy
into a knowledge economy. This case study illustrates how a government-led co-
making process has adapted to the new urban settings to explore an alternative
urban development and design approach.
Chapter 5 addresses several key aspects of the disruptions COVID-19 has made
to urban spaces. It employs a crisis–opportunity perspective to approach the pan-
demic’s impacts on local communities, on the way we work and live, and the way
we access and use spaces. Among other things, COVID-19 has created a compul-
sory situation where establishing a virtual community, nurturing a compassionate
community spirit, and creating profound engagement and dialogue with nature
have become both possible and essential. Responding and adapting to COVID-19
has accelerated the practice of smart work and the making of collaborative space,
which had already been emerging at a faster pace in the last decade than previ-
ously. COVID-19 has provided an extreme setting to test and enable changes,
and suggests the likelihood of these emerging trends being translated into a new
normal. This new normal, once established in the post-CVOID-19 world, will
possibly necessitate new thinking about workplace management and space design,
likely to disrupt many norms rooted in an industrial age. Fundamentally, the
pandemic is exposing the challenges and imperatives of an urban world, especially
in areas of urban governance, urban space, and urban technology, which call for
critical reflections and imaginations during and after COVID-19.
The concluding chapter proposes a smart design manifesto, based on pinpoint-
ing the imperatives for pursuing smart design in the new contexts of economic,
technological, and spatial disruptions in smart urbanism, many of which are be-
ing exposed and expedited through the COVID-19 pandemic. It examines the
historical paradigm shifts in urban design to unpack intellectual and professional
continuity and change through and between them, so as to further inform an
understanding of a smart turn in urban design. Smart design is more a way of ur-
ban thinking than a design toolkit. It is a design approach that is both responsive
and anticipatory: responding to an emerging urban trend and anticipating an
urban future. Smart design is an urban imaginary characterised by adaptability
Smart urbanism 13
and resilience, charged with addressing the increasing change, uncertainty, and
disruption in contemporary urban environment. For this reason, smart design,
through its very nature as a way of urban thinking, is essentially about endorsing
and advocating change, flexibility, collaboration, and experimentation in shap-
ing and imagining new urban spaces.
References
Blakely, E. J., & Hu, R. (2019). Crafting Innovative Places for Australia’s Knowledge
Economy. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cardullo, P., & Kitchin, R. (2019). Smart urbanism and smart citizenship: The neolib-
eral logic of ‘citizen-focused’ smart cities in Europe. EPC: Politics and Space, 37(5),
813–830.
Castells, M. (2000). The Rise of the Network Society (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Deloitte. (2016). The future of work: How can we adapt to survive and thrive. Re-
trieved on 6 December 2016 from https://www.charteredaccountantsanz.com/
news-and-analysis/insights/research-and-insights/the-future-of-work
Deloitte. (2018). Redefine work: The untapped opportunity for expanding value. Re-
trieved on 15 November 2018 from https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/
insights/us/articles/4779_Redefine-work/DI_Redefine-work.pdf
The Economist Intelligence Unit. (2020). Digital disruption: Risks and opportunities in
the shift to online. Retrieved on 16 December 2020 from https://www.eiu.com/n/
campaigns/digital-disruption-risks-and-opportunities-in-the-shift-to-online/
Francis, M. (2011). Mixed-life places. In T. Banerjee & A. Loukaitou-Sideris (Eds.), Com-
panion to Urban Design (pp. 432–445). London and New York: Routledge.
Friedman, T. (2007). The World Is Flat. New York: Picador.
Garcia-Arenas, J. (2018). Globalisation at a historic crossroads: Deglobalisation or reglo-
balisation? CaixaBank Research (September), 31–32.
Glaeser, E. (2011). Triumph of the City: How Urban Spaces Make Us Human. London:
Pan Books.
Grant, J. (2002). Mixed use in theory and practice: Canadian experience with implement-
ing a planning principle. Journal of the American Planning Association, 68(1), 71–84.
Green, B. (2019). The Smart Enough City: Putting Technology in Its Place to Reclaim Our
Urban Future. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press.
Hall, P. (1998). Cities in Civilization. New York: Pantheon Books.
Hall, P. (2002). Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and De-
sign in the Twentieth Century (3rd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Hu, R. (2017). Relational Global Cities: Singapore, Shanghai, and Sydney. Canberra:
University of Canberra & Urban Taskforce Australia.
Hu, R. (2018). Planning for economic development. In C. Hein (Ed.), The Routledge
Handbook of Planning History (pp. 313–324). London and New York: Routledge.
Hu, R. (2019). Spatial disruption and planning implication of the sharing economy:
A study of smart work in Canberra, Australia. International Journal of Knowledge-Based
Development, 10(4), 315–337.
Hu, R. (2020). COVID-19, smart work, and collaborative space: A crisis–opportunity
perspective. Journal of Urban Management, 9(3), 276–280.
Jacobs, A., & Appleyard, D. (1987). Toward an urban design manifesto. Journal of the
American Planning Association, 53(1), 112–120.
14 Smart urbanism
Kitchin, R. (2014). The real-time city? Big data and smart urbanism. GeoJournal, 79,
1–14.
Luque, A., Marvin, S., & McFarlane, C. (2014). Smart urbanism: Cities, grids and al-
ternatives? In M. Hodson & S. Marvin (Eds.), After Sustainable Cities? (pp. 74–90).
London and New York: Routledge.
Luque-Ayala, A., & Marvin, S. (2015). Developing a critical understanding of smart ur-
banism? Urban Studies, 52(12), 2105–2116.
Marvin, S., Luque-Ayala, A., & McFarlane, C. (Eds.). (2016). Smart Urbanism: Utopian
Vision or False Dawn? London and New York: Routledge.
McKinsey & Company. (2019). The future of work in America: People and places, to-
day and tomorrow. Retrieved on 22 May 2020 from https://www.mckinsey.com/
featured-insights/future-of-work/the-future-of-work-in-america-people-and-places-
today-and-tomorrow
Pancholi, S., Yigitcanlar, T., Guaralda, M., Mayere, S., Caldwell, G. A., & Medland, R.
(2020). University and innovation district symbiosis in the context of placemaking:
Insights from Australian cities. Land Use Policy, 99, Article 105109.
Pratchett, L., Hu, R., Walsh, M., & Tuli, S. (2017). The Knowledge City Index: A Tale
of 25 Cities in Australia 2017. Canberra: The neXus Research Centre at University of
Canberra.
Ritchie, H., & Roser, M. (2019). Urbanization. Retrieved on 13 December 2020 from
https://ourworldindata.org/urbanization#how-many-people-will-live-in-urban-areas-
in-the-future
Sassen, S. (2001). The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo (2nd ed.). Princeton: Prince-
ton University Press.
Sassen, S. (2016). The global city: Enabling economic intermediation and bearing its
costs. City & Community, 15(2), 97–108.
Sassen, S. (2018). Cities in a World Economy (5th ed.). London: Sage.
Taylor, P. J., & Derudder, B. (2016). World City Network: A Global Urban Analysis (2nd
ed.). London and New York: Routledge.
Troyjo, M. (2017). The clash between deglobalization and reglobalization: Megatrends
now shaping the future of ‘re-emerging markets’. Retrieved on 4 May 2020 from https://
w w w.huffpost.com/entry/the-clash-between-deglobalization-reglobalization_
b_586e8e2de4b0a5e600a78907
United Nations. (2020). Policy brief: COVID-19 in an urban world. Retrieved on 21 Oc-
tober 2020 from https://unsdg.un.org/resources/policy-brief-covid-19-urban-world
van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2006). Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings.
Poetics, 34, 221–235.
Verrest, H., & Pfeffer, K. (2019). Elaborating the urbanism in smart urbanism: Distilling
relevant dimensions for a comprehensive analysis of Smart City approaches. Informa-
tion, Communication & Society, 22(9), 1328–1342.
Smart urbanism
Blakely, E. J. , & Hu, R. (2019). Crafting Innovative Places for Australia’s Knowledge Economy.
Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cardullo, P. , & Kitchin, R. (2019). Smart urbanism and smart citizenship: The neoliberal logic of
‘citizen-focused’ smart cities in Europe. EPC: Politics and Space, 37(5), 813–830.
Deloitte . (2016). The future of work: How can we adapt to survive and thrive. Retrieved on 6
December 2016 from https://www.charteredaccountantsanz.com/news-and-
analysis/insights/research-and-insights/the-future-of-work
Deloitte . (2018). Redefine work: The untapped opportunity for expanding value. Retrieved on
15 November 2018 from
https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/insights/us/articles/4779_Redefine-work/DI_Redefine-
work.pdf
The Economist Intelligence Unit . (2020). Digital disruption: Risks and opportunities in the shift
to online. Retrieved on 16 December 2020 from https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/digital-
disruption-risks-and-opportunities-in-the-shift-to-online/
Francis, M. (2011). Mixed-life places. In T. Banerjee & A. Loukaitou-Sideris (Eds.), Companion
to Urban Design (pp. 432–445). London and New York: Routledge.
Garcia-Arenas, J. (2018). Globalisation at a historic crossroads: Deglobalisation or
reglobalisation? CaixaBank Research (September), 31–32.
Glaeser, E. (2011). Triumph of the City: How Urban Spaces Make Us Human. London: Pan
Books.
Grant, J. (2002). Mixed use in theory and practice: Canadian experience with implementing a
planning principle. Journal of the American Planning Association, 68(1), 71–84.
Green, B. (2019). The Smart Enough City: Putting Technology in Its Place to Reclaim Our
Urban Future. Cambridge, MA and London: MIT Press.
Hall, P. (1998). Cities in Civilization. New York: Pantheon Books.
Hall, P. (2002). Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design in the
Twentieth Century (3rd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Hu, R. (2017). Relational Global Cities: Singapore, Shanghai, and Sydney. Canberra: University
of Canberra & Urban Taskforce Australia.
Hu, R. (2018). Planning for economic development. In C. Hein (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook
of Planning History (pp. 313–324). London and New York: Routledge.
Hu, R. (2019). Spatial disruption and planning implication of the sharing economy: A study of
smart work in Canberra, Australia. International Journal of Knowledge-Based Development,
10(4), 315–337.
Hu, R. (2020). COVID-19, smart work, and collaborative space: A crisis–opportunity
perspective. Journal of Urban Management, 9(3), 276–280.
Jacobs, A. , & Appleyard, D. (1987). Toward an urban design manifesto. Journal of the
Kitchin, R. (2014). The real-time city? Big data and smart urbanism. GeoJournal, 79, 1–14.
Luque, A. , Marvin, S. , & McFarlane, C. (2014). Smart urbanism: Cities, grids and alternatives?
In M. Hodson & S. Marvin (Eds.), After Sustainable Cities? (pp. 74–90). London and New York:
Routledge.
Luque-Ayala, A. , & Marvin, S. (2015). Developing a critical understanding of smart urbanism?
Urban Studies, 52(12), 2105–2116.
Marvin, S. , Luque-Ayala, A. , & McFarlane, C. (Eds.). (2016). Smart Urbanism: Utopian Vision
or False Dawn? London and New York: Routledge.
McKinsey & Company . (2019). The future of work in America: People and places, today and
tomorrow. Retrieved on 22 May 2020 from https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/future-
of-work/the-future-of-work-in-america-people-and-places-today-and-tomorrow
Pancholi, S. , Yigitcanlar, T. , Guaralda, M. , Mayere, S. , Caldwell, G. A. , & Medland, R.
(2020). University and innovation district symbiosis in the context of placemaking: Insights from
Australian cities. Land Use Policy, 99, Article 105109.
Pratchett, L. , Hu, R. , Walsh, M. , & Tuli, S. (2017). The Knowledge City Index: A Tale of 25
Cities in Australia 2017. Canberra: The neXus Research Centre at University of Canberra.
Ritchie, H. , & Roser, M. (2019). Urbanization. Retrieved on 13 December 2020 from
https://ourworldindata.org/urbanization#how-many-people-will-live-in-urban-areas-in-the-future
Sassen, S. (2001). The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo (2nd ed.). Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Sassen, S. (2016). The global city: Enabling economic intermediation and bearing its costs. City
& Community, 15(2), 97–108.
Sassen, S. (2018). Cities in a World Economy (5th ed.). London: Sage.
Taylor, P. J. , & Derudder, B. (2016). World City Network: A Global Urban Analysis (2nd ed.).
Troyjo, M. (2017). The clash between deglobalization and reglobalization: Megatrends now
shaping the future of ‘re-emerging markets’. Retrieved on 4 May 2020 from
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-clash-between-deglobalization-
reglobalization_b_586e8e2de4b0a5e600a78907
United Nations . (2020). Policy brief: COVID-19 in an urban world. Retrieved on 21 October
2020 from https://unsdg.un.org/resources/policy-brief-covid-19-urban-world
van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2006). Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings. Poetics,
34, 221–235.
Verrest, H. , & Pfeffer, K. (2019). Elaborating the urbanism in smart urbanism: Distilling relevant
dimensions for a comprehensive analysis of Smart City approaches. Information,
Communication & Society, 22(9), 1328–1342.
Relationality and centrality

Back, L. , & Sinha, S. (2019). Migrant City. London and New York: Routledge.
Baldwin, R. (2016). The Great Convergence: Information Technology and the New
Globalization. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Beijing CBD Construction and Management Office . (2001). Planning Schemes of Beijing
Central Business District. Beijing: Economic Press China.
Beijing Municipal Bureau of Statistics . (2019). Beijing regional statistics yearbook 2019 [bei jing
qu yu tong ji nian jian 2019]. Retrieved on 3 July 2020 from
http://nj.tjj.beijing.gov.cn/nj/qxnj/2019/zk/indexch.htm
Benton-Short, L. , Price, M. D. , & Friedman, S. (2005). Globalization from below: The ranking of
global immigrant cities. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 29(4), 945–959.
Brenner, N. (1999). Globalisation as reterritorialisation: The re-scaling of urban governance in
the European Union. Urban Studies, 36(3), 431–451.
Burnley, I. (2000). Diversity and difference: Immigration and the multicultural city. In J. Connell
(Ed.), Sydney: The Emergence of a World City (pp. 244–272). Melbourne: Oxford University
Press.
Collins, F. L. (2018). Global Asian City: Migration, Desire and the Politics of Encounter in 21st
Century Seoul. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Derudder, B. , & Taylor, P. J. (2020). Three globalizations shaping the twenty-first century:
Understanding the new world geography through its cities. Annals of the American Association
of Geographers, 110(6), 1831–1854.
Docherty, I. , Gulliver, S. , & Drake, P. (2004). Exploring the potential benefits of city
collaboration. Regional Studies Policy Impact Books, 38(4), 445–456.
The Economist . (2020, 16–22 May). Goodbye globalisation. The Economist, 7.
Farrer, J. (2019). International Migrants in China’s Global City: The New Shanghailanders.
Florida, R. (2014). The Rise of the Creative Class (Revised ed.). New York: Basic Books.
Freestone, R. , Davison, G. , & Hu, R. (2019). Designing the Global City: Design Excellence,
Competitions and the Remaking of Central Sydney. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan.
Friedmann, J. (1986). The world city hypothesis. Development and Change, 17(1), 69–84.
Fukuyama, F. (1992). The End of History and the Last Man. New York: Free Press.
GaWC . (2020). The world according to GaWC 2020. Retrieved on 9 October 2020 from
https://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/world2020t.html
Greater Sydney Commission . (2018). Greater Sydney Region Plan A Metropolis of Three
Cities—Connecting People. Sydney: Greater Sydney Commission.
Hu, R. (2012a). Clustering: Concentration of the knowledge-based economy in Sydney. In T.
Yigitcanlar , K. Metaxiotis , & J. Carrillo (Eds.), Building Prosperous Knowledge Cities: Policies,
Plans and Metrics (pp. 195–212). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Hu, R. (2012b). Shaping a global Sydney: The City of Sydney’s planning transformation in the
1980s and 1990s. Planning Perspectives, 27(3), 347–368.
Hu, R. (2014a). Migrant knowledge workers: An empirical study of global Sydney as a
knowledge city. Expert Systems with Application, 41(12), 5605–5613.
Hu, R. (2014b). Remaking of central Sydney: Evidence from floor space and employment
surveys in 1991–2006. International Planning Studies, 19(1), 1–24.
Hu, R. (2015a). Canberra’s competitiveness in the national context. Policy Studies, 36(1),
55–71.
Hu, R. (2015b). Competitiveness, migration, and mobility in the global city: Insights from
Sydney, Australia. Economies, 3(1), 37–54.
Hu, R. (2017). Relational Global Cities: Singapore, Shanghai, and Sydney. Canberra: University
of Canberra & Urban Taskforce Australia.
Hu, R. (2020a). Australia’s national urban policy: The smart cities agenda in perspective.
Australian Journal of Social Issues, 55(2), 201–217.
Hu, R. (2020b). The Shenzhen Phenomenon: From Fishing Village to Global Knowledge City.
Hu, R. , Blakely, E. , & Zhou, Y. (2013). Benchmarking the competitiveness of Australian global
cities: Sydney and Melbourne in the global context. Urban Policy and Research, 31(4),
435–452.
Hugo, G. (2008). Sydney: The globalization of an established immigrant gateway. In M. Price &
L. Benton-Short (Eds.), Migrants to the Metropolis: The Rise of Immigrant Gateway Cities (pp.
68–96). New York: Syracuse University Press.
JLL . (2017). The rise of Beijing CBD core area [bei jing CBD he xin qu de jue qi]. Retrieved on
9 July 2020 from https://www.joneslanglasalle.com.cn/zh/trends-and-insights/research/the-
superblock-story--beijing-s-bold-business-hub#.XwbEgAvE6tc.link
Kathiravelu, L. (2016). Migrant Dubai: Low Wage Workers and the Construction of a Global
City. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ke, H. , & Yang, S. (2016). Perseverance: The spirit of Beijing planners [zhi zhuo: bei jing gui
hua ren de jing qi shen er]. Beijing Planning Review, (5), 16–19.
Kresl, P. K. , & Singh, B. (1999). Competitiveness and the urban economy: Twenty-four large
US metropolitan areas. Urban Studies, 36(5–6), 1017–1027.
Kresl, P. K. , & Singh, B. (2012). Urban competitiveness and US metropolitan centres. Urban
Studies, 49(2), 239–254.
Migration Data Portal . (2020). Urbanization and migration. Retrieved on 18 June 2020 from
https://migrationdataportal.org/themes/urbanisation-et-migration
O’Neill, P. , & McGuirk, P. (2003). Reconfiguring the CBD: Work and discourses of design in
Sydney’s office space. Urban Studies, 40(9), 1751–1767.
Ortiz-Ospina, E. , & Beltekian, D. (2018). Trade and globalization. Retrieved on 1 February
2021 from https://ourworldindata.org/trade-and-globalization
Punter, J. (2005). Urban design in central Sydney 1945–2002: Laissez-faire and discretionary
traditions in the accidental city. Progress in Planning, 63(1), 11–160.
Ren, X. (2012). From Peking to Beijing: Production of centrality in the global age. In M.
Peterson & G. W. McDonogh (Eds.), Global Downtowns (pp. 48–64). Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Ren, X. (2013). Urban China. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Samers, M. (2002). Immigration and the global city hypothesis: Towards an alternative research
agenda. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 26(2), 389–402.
Sassen, S. (2001). The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo (2nd ed.). Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Sassen, S. (2016). The global city: Enabling economic intermediation and bearing its costs. City
& Community, 15(2), 97–108.
Shanghai Urban Planning and Land Resource Administration Bureau . (2018). Shanghai Master
Plan 2017–2035. Shanghai: Shanghai Urban Planning and Land Resource Administration
Bureau.
Sit, V. F. S. (1995). Beijing: The Nature and Planning of a Chinese Capital City. Chichester:
John Wiley & Sons.
Sit, V. F. S. (1996). Soviet influence on urban planning in Beijing, 1949–1991. Town Planning
Review, 67(4), 457–484.
Taylor, P. J. , & Derudder, B. (2016). World City Network: A Global Urban Analysis (2nd ed.).
Taylor, P. J. , Ni, P. , Derudder, B. , Hoyler, M. , Huang, J. , & Witlox, F. (Eds.) (2011). Global
Urban Analysis: A Survey of Cities in Globalization. London and Washington, DC: Earthscan.
Troyjo, M. (2017). The clash between deglobalization and reglobalization: Megatrends now
shaping the future of ‘re-emerging markets’. Retrieved on 4 May 2020 from
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-clash-between-deglobalization-
reglobalization_b_586e8e2de4b0a5e600a78907
Vogel, E. F. (1991). The Four Little Dragons: The Spread of Industrialization in East Asia.
Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press.
Wang, Y. , Du, Q. , Zhao, F. , & Du, Y. (2019). A review and analysis of Beijing CBD’s
development path [bei jing CBD fa zhan zhi lu hui gu yu jie xi]. Retrieved on 3 July 2020 from
www.chinado.cn/?p=7047
Wei, Y. D. , & Yu, D. (2006). State policy and the globalization of Beijing: Emerging themes.
Habitat International, 30(3), 377–395.
The World Bank . (2021). Urban population. Retrieved on 3 February 2021 from
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS?end=2019&start=1980
World Health Organization . (2021). Urban population growth. Retrieved on 3 February 2021
from https://www.who.int/gho/urban_health/situation_trends/urban_population_growth/en/
Yang, Z. , Cai, J. , Ottens, H. F. L. , & Sliuzas, R. (2013). City profile: Beijing. Cities, 31,
491–506.
Ye, J. (2016). Class Inequality in the Global City: Migrants, Workers and Cosmopolitanism in
Singapore. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Zacharias, J. , & Yang, W. (2016). A short history of the Chinese central business district.
Planning Perspectives, 31(4), 611–633.
Zhou, Y. (1998). Beijing and the development of dual central business districts. Geographical
Review, 88(3), 429–436.
Flattening and polarisation

Agency for Science Technology and Research . (2020). Patents applied, awarded and owned
by sector. Retrieved on 7 August 2020 from https://data.gov.sg/dataset/patents-applied-
awarded-and-owned-by-sector
Ahvenniemi, H. , Huovila, A. , Pinto-Seppä, I. , & Airaksinen, M. (2017). What are the
differences between sustainable and smart cities? Cities, 60, 234–245.
Albino, V. , Berardi, U. , & Dangelico, R. M. (2015). Smart cities: Definitions, dimensions,
performance, and initiatives. Journal of Urban Technology, 22(1), 3–21.
Angelidou, M. (2015). Smart cities: A conjuncture of four forces. Cities, 47, 95–106.
Anthopoulos, L. (2017). Smart utopia vs smart reality: Learning by experience from 10 smart
city cases. Cities, 63, 128–148.
Australian Bureau of Statistics . (2018). Census of population and housing, 2016, TableBuilder.
Retrieved on 6 October 2020 from
https://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/tablebuilder
Aw, A. (2005). Singapore: The One-north Project. Paper presented at the 41st IsoCaRP
Congress, Bilbao, Spain. Retrieved on 21 February 2021 from
https://isocarp.org/app/uploads/2015/02/Bilbao-2005-Keynote-Arthur-Aw.pdf
Bin, T. S. , & Low, D. (2019). Re-examining Singapore’s urban planning and governance
framework. In S. Hamnett & B. Yuen (Eds.), Planning Singapore: The Experimental City (pp.
37–62). London and New York: Routledge.
Boon, T. T. (2015). Smart Nation & Its Implications: The State in a Hyper-connected Singapore.
Singapore: S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University.
Calder, K. E. (2016). Singapore: Smart City, Smart State. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution
Press.
Clark, J. (2020). Uneven Innovation: The Work of Smart Cities. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Dijk, J. A. G. M. v. (2006). Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings. Poetics, 34,
221–235.
Ding, S. (2015). Modernization without democratization in the digital age: China’s
micromanagement of its contentious state-society relations. Asian Journal of Political Science of
the Total Environment, 23(1), 1–22.
The Economist . (2020, 27 July). The pandemic is widening educational inequality. Retrieved on
28 July 2020 from https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/07/27/the-pandemic-is-
widening-educational-inequality
Esmaeilpoorarabi, N. , Yigitcanlar, T. , & Guaralda, M. (2018). Place quality in innovation
clusters: An empirical analysis of global best practices from Singapore, Helsinki, New York, and
Sydney. Cities, 74, 156–168.
Florida, R. , Mellander, C. , & King, K. (2015). The Global Creativity Index 2015. Toronto: Martin
Prosperity Institute, University of Toronto.
Foo, S. L. , & Pan, G. (2016). Singapore’s vision of a smart nation. Asian Management Insights,
3(1), 76–82.
Gibbs, D. , Krueger, R. , & MacLeod, G. (2013). Grappling with smart city politics in an era of
market triumphalism. Urban Studies, 50(11), 2151–2157.
Government Technology Agency of Singapore . (2020, 8 June). 30% increase in FY 2020 ICT
spend to accelerate digitalisation & support businesses. Retrieved on 14 August 2020 from
https://www.tech.gov.sg/media/media-releases/thirty-percent-increase-fy2020-ict-spend-to-
accelerate-digitalisation-and-support-businesses
Herrschel, T. (2013). Competitiveness and sustainability: Can ‘smart city regionalism’ square
the circle? Urban Studies, 50(11), 2332–2348.
Ho, E. (2017). Smart subjects for a Smart Nation? Governing (smart)mentalities in Singapore.
Urban Studies, 54(13), 3101–3118.
Hoe, S. L. (2016). Defining a smart nation: The case of Singapore. Journal of Information,
Communication and Ethics in Society, 14(4), 323–333.
Hu, R. (2015). Sustainable development strategy for the global city: A case study of Sydney.
Sustainability, 7(4), 4549–4563.
Hu, R. (2020). Australia’s national urban policy: The smart cities agenda in perspective.
Australian Journal of Social Issues, 55(2), 201–217.
Hu, R. , Blakely, E. , & Zhou, Y. (2013). Benchmarking the competitiveness of Australian global
cities: Sydney and Melbourne in the global context. Urban Policy and Research, 31(4),
435–452.
Jie, W. J. (2018). Singapore’s Smart Nation initiative—A policy and organisational perspective.
Retrieved on 22 February 2021 from https://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/docs/default-source/case-
studies/singapores_smart_nation_initiative
Juniper Research . (2017). Smart Cities—What’s in It for Citizens? Hampshire, UK: Juniper
Research.
Khern, N. C. (2019). Digital government, Smart Nation: Pursuing Singapore’s tech imperative.
Retrieved on 6 August 2020 from https://www.csc.gov.sg/articles/digital-government-smart-
nation-pursuing-singapore’s-tech-imperative
Kong, L. , & Woods, O. (2018). The ideological alignment of smart urbanism in Singapore:
Critical reflections on a political paradox. Urban Studies, 55(4), 679–701.
Lee, H. L. (2014). Speech by Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong at Smart Nation launch, 24
November 2014. Retrieved on 10 August 2020 from
https://www.pmo.gov.sg/Newsroom/transcript-prime-minister-lee-hsien-loongs-speech-smart-
nation-launch-24-november
Loan, D. , & Thuy, H. (2020, 9 December). It’s official: HCMC to get its Thu Duc City. Retrieved
on 16 December 2020 from https://e.vnexpress.net/news/news/it-s-official-hcmc-to-get-its-thu-
duc-city-4203973.html
Mahizhnan, A. (1999). Smart cities: The Singapore case. Cities, 16(1), 13–18.
McFarlane, C. , & Soderstrom, O. (2017). On alternative smart cities: From a technology-
intensive to a knowledge-intensive smart urbanism. City, 21(3–4), 312–328.
McKinsey & Company . (2019). The future of work in America: People and places, today and
tomorrow. Retrieved on 22 May 2020 from https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/future-
of-work/the-future-of-work-in-america-people-and-places-today-and-tomorrow
McNeill, D. (2015). Global firms and smart technologies: IBM and the reduction of cities.
Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 40(4), 562–574.
Meijer, A. , & Thaens, M. (2018). Urban technological innovation: Developing and testing a
sociotechnical framework for studying smart city projects. Urban Affairs Review, 54(2),
363–387.
Ministry of National Development . (2013). A High Quality Living Environment for All
Singaporeans: Land Use Plan to Support Singapore’s Future Population. Singapore: Ministry of
National Development.
Ministry of Trade and Industry—Department of Statistics . (2019). Gross domestic product at
current prices, by industry (SSIC), annual. Retrieved on 7 August 2020 from
https://data.gov.sg/dataset/gross-domestic-product-at-current-market-prices-
annual?resource_id=294756bc-9cf6-41c9-872a-487f4bd191b6
Morphet, R. (2017). Singapore smart city Smart Nation report. Retrieved on 22 February 2021
from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Paul_Mullins7/project/Urban-Informatics-
2/attachment/5991a580b53d2ff30bd9b586/AS:527248776232961@1502717312726/download/
Singapore+Smart+City+Smart+Nation+Report.pdf?context=ProjectUpdatesLog
OECD . (2017). OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2017: The Digital
Transformation. Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD . (2020). Gross domestic spending on R&D. Retrieved on 7 August 2020 from
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/industry-and-services/gross-domestic-spending-on-r-
d/indicator/english_d8b068b4-en
Powers, J. (2019). Singapore’s economic development: The dilemma of managing success. In
S. Hamnett & B. Yuen (Eds.), Planning Singapore: The Experimental City (pp. 63–81). London
and New York: Routledge.
PwC . (2016). Cities of opportunity 7. Retrieved on 14 September 2020 from
https://www.pwc.com/us/en/cities-of-opportunity/2016/cities-of-opportunity-7-report.pdf
Ruhlandt, R. W. S. (2018). The governance of smart cities: A systematic literature review.
Cities, 81, 1–23.
Schwab, K. (Ed.). (2019). The Global Competitiveness Report. Geneva: World Economic
Forum.
Shelton, T. , Zook, M. , & Wiig, A. (2015). The ‘actually existing smart city’. Cambridge Journal
of Regions, Economy and Society, 8(1), 13–25.
Smart Nation and Digital Government Office . (2020). Transforming Singapore. Retrieved on 13
August 2020 from https://www.smartnation.gov.sg/why-Smart-Nation/transforming-singapore
Tan, K. P. (2017). Governing Global-City Singapore: Legacies and Futures after Lee Kuan Yew.
Tan, M. (1999). Creating the digital economy: Strategies and perspectives from Singapore.
International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 3(3), 105–122.
Tuli, S. C. , & Hu, R. (2018). Knowledge economy and migrant knowledge workers in the global
city: A case study of Melbourne, Australia. Australian Planner, 55(2), 126–144.
Urban Redevelopment Authority . (2020). Concept Plan 2011 and MND Land Use Plan.
Retrieved on 12 August 2020 from https://www.ura.gov.sg/Corporate/Planning/Concept-
Plan/Land-Use-Plan
Wiig, A. (2015). IBM’s smart city as techno-utopian policy mobility. City, 19(2–3), 258–273.
Wiig, A. (2016). The empty rhetoric of the smart city: From digital inclusion to economic
promotion in Philadelphia. Urban Geography, 37(4), 535–553.
Wong, K. W. , & Bunnell, T. (2006). ‘New economy’ discourse and spaces in Singapore: A case
study of one-north. Environment and Planning A, 38(1), 69–83.
Woods, O. (2020). Subverting the logics of ‘smartness’ in Singapore: Smart eldercare and
parallel regimes of sustainability. Sustainable Cities and Society, 53, Article 101940.
Xu, L. (2017, 20 October). Xinhua insight: China embraces new ‘principal contradiction’ when
embarking on new journey. Retrieved on 23 April 2021 from
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-10/20/c_136694592.htm
Yigitcanlar, T. , & Kamruzzaman, M. (2018). Does smart city policy lead to sustainability of
cities? Land Use Policy, 73, 49–58.
Yigitcanlar, T. , Kamruzzaman, M. , Buys, L. , Ioppolo, G. , Sabatini-Marques, J. , Costa, E. M.
d., & Yun, J. J. (2018). Understanding ‘smart cities’: Intertwining development drivers with
desired outcomes in a multidimensional framework. Cities, 81, 145–160.
Zaha Hadid Architects . (2001). One-north master plan. Retrieved on 16 October 2020 from
https://www.zaha-hadid.com/masterplans/one-north-masterplan/
Division and fusion

ACT Government . (2019). Designated activity based work environment policy. Retrieved on 30
August 2020 from
https://www.cmtedd.act.gov.au/__data/assets/word_doc/0009/1371492/Designated-activity-
based-work-environment-
policy.docx#:~:text=ABW%20environments%20are%20designed%20to,spaces%20designed%2
0to%20increase%20connectivity.
Adlakha, D. , Marquet, O. , Hipp, J. A. , & Tully, M. A. (2017). Pokémon GO or Pokémon gone:
How can cities respond to trends in technology linking people and space? Cities & Health, 1(1),
89–94.
Alizadeh, T. , & Sipe, N. (2013). Impediments to teleworking in live/work communities: Local
planning regulations and tax policies. Urban Policy and Research, 31(2), 208–224.
Australian Bureau of Statistics . (2018). Census of population and housing, 2016, TableBuilder.
https://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/tablebuilder. Retrieved 6 October
2020 https://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/tablebuilder
Australian Government . (2016). Smart Cities Plan. Canberra: Department of the Prime Minister
and Cabinet.
Australian Government . (2018a). Implementation: Western Sydney City Deal. Canberra:
Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities.
Australian Government . (2018b). Statement of Principles for Australian Innovation Precincts:
Place-Based Partnerships Building on Competitive Strengths. Canberra: Department of
Industry, Innovation and Science.
Australian Government . (2019). City Deals. Retrieved on 4 June 2019 from
https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/cities/city-deals/index.aspx
Australian Government . (2020). Western Sydney City Deal. Retrieved on 7 October 2020 from
https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/cities/city-deals/western-sydney/
Baily, M. N. , & Montalbano, N. (2018). Clusters and Innovation Districts: Lessons from the
United States Experience. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
Bevilacqua, C. , & Pizzimenti, P. (2016). Urban Innovation-oriented Policies and Knowledge
Dynamics: Insights from Boston and Cambridge, US. Paper presented at the UrbanPromo
2016: A New Cycle of Urban Planning between Tactics and Strategy, 8–11 November , Milan,
Italy.
Boston Global Investors . (2020). Seaport Square. Retrieved on 13 October 2020 from
https://www.bginvestors.com/master-plan/seaport-square/
The Boston Planning and Development Agency . (2012). Transformation of Innovation District
and South End. Retrieved on 12 October 2020 from http://www.bostonplans.org/news-
calendar/news-updates/2012/12/13/bra-staff-present-to-the-community
The Boston Planning and Development Agency . (2020a). Boston’s economy: Pre-pandemic
baseline. Retrieved on 12 October 2020 from Boston:
http://www.bostonplans.org/getattachment/3859d9ed-aabd-4030-8afb-95c210abcaf5
The Boston Planning and Development Agency . (2020b). Innovating Boston. Retrieved on 22
August 2020 from http://www.bostonplans.org/business-
dev/initiatives/innovationboston/overview
Carmona, M. (2010). Contemporary public space: Critique and classification, part one: Critique.
Journal of Urban Design, 15(1), 123–148.
Castells, M. (2003). Public space in the information society. Retrieved on 22 August 2020 from
https://www.publicspace.org/multimedia/-/post/public-space-in-the-information-society
Census Reporter . (2018a). Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH Metro Area. Retrieved on 9
October 2020 from https://censusreporter.org/profiles/31000US14460-boston-cambridge-
newton-ma-nh-metro-area/
Census Reporter . (2018b). Boston, MA. Retrieved on 9 October 2020 from
https://censusreporter.org/profiles/16000US2507000-boston-ma/
Chatterji, A. , Glaeser, E. L. , & Kerr, W. R. (2013). Clusters of Entrepreneurship and Innovation.
Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Crang, M. (2000). Public space, urban space and electronic space: Would the real city please
stand up? Urban Studies, 37(2), 301–317.
Dohse, D. , Fornahl, D. , & Vehrke, J. (2018). Fostering place-based innovation and
internationalization—The new turn in German technology policy. European Planning Studies,
26(6), 1137–1159.
The Economist . (2020, 16 December). Home-working had its advantages, even in the 18th
century. The Economist. Retrieved on 12 January 2021 from
https://www.economist.com/christmas-specials/2020/12/16/home-working-had-its-advantages-
even-in-the-18th-century?frsc=dg%7Ce
Falck, O. , Koenen, J. , & Lohse, T. (2019). Evaluating a place-based innovation policy:
Evidence from the innovative Regional Growth Cores Program in East Germany. Regional
Science and Urban Economics, 79, Article 103480.
GaWC . (2020). The world according to GaWC 2020. Retrieved on 9 October 2020 from
https://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/world2020t.html
Glaeser, E. L. (2005). Reinventing Boston: 1630–2003. Journal of Economic Geography, 5(2),
119–153.
Greater Sydney Commission . (2018). Greater Sydney Region Plan A Metropolis of Three
Cities—Connecting People. Sydney: Greater Sydney Commission.
Hacin + Associates . (2010). Seaport Square in Boston’s Innovation District. Boston: Boston
Global Investors.
Hamari, J. , Sjöklint, M. , & Ukkonen, A. (2015). The sharing economy: Why people participate
in collaborative consumption. Journal of the Association for Information Science and
Technology, 67(9), 2047–2059.
Hampton, K. N. , Livio, O. , & Goulet, L. S. (2010). The social life of wireless urban spaces:
Internet use, social networks, and the public realm. Journal of Communication, 60(4), 701–722.
Heerwagen, J. H. , Kampschroer, K. , Powell, K. M. , & Loftness, V. (2004). Collaborative
knowledge work environments. Building Research & Information, 32(6), 510–528.
Hu, R. (2013). Urban design plans for downtown San Francisco: A paradigm shift? Journal of
Urban Design, 18(4), 517–533.
Hu, R. (2019a). City Deals: Old wine in new bottles. In M. Evans , M. Grattan , & B. McCaffrie
(Eds.), From Turnbull to Morrison: The Trust Divide (pp. 242–255). Melbourne: Melbourne
University Press.
Hu, R. (2019b). Spatial disruption and planning implication of the sharing economy: A study of
10(4), 315–337.
Hu, R. (2021). Remaking the border: The proposed border expansion of Canberra in the
1960–70s revisited in the planning and development context of the 21st century. Planning
Perspectives, 36(2), 309–335.
Hua, Y. , Loftness, V. , Kraut, R. , & Powell, K. M. (2010). Workplace collaborative space layout
typology and occupant perception of collaboration environment. Environment and Planning B:
Planning and Design, 37(3), 429–448.
Humphreys, L. (2010). Mobile social networks and urban public space. New Media & Society,
12(5), 763–778.
Innovation Catalyst Global . (2020). Innovation map. Retrieved on 6 October 2020 from
https://staging.innovationmap.global/
Katz, B. , & Wagner, J. (2014). The Rise of Innovation Districts: A New Geography of Innovation
in America. Washington, DC: Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings.
Kearney . (2019). Global Cities Index 2019. Retrieved on 9 October 2020 from
https://www.kearney.com/global-cities/2019
KPF . (2020). Seaport Square innovation district. Retrieved on 23 October 2020 from
https://www.kpf.com/projects/seaport-square
Maddock, S. , & Robinson, B. (2010). Place Based Innovation. London: Department for
Business Innovation & Skills.
Marino, M. D. , & Lapintie, K. (2017). Emerging workplaces in post-functionalist cities. Journal of
Urban Technology, 24(3), 5–25.
Mariotti, I. , Pacchi, C. , & Vita, S. D. (2017). Coworking spaces in Milan: Location patterns and
urban effects. Journal of Urban Technology, 24(3), 47–66.
Menino, T. M. (2010, 4 January). The honorable Thomas M. Menino inaugural address.
https://www.cityofboston.gov/TridionImages/2010%20Thomas%20M%20%20Menino%20Inaug
ural%20final_tcm1-4838.pdf
Mercer . (2019). Quality of living city ranking. Retrieved on 9 October 2020 from
https://mobilityexchange.mercer.com/insights/quality-of-living-rankings
Monardo, B. (2019). Innovation districts as turbines of smart strategy policies in US and EU:
Boston and Barcelona experience. In F. Calabrò , L. Della Spina , & C. Bevilacqua (Eds.), New
Metropolitan Perspectives: Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies (pp. 322–335). Cham:
Springer International Publishing.
Morgan, K. (2019). 7. The future of place-based innovation policy (as if ‘lagging regions’ really
mattered). Regional Studies Policy Impact Books, 1(2), 79–89.
Mori Memorial Foundation . (2019). Global Power City Index 2019. Retrieved on 9 October
2020 from http://www.mori-m-foundation.or.jp/pdf/GPCI2019_summary.pdf
Morisson, A. (2015). Innovation Districts: A Toolkit for Urban Leaders. Middletown, DE:
CreativeSpace.
Pajević, F. , & Shearmur, R. G. (2017). Catch me if you can: Workplace mobility and big data.
Journal of Urban Technology, 24(3), 99–115.
Pancholi, S. , Yigitcanlar, T. , Guaralda, M. , Mayere, S. , Caldwell, G. A. , & Medland, R.
(2020). University and innovation district symbiosis in the context of placemaking: Insights from
Australian cities. Land Use Policy, 99, Article 105109.
Pratchett, L. , Hu, R. , Buick, F. , & Carmody, L. (2015). Smart Work in the ACT and Region.
Canberra: Globalisation and Cities Research Program, University of Canberra.
Rissola, G. , Bevilacqua, C. , Monardo, B. , & Trillo, C. (2019). Place-Based Innovation
Ecosystems: Boston-Cambridge Innovation Districts (USA). Luxembourg: Publications Office of
the European Union.
Rissola, G. , Hervás, F. , Slavcheva, M. , & Jonkers, K. (2017). Place-Based Innovation
Ecosystems: Espoo Innovation Garden and Aalto University (Finland). Luxembourg:
Publications Office of the European Union.
Rissola, G. , Sörvik, J. , Zingmark, A. , & Ardenfors, M. (2019). Place-Based Innovation
Ecosystems: Volvo Companies in Gothenburg (Sweden). Luxembourg: Publications Office of
the European Union.
Rodriguez, H. , Congdon, D. , & Ampelas, V. (2016). The Development of Boston’s Innovation
District: A Case Study of Cross-sector Collaboration and Public Entrepreneurship. Brooklyn,
NY: The Intersector Project.
Sasaki . (2020). Seaport Square master plan. Retrieved on 23 October 2020 from
https://www.sasaki.com/projects/seaport-square-master-plan/
Southworth, M. (2014). Public life, public space, and the changing art of city design. Journal of
Urban Design, 19(1), 37–40.
Spinuzzi, C. (2012). Working alone together: Coworking as emergent collaborative activity.
Journal of Business and Technical Communications, 26(4), 399–441.
2thinknow . (2019). Innovation Cities Index 2019: Global. Retrieved on 9 October 2020 from
https://www.innovation-cities.com/index-2019-global-city-rankings/18842/
The Venture Café Foundation . (2018). District Hall 2018 impact report. Retrieved on 12
October 2020 from http://districthallboston.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/DH-2018-Impact-
Report-9.pdf
Wagner, J. , & Watch, D. (2017). Innovation Spaces: The New Design of Work. Washington,
DC: The Brookings Institution.
Wikipedia . (2020a). Boston. Retrieved on 9 October 2020 from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston
Wikipedia . (2020b). Greater Boston. Retrieved on 9 October 2020 from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Boston#Metropolitan_Statistical_Area_(MSA)
Wohlers, C. , & Hertel, G. (2018). Longitudinal effects of activity-based flexible office design on
teamwork. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 2016.
WS Development . (2020). Boston Seaport. Retrieved on 15 October 2020 from
https://www.wsdevelopment.com/our-properties/boston-seaport-2/
Reimagining urban spaces in COVID-19

Allam, Z. , Dey, G. , & Jones, D. S. (2020). Artificial intelligence (AI) provided early detection of
the coronavirus (COVID-19) in China and will influence future urban health policy internationally.
AI, 1(2), 156–165.
Australian Bureau of Statistics . (2016). 2016 Census QuickStats: Australian Capital Territory.
Retrieved on 27 June 2020 from
https://quickstats.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2016/quickstat/8A
CTE?opendocument
Australian Bureau of Statistics . (2020). National, state and territory population. Retrieved on 12
March 2021 from https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/national-state-and-
territory-population/jun-2020
Australian Government . (2021). Coronavirus (COVID-19) current situation and case numbers.
Retrieved on 12 March 2021 from https://www.health.gov.au/news/health-alerts/novel-
coronavirus-2019-ncov-health-alert/coronavirus-covid-19-current-situation-and-case-numbers
Baird, M. , & Dinale, D. (2020). Preferences for Flexible Working Arrangements: Before, During
and After COVID-19. Canberra: Fair Work Commission, Commonwealth of Australia.
Biddle, N. , Edwards, B. , Gray, M. , & Sollis, K. (2020). Hardship, Distress, and Resilience: The
Initial Impacts of COVID-19 in Australia. Canberra: ANU Centre for Social Research and
Methods.
Bladen, L. (2020, 27 April). ‘Record use’ of Canberra’s parks and reserves but people warned
after dogs cause damage. The Canberra Times. Retrieved on 3 May 2020 from
https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6736105/record-use-of-canberras-parks-and-reserves-
but-not-everyone-is-following-the-rules/?cs=14329
Boland, B. , Smet, A. D. , Palter, R. , & Sanghvi, A. (2020). Reimagining the office and work life
after COVID-19. Retrieved on 12 March 2021 from https://www.mckinsey.com/business-
functions/organization/our-insights/reimagining-the-office-and-work-life-after-covid-19
Cassells, R. , Duncan, A. , Mavisakalyan, A. , Phillimore, J. , Seymour, R. , & Tarverdi, Y.
(2018). Future of work in Australia: Preparing for tomorrow’s world. Retrieved on 16 November
2018 from https://bcec.edu.au/assets/BCEC-Future-of-Work-in-Australia-Report.pdf
Chen, L. , & Yuan, X. (2020). China’s ongoing battle against the coronavirus: Why did the
lockdown strategy work well? Socio-Ecological Practice Research, 2, 175–180.
Colley, L. , & Williamson, S. (2020). Working during the Pandemic: From Resistance to
Revolution? Canberra: UNSW Canberra.
Dingwall, D. (2020, 19 August). Public service bosses warming to working from home, survey
shows. The Canberra Times. Retrieved on 30 November 2020 from
https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6883811/public-service-bosses-warming-to-working-
from-home-survey-shows/
The Economist . (2020, 12–18 September). What a way to make a living. The Economist,
18–20.
The Economist Intelligence Unit . (2020). Digital disruption: Risks and opportunities in the shift
to online. Retrieved on 16 December 2020 from https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/digital-
disruption-risks-and-opportunities-in-the-shift-to-online/
Goetz, J. L. , Keltner, D. , & Simon-Thomas, E. (2010). Compassion: An evolutionary analysis
and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin, 136(3), 351–374.
Hamidi, S. , Sabouri, S. , & Ewing, R. (2020). Does density aggravate the COVID-19 pandemic?
Early findings and lessons for planners. Journal of the American Planning Association, 86(4),
495–509.
He, A. J. , Shi, Y. , & Liu, H. (2020). Crisis governance, Chinese style: Distinctive features of
China’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Policy Design and Practice, 3(3), 242–258.
Honey-Rosés, J. , Anguelovski, I. , Chireh, V. K. , Daher, C. , Bosch, C. K. v. d., Litt, J. S. ,
Mawani, V. , McCall, M. K. , Orellana, A. , Oscilowicz, E. , Sánchez, U. , Senbel, M. , Tan, X. ,
Villagomez, E. , Zapata, O. , & Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J. (2020). The impact of COVID-19 on public
space: An early review of the emerging questions—design, perceptions and inequities. Cities &
Health. doi:10.1080/23748834.2020.1780074
Hooper, M. (2018). Flatulence, filth, and urban form: Do primes for hygiene influence
perceptions of urban density? Journal of Planning Education and Research.
doi:10.1177/0739456X18805546
Hooper, M. (2020). Pandemics and the future of urban density. Retrieved on 11 October 2020
from https://www.gsd.harvard.edu/2020/04/have-we-embraced-urban-density-to-our-own-peril-
michael-hooper-on-hygiene-public-perception-and-the-urban-penalty-in-a-global-pandemic/
Hu, R. (2015). Canberra’s competitiveness in the national context. Policy Studies, 36(1), 55–71.
Hu, R. (2019a). Spatial disruption and planning implication of the sharing economy: A study of
10(4), 315–337.
Hu, R. (2019b). The state of smart cities in China: The case of Shenzhen. Energies, 12(22),
Article 4375.
Hu, R. (2021). Remaking the border: The proposed border expansion of Canberra in the
1960–70s revisited in the planning and development context of the 21st century. Planning
Perspectives, 36(2), 309–335.
Hu, R. , & Blakely, E. (2013). Measuring tourism as the economic driver of Australian sea
change communities. Community Development, 44(3), 323–335.
Marino, M. D. , & Lapintie, K. (2017). Emerging workplaces in post-functionalist cities. Journal of
Urban Technology, 24(3), 5–25.
McHarg, I. L. (1969). Design with Nature. New York: Natural History Press.
McLennan, C. (2021, 12 March). City to country exodus may be permanent, economist says.
The Canberra Times. Retrieved on 12 March 2021 from
https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/7164211/city-to-country-exodus-may-be-permanent-
economist-says/?cs=14329
Mei, C. (2020). Policy style, consistency and the effectiveness of the policy mix in China’s fight
against COVID-19. Policy and Society, 39(3), 309–325.
Newman, P. (2020). COVID, CITIES and CLIMATE: Historical precedents and potential
transitions for the new economy. Urban Science, 4(3), Article 32.
Nilles, J. M. (1975). Telecommunications and organizational decentralization. IEEE
Transactions on Communications, 23(10), 1142–1147.
OECD . (2020). Tackling Coronavirus (COVID-19): Contributing to a Global Effort: Cities Policy
Responses. Paris: OECD.
Ortega, F. , & Orsini, M. (2020). Governing COVID-19 without government in Brazil: Ignorance,
neoliberal authoritarianism, and the collapse of public health leadership. Global Public Health,
15(9), 1257–1277.
Palko, H. C. , & Xiang, W. N. (2020). In fighting common threats, people’s deep commitment to
taking collective action matters: Examples from China’s COVID19 battle and her other combats.
Socio-Ecological Practice Research, 2, 257–264.
Pratchett, L. , Hu, R. , Walsh, M. , & Tuli, S. (2017). The Knowledge City Index: A Tale of 25
Cities in Australia 2017. Canberra: The neXus Research Centre at University of Canberra.
Prime Minister of Australia . (2020). Digital business plan to drive Australia’s economic recovery
[Press release]. Retrieved on 30 October 2020 from https://www.pm.gov.au/media/digital-
business-plan-drive-australias-economic-recovery
Redman, E. (2020). COVID-change: It’s the new tree-change or sea-change for city dwellers.
Retrieved on 12 May 2020 from https://www.domain.com.au/news/covid-change-its-the-new-
tree-change-or-sea-change-for-city-dwellers-954376/
Schlossberg, M. , Lewis, R. , Whalen, A. , Haley, C. , Lewis, D. , Kataoka, N. , & Larson-Friend,
J. (2021). Rethinking Streets during COVID-19. Portland, Oregon: Transportation Research and
Education Center, University of Oregon.
Shangguan, Z. , Wang, M. Y. , & Sun, W. (2020). What caused the outbreak of COVID-19 in
China: From the perspective of crisis management. International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, 17(9), 3279.
Sharifi, A. , & Khavarian-Garmsir, A. R. (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic: Impacts on cities and
major lessons for urban planning, design, and management. Science of the Total Environment,
749, Article 142391.
Shawa, R. , Kimb, Y-k., & Hua, J. (2020). Governance, technology and citizen behavior in
pandemic: Lessons from COVID-19 in East Asia. Progress in Disaster Science, 6, 100090.
Spinuzzi, C. (2012). Working alone together: Coworking as emergent collaborative activity.
Journal of Business and Technical Communications, 26(4), 399–441.
Strauss, C. , Taylor, B. L. , Gua, J. , Kuyken, W. , Baer, R. , Jones, F. , & Cavanagh, K. (2016).
What is compassion and how can we measure it? A review of definitions and measures. Clinical
Psychology Review, 47, 15–27.
Ulubasoglu, M. , & Onder, Y. K. (2020, 29 June). Teleworkability in Australia. The Conversation.
Retrieved on 30 June 2020 from https://theconversation.com/teleworkability-in-australia-41-of-
full-time-and-35-of-part-time-jobs-can-be-done-from-home-140723
United Nations . (2020). Policy brief: COVID-19 in an urban world. Retrieved on 21 January
2021 from https://unsdg.un.org/resources/policy-brief-covid-19-urban-world
Wagner, J. , & Watch, D. (2017). Innovation Spaces: The New Design of Work. Washington,
DC: Brookings.
Wang, O. (2020, 19 October). China GDP: Economy grew by 4.9 per cent in third quarter of
2020. South China Morning Post. Retrieved from https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-
economy/article/3106048/china-gdp-economy-grew-49-cent-third-quarter-2020
Wang, O. , Bermingham, F. , & Mullen, A. (2021, 18 January). China GDP: Economy ends
coronavirus-ravaged year with strong growth surge. South China Morning Post. Retrieved on 18
January 2021 from https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3118116/chinas-
coronavirus-hit-economy-grew-23-cent-2020-lowest-rate
Wang, Y. (2020). China’s ongoing battle against the coronavirus: A scholar-practitioner’s
experiences and reflections. Socio-Ecological Practice Research, 2, 181–183.
Williams, E. (2020, 30 November). APS State of the Service report confirms working from home
is here to stay. The Canberra Times. Retrieved on 30 November 2020 from
https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/7032148/aps-working-from-home-is-here-to-
stay/?cs=14225
Woo, J. J. (2020). Policy capacity and Singapore’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Policy
and Society, 39(3), 345–362.
Worrall, A. (2020). Byron Bay house prices have soared and buyers are looking nearby instead.
Retrieved on 12 January 2021 from https://www.domain.com.au/news/byron-bay-house-prices-
have-soared-and-buyers-are-looking-nearby-instead-1016571/?utm_campaign=strap-masthead
Towards a smart design manifesto
Barnett, J. (1974). Urban Design as Public Policy: Practical Methods for Improving Cities. New
York: Architectural Record Books.
Barnett, J. (2009). The way we were, the way we are: The theory and practice of designing
cities since 1956. In A. Krieger & W. S. Saunders (Eds.), Urban Design (pp. 101–109).
Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press.
Barnett, J. (2016). City Design: Modernist, Traditional, Green and Systems Perspectives (2nd
ed.). London and New York: Routledge.
Ben-Joseph, E. (2014). City design in the age of digital ubiquity. In T. Banerjee & A. Loukaitou-
Sideris (Eds.), Companion to Urban Design (pp. 261–274). London and New York: Routledge.
Birch, E. L. (2014). From CIAM to CNU: The roots and thinkers of modern urban design. In T.
Banerjee & A. Loukaitou-Sideris (Eds.), Companion to Urban Design (pp. 9–29). London and
New York: Routledge.
Cuthbert, A. R. (2006). The Form of Cities: Political Economy and Urban Design. Malden, MA:
Blackwell.
The Department of City Planning . (1971). The Urban Design Plan for the Comprehensive Plan
of San Francisco. San Francisco: City and County of San Francisco.
Fishman, R. (2014). The open and the enclosed: Shifting paradigms in modern urban design. In
T. Banerjee & A. Loukaitou-Sideris (Eds.), Companion to Urban Design (pp. 30–40). London
and New York: Routledge.
Gehl, J. (2010). Cities for People. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Gehl, J. (2011). Life between Buildings: Using Public Space ( J. Koch , Trans.). Washington,
DC: Island Press.
Gold, J. R. (1998). Creating the Charter of Athens: CIAM and the functional city, 1933–43. Town
Planning Review, 69(3), 225–247.
Hu, R. (2013). Urban design plans for downtown San Francisco: A paradigm shift? Journal of
Urban Design, 18(4), 517–533.
Hu, R. (2015). Sustainable development strategy for the global city: A case study of Sydney.
Sustainability, 7(4), 4549–4563.
Inam, A. (2014). Smart growth: A critical review of the state of the art. In T. Banerjee & A.
Loukaitou-Sideris (Eds.), Companion to Urban Design (pp. 632–643). London and New York:
Routledge.
Jacobs, A. , & Appleyard, D. (1987). Toward an urban design manifesto. Journal of the
Jacobs, A. B. (2011). The Good City: Reflections and Imaginations. London and New York:
Routledge.
Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House.
Kelbaugh, D. (2000). Three paradigms: New urbanism, everyday urbanism, post urbanism—an
excerpt from The Essential COMMON PLACE. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society,
20(4), 285–289.
Krieger, A. (2009a). Introduction: An urban frame of mind. In A. Krieger & W. S. Saunders
(Eds.), Urban Design (pp. vii–xix). Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press.
Krieger, A. (2009b). Where and how does urban design happen? In A. Krieger & W. S.
Saunders (Eds.), Urban Design (pp. 113–130). Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press.
Krieger, A. (2019). City on a Hill: Urban Idealism in America from the Puritans to the Present.
Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Lang, J. (2020). The Routledge Companion to Twentieth and Early Twenty-First Century Urban
Design: A History of Shifting Manifestoes, Paradigms, Generic Solutions, and Specific Designs.
Larice, M. , & Macdonald, E. (Eds.). (2013). The Urban Design Reader. London and New York:
Routledge.
Lynch, K. (1960). The Image of the City. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Lynch, K. (1981). Good City Form. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Marshall, R. (2009). The elusiveness of urban design: The perpetual problem of definition and
role. In A. Krieger & W. S. Saunders (Eds.), Urban Design (pp. 38–57). Minneapolis: The
University of Minnesota Press.
Meck, S. , & Retzlaff, R. (2018). The emergence of comprehensive urban design planning in the
United States: The case of the San Francisco Urban Design Plan. Journal of Urban Design,
23(1), 94–122.
Mehaffy, M. W. , & Low, S. M. (2018). The resurgence of public space: From the Charter of
Athens to the New Urban Agenda. The Journal of Public Space, 3(3), 1–24.
Mumford, E. (2009). The emergence of urban design in the breakup of CIAM. In A. Krieger & W.
S. Saunders (Eds.), Urban Design (pp. 15–37). Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press.
Samuels, I. (2016). ‘Toward an urban design manifesto’ revisited. Focus, 13(1), 52–57.
San Francisco Planning Department . (2021). San Francisco General Plan. Retrieved on 21
March 2021 from https://generalplan.sfplanning.org/index.htm

Smart Design Disruption Crisis and The R

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Smart Design Disruption Crisis and The R

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Smart Design

Richard Hu is an award-winning urban planner, and an educator and scholar.

Routledge Research in Planning and Urban Design is a series of academic mono-

The Narrative Turn in Urban Planning

Economic Incentives in Sub-Saharan African Urban Planning

Street-Naming Cultures in Africa and Israel

Identity in Post-Socialist Public Space

Sustainable Urban Futures in Africa

For more information about this series, please visit: www.routledge.com/

“In this stimulating and provocative book, Richard Hu undertakes an ambitious

ISBN: 9780367421762 (hbk)

2 Relationality and centrality 15

3 Flattening and polarisation 46

4 Division and fusion 77

5 Reimagining urban spaces in COVID-19 111

6 Towards a smart design manifesto 137

ABW activity-based work

Smart urbanism is emerging at the intersection of visions for the future of

Figure 1.1 A theoretical framework of smart design.

Relationality and centrality

Flattening and polarisation

Division and fusion

Reimagining urban spaces in COVID-19

You might also like