AI & Soc (2013) 28:491–507
DOI 10.1007/s00146-013-0443-5
25TH ANNIVERSARY VOLUME
A FAUSTIAN EXCHANGE: WHAT IS TO BE HUMAN IN THE ERA OF UBIQUITOUS TECHNOLOGY?
U-cities reshaping our future: reflections on ubiquitous
infrastructure as an enabler of smart urban development
Ari-Veikko Anttiroiko
Received: 13 January 2012 / Accepted: 15 January 2013 / Published online: 1 February 2013
 Springer-Verlag London 2013
Abstract This article discusses the background, nature
and application of the concept of ubiquitous city, present-
ing u-city initiatives of affluent and techno-savvy cities in
Asia and the West with special reference to the case of
South Korea. The focus is on how ubiquitous technologies
have been and can be utilised in developing urban infra-
structure, including town planning, street and property
maintenance, water supply, public transportation and
environmental protection. Such an emerging infrastructure
is expected to provide everyone with an opportunity to
access urban infrastructure and services with the help of
ubiquitous technologies. However, in order to become
reality, this requires some kind of democratisation of
technology, which is a neglected topic in u-city discourse.
It is also important to analyse u-city developments from the
point of view of production of space with special reference
to the potential colonisation of everyday life. Theoretically
speaking, one answer to such compelling questions about
the rationale of u-city development can be sought from the
idea of the ‘right to the city’, a slogan originally coined by
Henri Lefebvre. This approach highlights the importance of
involving people to envisioning the future of urban form
starting from the perspective of their everyday life. Such a
dimension should be given more prominent role in current
u-city developments.
Keywords Ubiquitous technologies
Ubiquitous city

u-City
u-Infrastructure
u-Service
Democratic
governance
South Korea
New Songdo City
Seoul
A.-V. Anttiroiko (&)
School of Management, University of Tampere,
33014 Tampere, Finland
e-mail: ari-veikko.anttiroiko@uta.fi
1 Introduction
Urban settlements have been shaped by many forces,
expressing the interplay of human endeavour and the limits
to the manipulation of nature (see, e.g., Mumford 1938,
1961). Technological development is an expression of the
latter dimension, serving both as the conditioning factor
and the opportunity horizon depending on the perspective.
However, it seems that it is increasingly compelling to
apply new technologies in order to meet the continuously
evolving needs of individuals, organisations and territorial
communities in the world of global interdependencies. It
looks as if the pace of technological development and
especially that of information and communication tech-
nologies (ICTs) is so fast that we are not necessarily able to
consider all the relevant aspects of their application, not to
speak of the ability to evaluate their social impacts.
In urban communities, this challenge boils down to
difficulty to understand how to deal with diverse urban
problems in the context of increased technological inter-
mediation of social processes. This is a dilemma that city
managers have faced since the 1990s with the rise of the
Internet in particular, but it seems that the accelerated pace
of change will further increase complexity, one of the new
factors in the process being the rise of ubiquitous com-
puting and its potentially radical consequences (Macias-
Diaz 2010). This development has already started to affect
spatial processes, including spatial aspect of production,
consumption, governance, transportation, communication
and other forms of social life, even though the development
is still in its infancy. Ubiquitous city relies on the com-
prehensive utilisation of cutting-edge technologies in pro-
viding flexible access to digital resources and remote
control. It offers a radical perspective on urban life, making
it one of the candidate concepts to guide the making of the
123
492
future city and understanding the potentials of technology
in reshaping the conditions of urbanised communities. At
its best, the idea of u-city helps us to paint a picture of an
urban space of the future where ubiquitous technologies are
embedded into the physical objects and structures in order
to make urban functions more efficient and consequently
improve the quality of people’s life (Lee 2009). This is not
the whole picture, however, for the realisation of such a
vision has its social preconditions, which are only super-
ficially addressed in the current discourse.
An interesting question concerning the urban form
inspired by u-city concept is whether it is an expression of
techno-utopia, reflecting our willingness to build urban
communities on technological supremacy and our will to
master the nature, which echoes the old dilemma elo-
quently raised by Mumford (1961). Local clusters of
technological, scientific and academic activities referred to
as science city, such as Tsukuba of Japan or Daedeok of
South Korea, can be seen as paradigmatic outcomes of such
thinking (Castells and Hall 1996), and it seems that u-city
movement due to its tendency to technological determin-
ism is based to some extent on the same kind of hubristic
social ontology. This leads to a dilemma of what kind of
role should technology be given in envisioning and
designing urban communities.
If Mumford was worried about how modern metropolis
of industrial era shakes the balance of urban–rural eco-
system and builds upon an unsustainable technological
advance (Bianco 2001), the other major school of urban
sociology, Marxism in its various forms, awakened con-
cerns about city as a capitalist mode of production of space
fundamental to the reproduction of society. Such a process
may lead to the bureaucratic society of controlled con-
sumption, as theorised by Henri Lefebvre (1971). Another
critical point relevant here, dual city thesis, rests on the
argument that there are two separate economies—formal
and informal—or even two separate realities within same
urban structure, reflecting the inherent asymmetry of cap-
italist society (Mollenkopf and Castells 1991). Such critical
approaches help us to conceive the possibility that seem-
ingly beneficial technological advancements may have
their flipside, such as increased social polarisation or
diminished citizen control of everyday life.
This article discusses the background, nature and
application of the u-city concept. Discussion focuses on
ubiquitous infrastructure and particularly the question of
how ubiquitous technologies have been and can be utilised
in developing urban infrastructure, including town plan-
ning, street maintenance, bridges and other physical
structures, buildings, parks, water supply, waste manage-
ment, public transportation and environmental protection.
The current developments in u-infrastructure are investi-
gated with special reference to the case of South Korea.
123
AI & Soc (2013) 28:491–507
Such an emerging infrastructure is expected to provide
everyone with an opportunity to access urban infrastructure
and services with the help of ubiquitous technologies (Lee
et al. 2008b). However, in order to become reality, this
requires some kind of democratisation of technology (cf.
Sclove 1995), which is a neglected topic in u-city dis-
course. To shed light on such social preconditions for the
realisation of the opportunities opened by u-city concept,
the utilisation of ubiquitous technologies in urban devel-
opment is assessed from the point of view of critical urban
theory with a focus on the production of social space and
related spatial inequalities.
2 The essence of u-city
2.1 Background: paradigm shift in computing
The rise of the idea of the u-city reflects the new forms of
interaction and transaction that are possible anywhere and
at any time on various electronic devices utilising appli-
cations and networks based on ubiquitous technologies.
The original English word ‘ubiquitous’ comes from the
Latin, meaning ‘existing everywhere’ (Weiser 1996; Lee
2009, 12). The root of ubiquity is the change in the com-
putational paradigm, which had until the 1990s remained
more or less fixed, that is, we were used to running pro-
grammes on a single fixed piece of hardware and user
interaction was through a single fixed display device.
Fuelled by the ubiquitous nature of the Internet, increas-
ingly powerful hardware and the availability of high-speed
networks, a major paradigm shift to a new computational
model became possible. In this new paradigm, processes
are not tied to a single display device but are free to
migrate with users, providing genuinely ubiquitous com-
puting environments (Dearle 1998).
Ubiquity became a part of IT world after Mark Weiser
of Xerox’s Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) coined a
new term, ubiquitous computing, in 1988. The thinking
behind this is that the first wave of computing was based
on mainframes, and that this was followed by the
personal computing wave. The next wave or the ‘third
paradigm’ is ubiquitous computing, reflecting the dawn of
a new era as technology is expected to become fully
embedded in our everyday environment and thus to
recede into the background of our lives (Weiser 1996).
Similar concepts include such as invisible computing,
pervasive computing, ambient computing and the like,
pointing in any case in more or less the same direction in
computing (Kim 2006).
Due to the Internet revolution and new developments in
ubiquitous technology, the perspective started to shift from
the ubiquity of computing capabilities to the ubiquity of
AI & Soc (2013) 28:491–507
network access and connections, which has led to the
introduction of such concepts as the ubiquitous network.
Ubiquitous computing is basically about the world of fully
connected computers that can be used with the help of
invisible interfaces, that is, ‘to make a computer so
embedded, so fitting, so natural, that we use it without even
thinking about it’ (Weiser 1996). Transition to ubiquitous
networking pays less attention to the invisibility of inter-
faces, but takes a step towards a more diverse and flexible
IT environment, extended person-to-object (P2O) connec-
tions, new ‘automated’ features for object-to-object (O2O)
connections, and towards a user-centric approach with
better person-to-person (P2P) connections (Murakami
2003). Japanese researchers especially were proposing
such a shift in focus in the early 2000s (Anttiroiko 2005).
The emphasis on network environments opened a new
perspective on the building blocks of the u-city. The
backbone of this technology-driven transformation is the
broadband convergence network (BcN) or similar next-
generation networks, which enable the convergence of
communications and broadcasting services, the conver-
gence of voice, video and data services, and the integration
of wired and wireless technologies in order to provide
high-quality broadband multimedia services (Choi et al.
2009). Other technological building blocks that make the
u-city possible include ubiquitous sensor networks (USN),
short-range wireless technologies (radio frequency identi-
fication, ZigBee, Wibree, etc.) and geospatial technologies
(geographic information system, global positioning system
and remote sensing). Ubiquity is, thus, a buzzword that
catches something essential in the new trends in techno-
logical development and at the same time invites us to
reconceptualise the relationship between technology,
physical environment and socio-spatial processes. (See,
e.g., Lee et al. 2008a.)
New technological trends indicate that the discussions
about virtual cities as immersive 3D environments have
given way to conceptions in which technology is embedded
in the physical environment. As Weiser (1996) noted a long
time ago, ubiquitous computing is in essential sense the
opposite of virtual reality (VR), and the same kind of
distinction is relevant also in the related city conceptions:
‘While the virtual city that reproduces urban elements
visualized within the virtual space, U-city is created by the
computer chips or sensors inserted to those urban ele-
ments. […] sensors and sensor networks continually
communicate with wired or wireless computer devices
embedded in people, buildings, infrastructures and any
feature of urban space’ (Lee et al. 2008a). In the current
debate, there are signs of an emerging tension between two
interrelated conceptions, those of ‘ubiquitous city’ and
‘augmented city’, the former implying basically a certain
degree of indifference to the location and space, while the
493
latter refers to spaces facilitated and recombined by new
technologies thus implying a more integral connection to
the specific location of the user (Aurigi 2009). In this sense,
ubiquity is about flexible connectedness, as in accessing
web-based services while travelling or controlling objects
at a distance, whereas augmented reality brings added
value in specific locations, such as cultural heritage sites,
where site-related information and services can be pro-
vided for a visitor.
What is in the making is a new view of urban life,
sometimes referred to as ubiquitous life or u-life, which is
radically changing our perception of the physical envi-
ronment and locational aspects of our actions and will
allow us to control objects and communicate with people
practically anywhere with the help of various network-
enabled and embedded communication devices. What is
envisioned are futuristic cities which will offer a high
quality of life for residents in terms of security, welfare,
culture and entertainment, and other aspects of everyday
life. In such a city, ICTs are embedded in urban space and
objects (Lee 2009). Furthermore, all major information
systems—residential, medical, business, governmental and
the like—share data to ensure functionality and service
integration. This may sound grossly over-optimistic, but at
the same time, such a vision sounds attainable if assessed
on the basis of the current developments and prospects of
the most affluent and techno-savvy cities in Asia and the
West. On the other hand, even if a large part of the tech-
nologies behind this vision are in place, a range of chal-
lenges from network integration to multichannel solutions,
embedded user interfaces and consumer behaviour still
need to be addressed before the vision becomes reality, not
to mention the critical assessment of democratic, social or
ecological implications of such a transformation.
2.2 A glance at two paradigmatic technologies:
RFID and USN
Judging by current u-city discourse, it seems that the
principal technological building blocks of u-city develop-
ment are radio frequency identification (RFID) and the
ubiquitous sensor network (USN). These two technologies
have already been applied or are planned to be applied in
many countries to such application areas as crime pre-
vention, u-health, home networks, and disaster prevention
and management (Park et al. 2006). Such applications
provide a good point of departure for assessing the
enhancements these two technologies bring to wireless and
mobile solutions in the urban context.
Even if the use of RFID applications is a new trend,
governments have for more than a decade played a pivotal
role in their development, their pioneering applications
being in such diverse areas as military asset management,
123
494
environmental monitoring and personal identification.
Many national governments are employing RFID to track
livestock in order to be able to identify animals quickly in
the event of a food recall or disease outbreak. Moreover, a
number of metropolitan governments—such as Boston,
Moscow, Paris and Seoul—have deployed RFID-based
public transit fare-collection systems, which eliminate
costly human intervention while providing increased speed
and accuracy (Edwards 2009).
RFID is most promising in performing monitoring and
control functions, such as keeping the food supply safe and
fit for consumption, even if in real life, the developments
are still in their infancy. In Norway, for instance, in recent
years, the government has developed standards and policies
regarding food traceability as a part of a wider e-Trace-
ability programme intended to increase food safety by
providing visibility from the farm to the store. Similarly,
the Hawaii Department of Agriculture (HDOA) has laun-
ched an RFID pilot designed to help track produce through
the supply chain. Its goal is to provide traceability when-
ever food safety becomes a concern, as well as to create an
audit trail that will help farmers, retailers and distributors
monitor the movement of fresh produce (Edwards 2009).
A special RFID application is the RFID pilot of the US
Social Security Administration (SSA) conducted in 2003.
The SSA has incorporated RFID into its warehouse man-
agement and can process almost all its orders within a day
or two. Also, as RFID is a tracking technology, it has been
used for tracking critical objects, including tracking books
in libraries or court documents in the legal system as well
as monitoring hazardous waste. Concerning this last point,
the US Department of Energy (DOE) in its supervision of
the cleaning of the Hanford Nuclear site in Washington
State is using an RFID system in which tags are placed on
hazardous waste-filled steel barrels that are loaded onto
trucks to be taken to a landfill (RFid Gazette 2005).
The other major technological solution, the ubiquitous
sensor network (USN), has a plethora of applications in the
building, management and development of urban infra-
structure, some of them fairly similar to RFID applications.
USN applications can be assigned to one of the following
three broad functions:
(1) Detection: detecting temperatures passing a partic-
ular threshold or detection of intruders, of bushfires, of
landmines in former war zones;
(2) Tracking: tracking of items in supply chain man-
agement, of vehicles in intelligent transport systems, of
cattle/beef in the food chain, and of workers in dangerous
work environments such as mines or offshore platforms;
(3) Monitoring: monitoring a patient’s blood pressure,
inhospitable environments such as volcanoes or hurricanes,
the structural soundness of bridges or buildings, or the
123
AI & Soc (2013) 28:491–507
behaviour of animals in their indigenous habitat (ITU-T
2007).
What the short-range wireless technologies, such as
RFID, and sensor technologies add to conventional wire-
less network access and mobile services is basically remote
control, that is, functions that enable us to trace and
monitor people or animals and to control physical objects;
especially, in infrastructure services, such functions are
critical, as it is precisely the service sector that deals with
the physical structure of urban communities.
2.3 Defining the u-city as an urban formation
The u-city is an urban space where ubiquitous technologies
are embedded into the physical objects and structures in
order to make urban functions more efficient and conse-
quently improve the quality of people’s life (Lee 2009).
There is a plethora of views on and definitions of the
u-city, which, when taken together emphasise diverse
aspects of future urbanism. These aspects can be grouped
into four thematic categories: (a) future aspect, as in the
‘next-generation’ city or futuristic city; (b) technological
foundation relating to technological solutions, networks
and platforms; (c) systemic features relating to holistic and
intelligent systems, innovativeness and interaction between
people, objects and environments; (d) content relating to
information and ubiquitous services that provide value for
users; (e) humanistic and ecological objectives, such as
quality of life, well-being, safety, sustainability and envi-
ronmental friendliness; and lastly, (f) the special aspect of
spatio-temporality crystallised in the ideas of intersecting
physical and virtual spaces and of access to networks and
services ‘anywhere and anytime’ (Lee et al. 2007,
2008a, b; Shin 2009; Jang and Suh 2010; Kwon and Kim
2007; Choi 2010).
As an emerging urban formation, the u-city is charac-
terised more than anything by intelligence built in physical
environment, in which the potential to release homo
urbanicus from some of the constraints of the physical
world meets the parallel potentially constraining power to
control the very same environment, thus raising the
dilemma of how the balance between these two forces is to
be struck in the making of u-city. This implies that u-city
due to its inherent power and control dimensions provides a
new perspective on human–environment interaction, leav-
ing at the same time open the very fundamental questions
about freedom, democracy, power, sense of community
and identity, which revolve around the design and control
of the production of space. The core question is what
groups in society control those means that are supposed to
bring us freedom from physical constraints. And if such
processes are not shared or decentralised, will it lead to
AI & Soc (2013) 28:491–507 495

manipulation or even enslavement of people in the globa-
lised urban world?
2.4 Infrastructure for future societies
Ubiquitous infrastructure is an essential component of
u-city development (Lee et al. 2010, 166). The question of
u-infrastructure is particularly important because of the
problems practically all societies face in building and
maintaining infrastructure and also because of the potential
benefits new technologies provide for its planning, building
and maintenance. This is obviously one of the most
important application areas of ubiquitous technologies.
Ubiquitous transformation is about networks that can be
connected in a smart way, as in the case of distributed power
generation (microgrids). This implies that their potential
may be in inverse infrastructures beside the large technical
systems (LTS) approach, associated with bottom–up
e-government trend, telecommunications solutions for rural
areas and Wi-Fi communities, such as Wireless Leiden, the
Netherlands (Egyedi and Mehos 2012). From a user point of
view, ubiquitous networks are flexible to use, for instance in
driving with the help of GPS. Or it can be about the remote
control of buildings or the monitoring of movable objects.
However, it is not just a question of functionality and
U-government U-business
Services and Applications
Technologies
Infrastructures
logistics, but also one of smart and integrated systems and
sustainable solutions, which add important ethical and
environmental elements into this picture. This indicates that
ubiquity in urban infrastructure may serve various functions
and is certainly a multidimensional issue.
Ubiquitous infrastructure relies heavily on sensors in the
sense that it uses sensor networks to continually commu-
nicate with wired and/or wireless computer devices
embedded in personal devices, buildings, roads and other
physical structures. Such a system provides the precondi-
tions for improving the effectiveness of urban infrastruc-
ture planning, management and use. It also helps to achieve
sustainable solutions, to increase efficiency in urban
facilities management, and to provide new tools for citizen
participation in infrastructure-related decision processes. In
terms of broad application areas, u-infrastructure is
expected to provide the basis for such fundamental realms
of future u-society as everyday life activities (u-life),
business life (u-business), and public governance and the
delivery of public services (u-government), as illustrated in
Fig. 1 (Lee et al. 2008b).
Infrastructure can be divided into four categories. The
first covers land-use policy, town planning and zoning,
parks, and road maintenance. These are the basic functions
of ‘public works’ usually managed by local governments.
The second covers utilities, such as water supply, energy
supply and waste management. The third covers control,
inspection, monitoring and protection related to the physical
environment and urban structures. In practice, this category
includes construction regulation, environmental protection,
firefighting and safety. The fourth category includes a range
of infrastructure services, which support living, work,
movement, transportation and communication. The main
application areas include public housing, public transport,
harbours and the like. These categories and related
u-infrastructure application areas are presented in Fig. 2.

U-life
3 Remarks on the history of the u-city

Fig. 1 Aspects of u-city infrastructure and applications (simplified The idea of ubiquity in the urban context had some ante-
from Lee et al. 2008b) cedents, which may be seen historically as preceding the

Fig. 2 Typology of public

infrastructure services and IV Special technical and community services U-traffic, u-tracking and
related u-services Facility mgt, public housing, public transport, telecom, harbours u-facility management

III Control and security services U-environmental protection

Construction regulation, environmental protection, fire fighting and public safety

II Utility services U-utility management,

Drinking water, wastewater, waste ma nagement, electricity, energy supply u-water, u-energy etc.

I Basic services U-planning, maintenance

Land use, town planning, zoning, roads, bridges, parks, public space and control of infrastructure

123
496
idea of the ubiquitous city. They are based on virtuality,
wirelessness and mobility. All of them are the fruits of
special trends in the development of ICTs and have city-
wide applications. The story begins with the emergence of
the Internet. The first widely discussed aspect of ‘ubiquity’
is associated with virtuality, later sometimes referred to as
digitality (n.b. terms like virtual, digital, online, wired,
connected, etc., are used in the urban context more or less
synonymously to refer to Internet-based connections).
Early discussions about virtual communities or virtual
cities were ultimately about the creation of new virtual
communities on the Internet, the two basic forms being
virtual or online communities which exist only on the
Internet and community networks which utilise ICTs in
local community reinvigoration by encouraging dialogue
and providing a forum for voices of local people and
stakeholders. On the community level, the first virtual
community was the WELL, launched in 1985. In local
government, the equivalent role can be given to the public
electronic network (PEN) of Santa Monica established in
1989, followed by such famous cases from the first half of
the 1990s as the Blacksburg Electronic Village (BEV),
Digital City of Amsterdam and Virtual Bologna. Cases like
these built a new reality and new view of urban life and
opened new perspectives on urban governance, in which
users were able to access online content via computer
terminals. Information systems and networks were not at
that time seen as being particularly ubiquitous, though.
The next phases in technological development take us
closer to ubiquity, for they relate to wirelessness and
mobility. In the urban context, the first trend is called the
wireless city, as its basic service is wireless access to
information networks. This trend started in the early 2000s
when many cities around the world announced that they
were to become wireless cities, that is, they were going to
build a city-wide Wi-Fi network. Many of them were never
realised, though, due to various financial and implemen-
tation problems. The situation seems to have changed
dramatically in recent years due to the introduction of
wireless mesh networks. Among the pioneers from the
early 2000s were the city of Zamora, Spain and Sunnyvale,
California. Pioneers in free city-wide wireless networks are
Mountain View in California with its Google-sponsored
network and the free panOULU network (public access
network Oulu) in the city of Oulu in Finland. Another type
of early version of u-city is the mobile city, which
emphasises the availability of mobile services designed for
mobile handsets or multi-use contexts. Cases like Mobile
City Bremen in Germany and the extensive m-services of
Oulu are good examples of this type of city formation.
In this historical sketch, perhaps, the most widely dis-
cussed trend after wireless connections and mobile services
is the introduction of Web 2.0, a term that was coined in
123
AI & Soc (2013) 28:491–507
2004 to describe the new uses of the World Wide Web
(WWW). Web 2.0 refers to the second generation of web-
based communities, networks and hosted services, which
facilitates interaction between users. City 2.0 is a mani-
festation of this trend, even if its conceptualisation usually
goes beyond the technological dimension of the Web 2.0
trend. City 2.0 thus combines social, technological, dem-
ocratic and sustainable aspects of urban life, revolving
around innovative and democratic urban governance. (See,
e.g., Leadbeater 2007). Ubiquity is not as such at the heart
of the Web 2.0 trend. Yet, in the latter half of the 2000s,
social network services started to go mobile and include
GeoWeb applications, which is an indication of the gradual
convergence of social media and ubiquitous computing.
The next phase in IT-related urban development seems
to revolve around the idea of ubiquitous city, sometimes
also referred to as smart city or intelligent city. It adds
intelligent solutions to the digital, wireless, mobile and
Web 2.0 aspects of urban communities, such as ubiquitous
facility management, ubiquitous control and tracking
functions, ubiquitous service delivery and intelligent
buildings. The idea of ubiquitous city was given its first
explicit expression in the policy field by the Japanese
government in the early 2000s, followed by the South
Korean policy formulation around the mid-2000s. Both
countries were pioneers in the rise of the u-city movement.
It is obvious that due to this trend, we are entering a rad-
ically new stage in urban development. The u-city concept
is closely related to several other new technology trends,
such as GeoWeb and other forms of location intelligence,
ambient intelligence (AmI), augmented reality (AR), Web
3.0, Mobile Web 2.0 or Web2 (Web Squared), and internet
of things (IoT), which all indicate an increasing integration
of ICTs and our physical environment.
4 Varieties of u-city initiatives in the West and the East
We may identify two basic forms of urban u-communities:
large-scale urban u-communities or genuine u-cities and
small-scale urban u-communities, u-attractions and u-ser-
vice environments. The idea of the u-city has manifested
itself in various ways in mostly large cities around the
world (Anttiroiko 2009). Most are in their initial phase and,
in fact, many projects with a ‘u-city’ label are hardly urban
u-communities at all, but rather high-tech business site
projects, intelligent building complexes or something
similar. This trend depends on unevenly distributed tech-
nological advancements (e.g. Kemeny 2011), which
indicates that even within one territorial community
development is asynchronous, meaning that ubiquitous
technology-enabled functionalities emerge first to hubs
with greatest need and potential for their utilisation, usually
AI & Soc (2013) 28:491–507
based on special attention paid to the area by construction
companies, IT firms, industrial service firms and govern-
ments. Asynchronous development may also be determined
by the wealth generation potential and information pro-
cessing requirements of high-value adding sectors, as in the
case of technologically sophisticated financial sector in ‘the
City’ at the heart of London.
Even if the u-city movement has not developed in the
Western world under u-city label, there are diverse devel-
opments which are building blocks for a future city with
ubiquity as one of its major features. There is no simple
clearly defined Western u-city paradigm, but Western cases
share certain features, such as decentralised development
strategy, privacy concerns and fairly strong emphasis of
ecological values and citizen participation. Even if both the
USA and Europe are strong in high-tech, they have not
developed bold visions of u-society and u-cities. For
example, in the USA, there are only a few genuine u-city
developments, which are usually modest in geographical
terms. They include cases like New York City’s Lower
Manhattan project and the Mission Bay project in Cali-
fornia, which provide environments for u-services for res-
idents. On the other hand, there are both national flagship
projects (such as those initiated by NASA and NSF)
reflecting the immense potential for new ideas, innovation
and entrepreneurship, and increasing numbers of school,
university, library, emergency, traffic and other mobile
applications launched by local and state governments.
Local governments are increasingly supporting the build-
ing of wireless networks, such as the city-wide Wi-Fi for
San Francisco. Some of the projects have not fulfilled the
promise, though, as happened with Wireless Philadelphia.
It was announced in the mid-2000s, but appears to have
been a failure (Kirk BJ (n/a) 2011). Another characteristic
of the American model is the involvement of innovative
corporations in u-city developments, as in the case of the
free wireless Internet service offered by Google to the
residents of Mountain View, California. Yet, in general,
ambitious u-city initiatives are still in short supply.
Developments in the United States are considerably ham-
pered by fairly low broadband penetration, the complex
federal system with weak supply-side integration, and
serious privacy concerns associated with the commercial
potential of personal data (Anttiroiko 2005).
Europe is characterised by diversity and a strong
emphasis on the ideas of balanced development, social
responsibility and sustainability, which frame the approach
to the utilisation of ICTs in urban development. In such a
context, bold u-city visions have not flourished. There are,
nevertheless, several European countries that have both
good preconditions for u-city development and promising
projects as well, the focus being on multichannel solutions,
the utilisation of mobile and wireless technologies, and
497
experimentation with new developments from mobile Web
2.0 to augmented reality. Concerning relevant examples,
we may mention The National Digital Park in Ireland,
which is associated with the u-city trend. However, it is
actually a joint venture to provide a world-class telecom-
munications infrastructure for companies requiring inter-
national broadband connectivity, making it a fairly
conventional high-tech business site development project.
Much the same can be said about MediaPark Köln
(Cologne), Germany. Lastly, an illuminating example of a
European-style u-city programme is T-City Friedrichsha-
fen, Germany, which is a joint future laboratory established
by Deutsche Telekom and the city of Friedrichshafen.
During the programme period of 2007–2012, the city has
served as a showcase for the utilisation of ICT applications
to improve the quality of life of local people. The idea was
to develop the city on a partnership basis—involving
among others public administration, academia, businesses,
and citizens—as a model city for ‘connected life and
work’. About 30 projects have been implemented since the
launch of the programme. They include various aspects of
ubiquity in projects that focus on, for instance, flexible
access to a range of learning content, mobile travel ser-
vices, smartphone pilots for tourism, smart home applica-
tions and pilots for telemedical systems.
Another technologically advanced context in Europe can
be found from the Northern part of the continent, that is,
four major Nordic welfare societies, Finland, Sweden,
Denmark and Norway, where the idea of ubiquity has been
adopted surprisingly slowly, but steadily. In their approach,
discussion does not revolve so much around infrastructure
as around the added value these new solutions may bring to
the delivery and use of services. Approaches may be softer
than in many Asian countries, but the economic dimension
is still highly relevant. In these countries, the use of mobile
services for entertainment is balanced by the use of mobile
banking and the increased use of public m-services,
reflecting an incremental use-oriented approach to the
development of u-cities (Anttiroiko 2005). An example of
an early urban u-community development from the north-
ern part of Europe is a ubiquitous community network in
Arabianranta, sometimes referred to as Helsinki Virtual
Village. Launched in 2000, Arabianranta was claimed to be
the world’s first wireless interactive community, providing
a wireless area network available for users for various
social purposes.
However, in order to find the boldest u-city visions and
plans, we must look at the Far East. Developments in Japan
have promoted a shift in the focus of the Japanese Gov-
ernment’s development policy from ‘e-Japan’ to ‘u-Japan’
(see Murakami 2003, 2004, 2005; Arima 2009). An even
more proactive and innovative player is South Korea,
which aims to transform the country into a technologically
123
498
advanced society, nicknamed u-Korea. The ambitious
approach is well expressed by futuristic visions and bold
megaprojects such as New Songdo City. Similarly, though,
more modest developments have seen the light of day in
Singapore, Taiwan and Hong Kong, to name just a few
pioneering u-city cases in Asia. This reveals the positive
values and expectations attached to this particular tech-
nology-oriented urban vision. The overall global outlook is
encapsulated by Pamela Licalzi O’Connell (2005) as fol-
lows: ‘In the West, ubiquitous computing is a controversial
idea that raises privacy concerns and the specter of a
surveillance society—But in Asia the concept is viewed as
an opportunity to show off technological prowess and
attract foreign investment’.
In the current discussions, a paradigmatic case of a
large-scale u-city is New Songdo City in South Korea. It
stands on its own as a new town project based on the idea
of u-city. Other well-known cases form a heterogeneous
group of local developments. A famous large-scale project
associated with the u-city trend is MSC Malaysia (Multi-
media Super Corridor), planned to be a world-class hub for
the development and nurturing of the ICT industry with a
world-class infrastructure. The Digital Media City (DMC)
in Seoul is also associated with this trend. Even if genuine
u-city initiatives are in their conceptualisation phase in the
United Arab Emirates (UAE), Dubai has been particularly
active in creating ‘cities within a city’, such as Dubai
Media City (DMC) and Dubai Internet City (DIC), in
which also ubiquitous connectedness has a role to play.
Another well-known business-oriented case is Cyberport of
Hong Kong, which is a creative digital community with a
cluster of technology and digital content tenants. Its vision
is to establish itself as a leading IT hub in the Asia–Pacific
region. One-North is an example from Singapore, a busi-
ness park development to house R&D and high-technology
activities. It was launched officially in 2001 with the pur-
pose of creating a ‘global talent hub’. A paradigmatic
example of small-scale development is the u-Cheonggye-
cheon test bed in Seoul, South Korea. Cheonggyecheon is a
ubiquitous service zone along the banks of the artificial
Cheonggyecheon river in the heart of Seoul. It is not only
an attractive riverside where people can go to relax and
enjoy the beauty of the area, but also a test bed for ubiq-
uitous infrastructure and services. There are also a range of
small-scale u-city pilots in Ueno, Ginza and other districts
of Tokyo, set-up by Tokyo Ubiquitous Technology Project
sponsored by the Tokyo Metropolitan Government. These
examples reveal that in the current discourse, the concept
of ‘u-city’ is used fairly loosely and the examples associ-
ated with the trend are not always as ambitious or ‘ubiq-
uitous’ as might be assumed. (See, e.g., Shin 2005; Shin
2009; Lee et al. 2010; Kwon and Kim 2007; Jang and Suh
2010.)
123
AI & Soc (2013) 28:491–507
In contrast to the disjointed Western approach, building
technological infrastructure and adopting cutting-edge
technologies characterise the u-society policies of most
advanced Asian countries. They favour big projects which
are set-up on a partnership basis as a collaborative effort of
governments and businesses. Also, the use of mobile ser-
vices in these countries concentrates on entertainment and is
provided almost solely on a commercial basis. We may
tentatively call this approach an infrastructure-oriented
developmentalist u-city strategy, characteristic especially of
most of the East Asian countries and the most advanced
South Asian countries, such as Singapore (Anttiroiko 2005).
Concerning the approach to a novel technological par-
adigm that is applied to cities, the two basic models seem
to be the masterminded infrastructure-oriented approach
typical of Japan and South Korea and the incremental user-
centric approach of Finland and Sweden. It is important to
keep in mind that approaches to u-city development depend
not only on technological infrastructures and advancements
but also on cultural background, democratic conditions,
development paradigm and political regimes, of which we
will discuss later mainly the critical aspects of the pro-
duction of social space and the control of everyday life.
Yet, before discussing such theoretical insights from urban
sociology, there is need to sharpen the picture of u-city
development. Hence, let us analyse next how ubiquitous
technologies are used in infrastructure development in
arguably the most advanced and ambitions u-society to
date, South Korea.
5 Building u-infrastructure in Korean cities
5.1 The u-city movement in South Korea
South Korea is the most interesting case in ubiquitous
infrastructure development for two reasons. First, the
urbanisation of South Korea is around 81 % and some
25 % of the population live in the capital region. Cities are
densely populated and a large part of the population live in
high-rise, multi-family, high-density dwellings (Bell and
Dourish 2007). All this makes a well-functioning urban
infrastructure a key issue from the point of view of eco-
nomic development, urban dynamism and the smoothness
and safety of everyday life (Kim et al. 2011). Second,
South Korea is in the top league in the u-city movement
with its committed national and local governments and the
involvement of large corporations. These two factors make
the country probably the best possible case for assessing
the current and future development of u-infrastructure. As
was pointed out by Bell and Dourish (2007, 138), South
Korea is an excellent example of infrastructural ubiquity
and of public/private sector cooperation to achieve it.
AI & Soc (2013) 28:491–507
U-city enthusiasm has been visible in South Korea for
years. The term ‘u-city’ emerged in the political arena for
first time in 2004. Around that time, various u-city projects
had already seen the light of day partly due to the active
role of KT Corporation (formerly Korea Telecom), the
country’s major telecom operator, which was founded in
1981 as a public corporation and privatised in the early
2000s. At the national level, the Korean Ministry of
Information and Communication (MIC) established the
U-Korea General Plan in 2006 and in the following year,
the General Plan for U-City construction activation was
approved. Another critical step towards the realisation of
the u-city was taken by the enactment of the Act on
Ubiquitous City Construction in March 2008. The purpose
of measures such as these was to take a leading role in the
world in u-society development and to consolidate South
Korea’s international competitiveness in this area (Kim et al.
2009) (Fig. 3).
Korean u-city enthusiasm is a result of synergistic
government–business collaboration involving three major
institutional groups: (1) the Ministry of Information and
Communication (MIC) and the Ministry of Construction
and Transportation (MCT) as initiators; (2) large corpora-
tions like LG, KT and Samsung and the Korea National
Housing Corporation (KNHC) as partners and solution
providers; and (3) host municipal authorities, such as the
governments of Seoul, Incheon and Busan, as promoters of
local development. Universities also play a part in this
process as expert organisations (Shin 2009; Lee et al.
2008a, 16).
One of the key actors behind several u-city projects
beside national and local governments is KT. KT is cur-
rently involved in developing five u-cities and has
announced plans for extending the number of u-city ini-
tiatives up to 60 or so in the future. The five places where
KT has started its u-city projects are New Songdo City in
Inchon and Busan’s u-city project and more modest
developments in Dongtan in Hwaseong, Unjeong in Paju
and Heungdeok in Yongin. Yet, as pointed out by Hwang
(2005), even if several local governments have expressed
interest in participating in the national u-city project, most
Fig. 3 U-city planning system
U-Infrastructure
in South Korea (Kim et al.
2009)
U-Service
U-Space
U-Citizen
499
of them have hardly gone much beyond drawing basic
blueprints. Many of the projects are very limited in terms
of making ‘ubiquity’ a truly functional part of urban life.
The major breakthroughs are expected to take place in
larger cities, such as Seoul, Incheon, Daejeon and Busan.
They have plans to introduce various u-city applications,
such as an intelligent transportation system, a ubiquitous
tourist service, home networking, telemedicine, and natural
disaster prevention and monitoring by setting up UbiTech
environments in the key locations of these cities (Lee et al.
2008b). Geographically most of the major projects con-
centrate in the northwest, forming a kind of Northwest
U-City Corridor reaching from New Songdo City and other
areas within Seoul Metropolitan Area (SMA) to Daejeon,
as indicated in Fig. 4.
Globally, the most ambitious plan to date to build a
genuine u-city as a new town project is New Songdo City in
Incheon. It is rising on a man-made island some 40 km
from Seoul. It will be the first city in the world to adopt the
u-city concept from the very beginning of the construction
of the area, resembling in this respect science cities like
Tsukuba of Japan, Daedeok Innopolis in South Korea and
Kista Science City in Sweden. New Songdo City will
become a site where the large-scale use of RFID, smart
cards and sensor-based devices can be applied and studied.
It aims at internal self-sufficiency, which is why it has been
referred to as ‘synergy city’, reflecting the idea of mixing
essential elements of techno-savvy urban life from inter-
national business to the everyday u-life of local residents.
Special attention in the construction of the city is paid to
urban design, on the one hand, and the provision of a wide
range of u-services, on the other.
Seoul, the capital city of South Korea, has been suc-
cessful in transforming itself into a connected global city
(Choi 2010; Choi and Greenfield 2009). Its first develop-
ment project which can be associated with the u-city trend
is Digital Media City (DMC) in the Sangam-dong district,
which aims at developing a futuristic info-media industrial
complex that will serve as a leading media and IT hub for
north-east Asia. One of its major features is the aptly
named Digital Media Street, which hosts entertainment and
U-City General Plan Creating a vision
at national level Setting targets
Support measures
U-City Plan Local policy-making
at city level to execute u-city
development plan
U-City Construction U-city construction
Plan and implementation
at project level plans
123
500 AI & Soc (2013) 28:491–507

more remote and smaller communities, such as Gyeongbuk,

New Songdo City Paju Unjeong Gwanggyo or Jeju, which focus more on u-culture and
• Detailed design stage • Detailed design stage
• ITS, home, health etc. • U-public services
u-tourism. For example, Jeju is focussing on tourism
Sangam-dong DMC development by using u-services, including u-traffic,
• Implementation stage Gwanggyo u-museum at Jeju Stones and Culture Park and u-coupon
• New media, software • Self-sufficient complex u-services
Hwaseong Dongtan services (Lee et al. 2008b).
• Planning stage
Yongin Heungdeok
• City-wide operation • Detailed design stage
centre etc. • Safety and u-services 5.2 U-infrastructure applications in Korean cities
Chungbuk
Daejeon • U-bio cluster
• U-R&D cluster Ubiquitous infrastructures have many applications, ranging
• U-wellbeing
from land-use planning to street maintenance and water
Gyeongbuk
• U-tourism, culture supply. Let us start with a lengthy quotation in which Lee
Jeonju
• Planning stage et al. (2008b, 287) describe the u-applications in infra-
• U-culture
structure in the South Korean context: ‘In Korea,
Busan
U-infrastructure is used in transport, health emergency
Gwangju • Detailed design stage services, fire fighting, security, urban amenities, urban
• Detailed design stage • U-port, transportation,
• U-tourism, transportation, convention etc. management and ICT portals to monitor environmental
learning etc.
protection, water and power grids, and sewerage and
waste treatment and so on. Some of the U-infrastructure
services also provide an early warning system, for
Jeju instance, meteorology service, earthquake data collection,
• Implementation stage
• U-culture and alarm and video monitoring services. Other U-infra-
structure services focus on improving public health care
Fig. 4 U-city initiatives in South Korea in the late 2000s (adopted services, for example, by providing homecare and emer-
from Lee et al. 2008b, 289) gency calling services for families with young children,
elderly and disabled. Smart cards are not only used on
retail establishments, technology companies, prestige public transport services but also in other public utilities,
housing, R&D units and universities. It houses ubiquitous such as schools, post offices, hospitals and community
networked offices, apartments, exhibitions and cultural centres’.
centres (Lee et al. 2008a). This quotation crystallises the key areas of u-infra-
Another innovative South Korean city is Daejeon, a city structure. It not only indicates application areas but also
of 1.5 million inhabitants and the home of Daedeok hints at the innovative potentials of ubiquitous technolo-
Innopolis. Daejeon aims to build fast network infrastruc- gies. In the area of basic infrastructure services, the para-
tures and digital walls for broadcasting advertisements in digmatic application area is u-planning (e.g. Han et al.
public squares in the form of digital streets. There are also 2010). A particularly useful application is Web-GIS and
plans to provide every citizen with an electronic identifier related systems, which can be used in green landscape and
to enable easy access to ubiquitous services (Lee et al. environment-oriented urban planning on a website apply-
2008b). ing a geographical information system (GIS) (Ki and Hur
In the southern part of the country, the most important 2011). In a sophisticated network environment, such
city is Busan, a seaport city and the second largest city in applications form part of an urban information system
South Korea. It has introduced a u-city project with an aim (UIS), which helps in the management of urban infra-
of integrating ubiquitous technologies into the city’s major structure. In the Korean context, for example, the UIS is
infrastructure, such as port, transportation, tourism and operated successfully and used for the management of
conventions (Lee et al. 2008b). main infrastructure elements like roads, buildings, water
Each city is developing u-infrastructure on the basis of its supplies, sewage systems and land. It is assumed that such
own special preconditions and strategic objectives. As a GIS-based management system will retain a vital role
emphasised by Lee et al. (2008b, 289), u-city initiatives and also in the ubiquitous environment that is in the making in
their primary objectives reflect the special conditions of major Korean cities (Kim et al. 2011).
each city and its infrastructure provision. Thus, in the case In the maintenance of physical infrastructure, such as
of large cities, ICTs have a specific role in minimising roads and bridges, sensor technology will radicalise the
chronic urban problems such as traffic congestion, energy way we monitor and control structures (e.g. data on the
shortage, waste management and pollution. The challenges condition of bridges) and their use (e.g. information on
and the potential associated with new ICTs are different in traffic). Ubiquitous technologies can also be utilised in

123
AI & Soc (2013) 28:491–507
maintaining roads, parks and green areas. For example,
RFID has been introduced to manage information on
planting and maintaining street trees in cities (Kim et al.
2011). In public utilities, ubiquitous technologies provide
tools for user identification, consumption measurement,
resource monitoring and other aspects of the management
of public utilities (Zhang et al. 2010). Technology-assisted
monitoring of electricity consumption in homes is gradu-
ally becoming available to users. Most of these systems
aim to assist users with reducing their total energy con-
sumption. There are, however, also projects that aim to
provide a basis for the design of systems that give users
control over the management of energy usage, so that
savings in consumption can be made in an intelligent way
(Kugler et al. 2011).
Another utility application is water catchment and eco-
system monitoring, in which a network of sensors is utilised
to monitor water flows into catchment areas and areas
where access is difficult or expensive. Such information
can be combined with other sensor networks providing
information on water quality and soil conditions, and with
long-term weather forecasting to assist with the equitable
and efficient distribution of water for irrigation and envi-
ronmental purposes. Similar technology can be utilised to
provide an early warning system for flood-prone regions
and flash flooding in particular (ITU-T 2008). An example
of ubiquity in water management is Unjeong, a new town
being built within the Paju metropolitan area near the
South–North Korean border. Unjeong is based on an eco-
friendly city model. One part of the plan is the ‘Blue
Network’, which is a space for relaxation and leisure in an
area that is at the same time a home for urban flora and
fauna within the large Central Ecological Park and the
Artificial Lake Park. The Blue Network has been planned
to take recycled water from the Advanced Wastewater
Treatment Plant. There are also plans for a rainwater
recycling and wastewater reclamation and reusing system.
The system is based on a u-water monitoring service
(information of flowing water), a u-water recycling service
(control and observation of the quality of the water and
water supply), and extendable u-water recycling (flood
control and countermeasures and water resource manage-
ment) (Park et al. 2006).
Ubiquitous technologies provide new opportunities for
public safety, environment monitoring and natural
resource protection. There are projects in which GPS-
enabled phones are used to detect user transportation mode
(e.g. driving vs. walking), which is then used to assess an
individual’s environmental impact and exposure, such as
carbon footprints and exposure to air pollution. Moreover,
disaster reporting benefits from ubiquitous technologies.
For example, real-time user-contributed data are helpful for
detecting possible dangerous events and reporting, as in the
501
use of Twitter to support rapid response to social or natural
disasters (Zhang et al. 2010, 11). Public safety involves the
prevention of and protection from events that could
endanger the safety of the general public; these events can
be crimes or disasters. Public video surveillance systems
have assisted in city-wide event sensing and safety main-
tenance. In the case of South Korea, almost all of u-city
planning has some kind of u-crime prevention component,
as in Dongtan in Hwaseong or in Jinju in the southern part
of the Korean peninsula (Moon et al. 2010; cf. Zhang et al.
2010, 12). Moreover, the use of location-based services
(LBS) can help firefighting and rescue services to reach
people faster in an emergency. In such a system, certain
mobile phones are equipped with an emergency button that
can send out a distress call including the location of the
person in need of help. After the rescue services receive the
message, they are guided to the distressed via car naviga-
tion systems built into emergency vehicles. In addition, the
3G mobile network updates the navigation with up-to-the-
minute traffic reports in order to plot the most efficient
route (ITU 2005).
One of the most widely discussed application areas of
ubiquitous technologies is traffic. The core application is
called Intelligent Transport System (ITS). Leading coun-
tries in this field include Japan, Singapore and South
Korea. ITS may be defined as systems utilising a combi-
nation of computers, communications, positioning and
automation technologies to exploit available data to
improve the safety, management and efficiency of transport
and to reduce environmental impact (ITU-T 2007). Some
of its features are designed to serve individual car drivers.
Such a system is based on a network of sensors set-up
throughout a vehicle which can interact with its sur-
roundings to provide valuable feedback on local roads,
weather and traffic conditions to the car driver, enabling an
adaptive driving system. This may involve automatic
activation of braking systems or speed control, systems to
maintain driver and passenger comfort and safety as well as
fatigue and mood monitoring (ITU-T 2008). A city-wide-
distributed sensor network can be accessed to indicate
traffic flows, administer tolls or provide continually upda-
ted destination routing feedback to individual vehicles. The
feedback may be based on global and local information,
combining GPS information with cellular networks (ITU-T
2008). There are internationally many examples of systems
that are able to monitor road and traffic conditions (See,
e.g., Zhang et al. 2010, 11; Lee et al. 2008b).
South Korea’s strengths in ITS include real-time traffic
information provision, advanced public transportation
information systems, and electronic fare payment and
electronic toll collection. The importance of this field is
reflected in the way that the IT 8.3.9 Strategy identified ITS
as one of the eight key service areas (Ezell 2010). South
123
502
Korea will invest 3.2 billion USD in ITS deployment from
2008 to 2020, that is, about 230 million USD annually, as
stated in the country’s ITS Master Plan. South Korea built
its ITS infrastructure on a city-by-city basis, establishing
four initial ‘ITS Model Cities’ that implement: (1) adaptive
traffic signal control, (2) real-time traffic information, (3)
public transportation management and (4) speed violation
enforcement in these model cities. Model city processes
started in 1998 with a pilot in the city of Kwa-chon, fol-
lowed by measures to set-up three other model cities—
Daejon, Jeonju and Jeju—from 2000 to 2002 to develop
standards for ITS architecture and implementation. With
these initial pilots validating ITS benefits, the South Kor-
ean Government provided national budget support to
introduce ITS systems in 25 more South Korean cities by
2007. These 29 cities are part of South Korea’s Ubiquitous
Cities initiative, which endeavours to embody IT
throughout all city services—from traffic services includ-
ing city traffic and navigation information to public ser-
vices including government, firefighting and police—and
to enable citizens to access and utilise them at anytime and
anywhere with any device through a unified platform (Ezell
2010).
Concerning practical applications, South Koreans use
T-money, an electronic money smart card or mobile phone
application, to make 30 million contactless transactions per
day on public transit. The country’s Hi-Pass electronic toll
collection (ETC) system covers 50 % of main highways
(expanding to 70 % coverage by 2013) and is used by some
30 % of vehicles. The implementation of ITS has generated
concrete benefits for citizens. South Korea estimates that
the economic benefit of the country’s Traffic Management
System due to reduced transportation time, accidents and
environmental pollution has been 146.2 billion won
(109 million USD) annually. It estimates that the savings
from its Hi-Pass electronic toll collection system due to
reduced transportation time, expense, environmental pol-
lution and operating expense, including labour costs,
amount to 1.757 billion won (1.3 billion USD), an 11.9–1
benefit/cost ratio. Lastly, it estimates the economic benefits
of providing real-time traffic information through in-vehi-
cle navigation units and the Internet, mobile phone, and
radio broadcasts to be 181.1 billion won (136 million
USD) annually (Ezell 2010).
5.3 Assessing Korean u-city approach
South Korea is in many ways a paradigmatic case for
ambitious u-city development and worth closer critical
look. Many bold u-city developments do not necessarily
stand the test of time, and the larger investments, the larger
risks, too. For example, the Korean example reveals that
moving towards a ubiquitous city is costly and requires a
123
AI & Soc (2013) 28:491–507
lot of time and considerable human and institutional
resources (Lee et al. 2008b). This is typical of all bold
innovative actions in urban development. There are also
obvious risks in East Asian style high-investment u-city
strategies which imply too much emphasis on technology
(technology push), too little discussion about the negative
effects of technical solutions in security, privacy and dig-
ital rights management, overhyping the promise of a
ubiquitous future, and the dearth of assessments and eval-
uation mechanisms during u-city projects (Shin 2009; cf.
Lee et al. 2007). Difficulties of New Songdo City to realise
its promise reflect many of these concerns, the paramount
one being the same as with most of the technology-driven
new town projects: consciously planned, somewhat artifi-
cial city with modern functionalist face meets usually a
challenge to make the site lively and attractive. Hype
around ubiquity and intelligent buildings is not enough for
people who have to think about where is the nearest con-
venient store, how to commute to work to a neighbouring
city or where to find a suitable day care centre or school for
a child.
Another feature of Asian developments worth closer
examination is the fact that u-city projects rely heavily on a
framework built on the idea of government intervention
(Frank 2007, 250). This leads to a multi-sector partnership
model, which may be assumed to help in pooling resources
and creating synergies needed in the realisation of growth
expectations. In the u-city context, it seems to be actually a
reflection of the policy of ‘picking winners’ through tech-
nology assessment, which is promoted through a partner-
ship between government and the private sector. The same
tendency is visible actually in ‘U-Korea: IT 839 Strategy’
(ITU 2005, 35). However, such an approach may also
create tensions, such as local versus national initiatives
(bottom–up vs. top–down design), infrastructure orienta-
tion versus user orientation or the ‘effective use’ approach
and democratic governance versus market-oriented plan-
ning, which are actually tensions that characterise most of
the large-scale public information infrastructure projects
(Shin et al. 2006; Lally et al. 2007; Lee et al. 2008a, 20).
Sooner or later, these matters need to be addressed, espe-
cially if problems arise concerning questions like dealing
with the risks, decision-making on issues that affect an
entire local community, and the principles for the
involvement of local authorities.
There are, however, also various counterbalancing
approaches to the techno-economic utopia in the Korean
u-city policy. For example, the nationwide project ‘Ubiq-
uitous Eco-City Planning in Korea’ was launched and
financed by the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime
Affairs. The project aimed to advance the regulations
governing the planning, construction and management of
the u-city and to create a ubiquitous eco-city model. The
AI & Soc (2013) 28:491–507
U-Eco City Project lasted until 2012 as one of the future-
oriented 10 Value Creator Projects or VC-10 Projects in
Korea. In the project, ubiquitous technologies and eco-
logical city planning are combined in real urban space and
suggest a modern city model which can create an innova-
tive urbanism and a future-oriented sustainable city (Kim
et al. 2009). Korean u-city planning suffers from a modest
level of citizen involvement, which should be addressed in
the envisioning and implementing of the ubiquitous urban
future. As summarised by Choi (2010, 82), ‘[H]ence for
the u-City to be successfully established and sustainable, it
must not only imagine the city as an efficient network
system. Rather, even at a cost of decreased operational
efficiency, it should ensure, if not endorse, possibilities for
the users to recreate their own spaces at junctures of
multiple technosocial realities. This is a concept that is
lacking in the current u-City vision—understandably so in
view of its pre-developmental stage—and must be given
significant consideration in its further progress’.
6 Discussion
As briefly indicated in the introduction, we may evaluate
u-city developments not only within a kind of megaproject
framework, but more broadly, as an approach to urban
formation and production of social space. To start with, we
may see u-city through the lenses of Lefebvre’s critique of
urban life under capitalism. It paints a picture of techno-
cratic invasion of urban life and helps us to become aware
of the need to ask to what extent and in what ways u-city
paradigm may imply increased control of everyday life
(Lefebvre 1971; Goonewardena et al. 2008). This point is
of vital importance in the case of South Korea because of
the exceptionally strong agenda-setting influence of gov-
ernment and business.
Another frame we may apply here is so-called dual city
phenomenon, which in this context highlights the techno-
economic polarisation as a potential consequence of u-city
development. Is u-city in its fragmented mode a new way
of building functionally sophisticated enclaves into society,
which tends to serve mainly high value adding activities
and high income people? This aspect requires sophisti-
cated geographical analysis of u-city development and
its spatially differentiated socio-economic implications
(Mollenkopf and Castells 1991; Andersen 2002). The rel-
evance of this aspect becomes evident when looking at the
concentration of u-city investments on the Seoul metro-
politan area (SMA) and the economic and political influ-
ence of Seoul in particular. The policy of unequal
development focussing on SMA may accelerate economic
growth to a certain point, but causes inevitably social
problems too, such as high housing costs, socio-economic
503
disparity, congestion, long commute times and urban
sprawl (Kim 2010). The increased integration of technol-
ogy and physical structures may contribute to urban seg-
regation and polarisation, especially if it is associated with
privatisation and commercialisation of urban public space.
It is too early to say how the emerging geography of u-city
development ultimately shapes urban life in South Korea,
but if there will be no major change in public policy, the
direction is most likely towards increased social polarisa-
tion and urban segregation.
The third critical approach worth discussing here is
based on growth machine thesis, within which ambient
intelligence and ubiquity can be seen as informational
instances of growth machine (cf. Logan and Molotch
1987). This thesis criticises the claim that ‘growth’ is good
for us all, and its u-city variation translates into the
assumed benefits for all from the application of u-city
concept, which reflects the conviction that the promotion of
economic development through technological sophistica-
tion is the best way to increase the well-being of South
Koreans. Here, the critical question is whether u-city really
benefits us all, or is it ultimately a capital affirmative
endeavour of which construction companies and UbiTech
firms reap the most benefit, public sector carries major risks
through their support schemes and public investments, and
people are made to adjust to a new technologically medi-
ated mode of urban life, without much room for choices of
their own. The lenses of growth machine thesis help also to
depict the underlying logic of the seductive perspective of
the provision of control, safety and services for individuals
through ubiquitous technologies, which apparently look
appealing as such, but when put to a wider context of
control or risk society, opens a dilemma of who determines
the rules and meta-rules of the use of such control tools.
These critical interrogations—production of space in
terms of colonisation of everyday life, spatial segregation
in techno-savvy communities and naturalisation of growth
agenda as a background assumption of urban life—pose
some compelling questions about the rationale of u-city
development. What do we make out of it and what does it
make us? It may be that due to more reserved attitude
towards u-city development in the Western countries, some
of the criticism is more accurate in Asian cases than those
of Western ones. Yet, the fundamental dilemma is more or
less the same in both contexts in the sense that we are
dealing with a new kind of urban formation and there is
only limited understanding of their social implications.
Similar concerns have been presented in the early analyses
of urban communities in the capitalist society. Yet, the
increased complexity, delocalisation of activities and
immaterialisation of the economy are certainly posing new
challenges to such analysis. Building cities with new ideas
is always risky and that cannot be avoided, but the question
123
504
is, what kind of risks we want to bear, and do ordinary
people have stakes in such processes either as co-designers
or as members of a resistance movement.
If there is any relevance in previously mentioned critical
remarks, the next question to ask is how to create coun-
terbalances and how to democratise the very process of
making of the new brave u-city. The experiences gained
from the initiatives in South Korea indicate that u-city
projects have been more in the hands of government and
business than that of people. Theoretically speaking, one
answer to this dilemma rests on the idea of the ‘right to the
city’, a slogan originally coined by Henri Lefebvre, which
expresses a shared power to reshape the processes of
urbanisation and thus to right to change not only our
environment but also ourselves, as phrased by an influential
urban sociologist Harvey (2008). In general, this point
highlights the importance of involving people to envi-
sioning the future of urban form starting from the per-
spective of their everyday life and to embed and reshape
u-city developments in such visions, as diverse and mul-
tivocal as they may be. Such a paradigm shift is certainly a
challenge to South Korea (cf. Choi 2010).
Lefebvre leads us to one of the most critical topics to be
addressed in u-city context, everyday life in urbanised tech-
savvy world. There is no need to overemphasise risks that
the u-life brings with it, but the tragic news from The
Telegraph, March 5, 2010, is worth remembering as a
warning from escapism or imbalance between real-life
duties and virtual fantasies: ‘Korean couple let baby starve
to death while caring for virtual child’, a case in which an
unemployed couple obsessed with online role playing fed
their three-month-old baby only on visits home between
12-h sessions at a neighbourhood Internet café. In the
game, they were nourishing an avatar daughter in a Sec-
ond-Life-style 3D fantasy role-playing game Prius Online.
Rather than making hasty conclusions leading to increased
control of everyday life, this case urges us to increase
discussion about emerging dimensions of human life, vir-
tuality in particular. The more ubiquitous technologies and
virtual and augmented realities affect our lives, the more
critical role must be given to creating social bonds,
increasing cultural understanding and making sense of our
technologically sophisticated world. This is in fact the
point why the making of u-cities should involve every
member of the community: meaning of space is at least
partly built upon our ability to be involved in the creation
of our own environment.
The understanding of these kinds of dilemmas has
started to attract the attention of research community. One
result of concern is the development of the philosophy of
the u-city, in which the role of South Korean researchers
has been vital. Lee (2009, 15–16) among others has
developed such a philosophy, providing a promising
123
AI & Soc (2013) 28:491–507
starting point for u-city development, emphasising such
dimensions as urban humanism, urban naturalism, urban
culturalism, spatial rationalism and spatiotemporal tran-
scendentalism. He paints a picture of human beings in a
safe, sustainable and culturally rich environment with a
balanced urban structure and high accessibility (see also
Han 2009). Lee translates such a philosophy into six u-city
aspects: (1) convenient city, (2) safe city, (3) amenity city,
(4) cultural city, (5) productive city and (6) participatory
city. This shows that, at least from a theoretical point of
view, the u-city philosophy is not necessarily as one-sided
and techno-oriented as the current discourse might indicate.
Even if business and technology are fundamental elements
in the u-city vision, both humanistic and ecological
dimensions have their expressions in the current discourse,
and their relevance will most likely be increasingly
important when these visions are slowly turned into reality.
7 Concluding remarks
The idea of u-society is attracting increasing attention
among politicians, developers and academics all over the
world. It provides a fairly clear view of the future of
societies, although this view has in its current form more to
do with fancy technologies than the ideals of a good life.
Even if u-city has become a global development agenda, it
has not been approached in the same way everywhere. On
the contrary, it seems that socio-cultural, political, eco-
nomic and technological preconditions vary considerably
and determine the overall approach to u-city. Also, inter-
governmental relations and local government development
models affect this picture. Western approach is more
socially oriented and relies on incremental user-centric
approach, as exemplified by the cases of Finland and
Sweden, whereas Asian cases reflect at least in their East
Asian version more masterminded infrastructure-oriented
and developmentalist approach, as exemplified by South
Korea and Japan. Cognitive landscape built by and ethical
implications for such approaches are manifold, their core
being differences in whether primacy in u-city consider-
ations should given solely to economy or to balanced
development with strong emphasis of user value, privacy,
social concerns and sustainability. It looks as if East Asian
model is actually like a miniature of state-level develop-
mentalism, which fits well with the picture of central
government’s use of pilots of pioneering local governments
as ‘models’ that are expected to be followed by other local
governments, as revealed by the cases of the development
of local e-government in Japan (Fujita et al. 2005) and ITS
model cities in South Korea (Ezell 2010).
The early conceptions of u-society and the u-city, which
have inspired especially the Korean Government, are based
AI & Soc (2013) 28:491–507
on the expectations of the development of ubiquitous
technologies and networks. Most of these expectations are
realistic, even if many challenges, from display capabilities
to security problems, must be met. A bigger issue is
whether such a technocratic vision will ultimately please
the people who are supposed to use the networked u-ser-
vices and to live in an environment characterised by
embedded control systems. A humanistic and ecological
scrutiny of the vision is worth serious consideration. This is
an important point because non-technical factors seem to
have been neglected in the initial u-city planning in Korea
and elsewhere (cf. Shin 2009; Choi 2010). Moreover, these
aspects are worth consideration because especially large-
scale u-city projects are based on a profit-generating model,
as they centre on the idea of building an ICT cluster which
will benefit from public and private investment in
u-infrastructure and from the boost in demand for u-ser-
vices (Shin 2009, 519). Such an approach is appealing to IT
and telecommunications companies for understandable
reasons, but is it a sufficient basis for the vision of terri-
torial communities, such as a city or a nation?
The other side of the coin is the possibility of pioneering
something that provides radical innovations in urban life as
well as competitive advantage in global intercity compe-
tition. East Asian innovators with the support of develop-
mental states and local governments seem to be in the
process of writing a new script for the urban future with
ubiquity as one of its cornerstones. The Korean style u-city
vision may reflect both the techno-optimism and instru-
mentalism of that country’s symbiotic business–govern-
ment circles, but it may also generate huge business
opportunities, institutional learning as an avenue to societal
change, real added value for consumers and even the seed
of a silent revolution through increased transparency, plu-
ralism and slowly evolving democratic u-governance. In
this sense, the current Korean vision of u-city should give
more weight to openness and democracy (Lee 2009 15).
References
Andersen HT (2002) Globalisation, spatial polarization and the
housing market. Geografisk Tidsskrift Dan J Geogr 102:93–102
Anttiroiko A-V (2005) Towards ubiquitous government: the case of
Finland. e-Serv J 4(1):65–99
Anttiroiko A-V (2009) Urban u-community: a new dimension of
urban regional development. Int J Innov Reg Dev 1(4):464–483
Arima T (2009) U-City trends and services in Japan. In: Lee SH (ed)
Ubiquitous city: future of city, city of future. Hanbat National
University Press, Daejeon, pp 66–90
Aurigi A (2009) U-city: keeping space and place in the picture. In:
Lee SH (ed) Ubiquitous city: future of city, city of future. Hanbat
National University Press, Daejeon, pp 162–179
Bell G, Dourish P (2007) Yesterday’s tomorrows: notes on ubiquitous
computing’s dominant vision. Pers Ubi Comp 11:133–143.
505
http://www.springerlink.com/content/b22773n515483117/fulltext.
pdf. Accessed 12 Oct 2011
Bianco MJ (2001) Robert Moses and Lewis Mumford: competing
paradigms of growth in Portland, Oregon. Plan Perspect 16:95–114
Castells M, Hall P (1996) Technopoles of the world. The making of
the 21st century industrial complexes. Reprint. Routledge,
London
Choi JH-J (2010) The city is connections: Seoul as an urban network.
Multimed Syst 16:75–84
Choi JJ, Greenfield A (2009) To connect and flow in Seoul:
ubiquitous technologies, urban infrastructure and everyday life
in the contemporary Korean city. In: Foth M (ed) Handbook of
research on urban informatics: the practice and promise of the
real-time city. IGI Global, Hershey, pp 21–36
Choi JY, Lee J, Woo SJ, Shim BK (2009) An engineering approach to
the design of a BcN control network. J Netw Comput Appl
32(1):61–77
Dearle A (1998) Toward ubiquitous environments for mobile users.
IEEE Internet Comput 2(1):22–31
Edwards J (2009) Public-Sector RFID. RFID J, 28 Sept 2009.
http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/purchase/5251. Accessed 10
Sept 2011
Egyedi TM, Mehos DC (eds) (2012) Inverse infrastructures: disrupt-
ing networks from below. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham
Ezell S (2010) Explaining International IT Application Leadership:
Intelligent Transportation Systems. The Information Technology
& Innovation Foundation, ITIF, January 2010. http://www.itif.
org/files/2010-1-27-ITS_Leadership.pdf. Accessed 12 Oct 2011
Frank R (2007) Korea’s telecommunications industry. In: Mahlich J,
Pascha W (eds) Innovation and technology in Korea. Challenges
of a newly advanced economy. Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg,
pp 233–253
Fujita M, Izawa T, Ishibashi H (2005) The e-public administrative
process in Japan. In: Druke H (ed) Local electronic government.
A comparative study. Routledge, London and New York,
pp 197–228
Goonewardena K, Kipfer S, Milgrom R, Schmid C (eds) (2008)
Space, Difference, everyday life. Reading Henri Lefebvre.
Routledge, New York and London
Han JH (2009) U-city philosophy, vision, and demand. In: Lee SH
(ed) Ubiquitous city: future of city, city of future. Hanbat
National University Press, Daejeon, pp 30–40
Han JH, Lee SH, Corcoran J (2010) Neighborhood Environment and
Ubiquitous Planning Implications. Knowledge Cities World Sum-
mit, Melbourne, 16–19 November 2010. http://www.melbourne-
knowledgesummit.com/portals/14/proceedings/documents/86_Han.
pdf. Accessed 12 Oct 2011
Harvey D (2008) The right to the city. N Left Rev 53:23–40
Hwang S.-Y (2005) KOREA: Korea embarking on ‘u-city’ project.
Central government aims to network nation with the latest IT
infrastructure. The Korea Herald, Tuesday, 22 November 2005.
http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=34170. Acces-
sed 22 Aug 2006
ITU (2005) Ubiquitous Network Societies: The Case of the Republic of
Korea. ITU workshop on ubiquitous network societies. Document:
UNS/08 6 April 2005. Geneva: ITU. http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/ni/
ubiquitous/Papers/UNSKoreacasestudy.pdf. Accessed 12 Oct 2011
ITU-T (2007) ITU-T Technology Watch Briefing Reports: Continuous
Air-interface, Long and Medium Range (CALM) (October 2007).
http://www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-t/oth/23/01/T23010000010002PD
FE.pdf. Accessed 10 Sept 2011
ITU-T (2008) Ubiquitous Sensor Networks (USN). ITU-T Technology
Watch Briefing Report Series, No. 4 (February 2008). http://www.
itu.int/dms_pub/itu-t/oth/23/01/T23010000040001PDFE.pdf. Acces-
sed 10 Sept 2011
123
506
Jang M, Suh S.-T (2010) U-City: New Trends of Urban Planning in
Korea Based on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Geotechnology and
Geoinformation. In: Taniar D, Gervasi O, Murgante B, Pardede E,
Apduhan BO (eds) Computational science and its applications—
ICCSA 2010. Proceedings Part I, pp 262–270. Lecture notes in
computer science 6016. Springer, London. http://www.springerlink.
com/content/09536l5474203736/fulltext.pdf. Accessed 12 Oct 2011
Kemeny T (2011) Are international technology gaps growing or
shrinking in the age of globalization? J Econ Geogr 11(1):1–35
Ki J, Hur K (2011) Web-GIS based green landscape and urban planning
system development. In: Taniar D, Gervasi O, Murgante B, Pardede
E, Apduhan BO (eds) Computational science and its applications—
ICCSA 2011. Proceedings pp 31–38, Part II. lecture notes in
computer science 6783. Springer, London. http://www.springerlink.
com/content/rv10h830u626q185/fulltext.pdf. Accessed 12 Oct 2011
Kim YY (2006) Research Directions in the area of USN (ubiquitous
sensor network) towards practical UE (ubiquitous environments). In:
Zhou X, Sokolsky O, Yan L, Jung E.-S, Shao Z, Mu Y, Lee DC,
Kim D, Jeong Y.-S, Xu C.-Z (eds) Emerging directions in embedded
and ubiquitous computing. Proceedings pp 505–510. Lecture notes
in computer science 4094. Springer, London. http://www.springer-
link.com/content/2872726q3x30h476/fulltext.Pdf. Accessed 12 Oct
2011
Kim IK (2010) Socioeconomic concentration in the Seoul metropol-
itan area and its implications in the urbanization process of
Korea. Korean J Sociol 44(3):111–128
Kim YM, Kim HS, Moon SY, Bae SY (2009) Ubiquitous Eco-City
Planning in Korea. A Project for the Realization of Ecological
City Planning and Ubiquitous Network Society. REAL CORP
2009: Cities 3.0—smart, sustainable, integrative. Proc/Tagungs-
band Sitges, 22–25 April 2009, pp 925–930. http://www.corp.
at/archive/CORP2009_174.pdf. Accessed 12 Oct 2011
Kim E, Pyeon M, Kang MS, Park J (2011) A Management System of
Street Trees by Using RFID. In: Carswell JD, Tezuka T (eds)
Web and wireless geographical information systems. W2GIS
2006. Proceedings pp 66–75. Lecture notes in computer science
4295. Springer, London. http://www.springerlink.com/content/
8261mj171t11341r/fulltext.pdf. Accessed 12 Oct 2011
Kirk BJ (n/a) The Digital Philadelphia Vision. Technically Philly.
http://technicallyphilly.com/dp/intro.html. Accessed 1 Sept 2011
Kugler M, Reinhart F, Schlieper K, Masoodian M, Rogers B, André E, Rist
T (2011) Architecture of a Ubiquitous Smart Energy Management
System for Residential Homes. Proceedings CHINZ 2011. ACM,
New York. http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/2010000/2000770/p101-
kugler.pdf?ip=153.1.50.83&CFID=42315755&CFTOKEN=665981
87&__acm__=1316016082_dc2c1ad83baaf80e8204ec55c2d5056e.
Accessed 10 Sept 2011
Kwon O, Kim J (2007) A methodology of identifying ubiquitous smart
services for U-city development. In: Indulska J, Ma J, Yang LT,
Ungerer T, Cao J (eds) Ubiquitous intelligence and computing.
UIC 2007, Proceedings pp 143–152. Lecture notes in computer
science 4611/2007. http://www.springerlink.com/content/q34556
23u4465102/fulltext.pdf. Accessed 12 Oct 2011
Lally L, McCrickard DS, Lee JC (2007) Community-based tech-
ubiquity in the built environment. Des Intell 13(4):20–28
Leadbeater C (2007). Remixing cities: strategy for the city 2.0.
Chicago: CEOs for Cities. http://www.ceosforcities.org/files/
RemixingCities.pdf. Accessed 11 Dec 2010
Lee SH (2009) Introduction to ubiquitous city. In: Lee SH (ed)
Ubiquitous city: future of city, city of future. Hanbat National
University Press, Daejeon, pp 10–28
Lee C, Lee BG, Kong Y (2007) Privacy protection for a secure u-city
life. In: Shi Y, van Albada GD, Dongarra J, Sloot PMA (eds)
Computational science—ICCS 2007. Proceedings Part IV,
pp 685–692. Lecture notes in computer science 4490.
123
AI & Soc (2013) 28:491–507
http://www.springerlink.com/content/v024n07447254259/fulltext.
pdf. Accessed 12 Oct 2011
Lee S-H, Han J-H, Leem Y-T, Yigitcanlar T (2008a) Towards
ubiquitous city: concept, planning, and experiences in the
Republic of Korea. In: Yigitcanlar T, Velibeyoglu K, Baum S
(eds) Knowledge-based urban development: planning and appli-
cations in the information era. IGI Global, Hershey, pp 148–169
Lee S.-H, Yigitcanlar T, Han J.-H, Leem Y.-T (2008) Ubiquitous
urban infrastructure: Infrastructure planning and development in
Korea. Innov: Manag Policy Pract 10(2–3):282–292
Lee SH, Yigitcanlar T, Wong JKW (2010) Ubiquitous and smart
system approaches to infrastructure planning: learnings From
Korea, Japan and Hong Kong. In: Yigitcanlar T (ed) Sustainable
urban and regional infrastructure development. IGI Global,
Hershey, pp 165–182
Lefebvre H (1971) Everyday Life in the Modern World. Translated by
Sacha Rabinovitch from La vie quotidienne dans le monde
moderne (Paris 1968). Allen Lane The Penguin Press, London
Licalzi O’Connell P (2005) Korea’s High-Tech Utopia, Where
Everything Is Observed. The New York Times, Technology, 5
October 2005. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/05/technology/
techspecial/05oconnell.html?ex=1286164800&en=4a368c49e8f
30bd2&ei=5088. Accessed 22 Aug 2006
Logan J, Molotch H (1987) Urban fortunes: the political economy of
place. University of California Press, Berkeley CA
Macias-Diaz A (2010) The u-City Index: Integrated planplementation
of future ubiquitous cities. REAL CORP 2010: Cities for
Everyone. Proceedings pp 771–782. http://www.corp.at/archive/
CORP2010_178.pdf. Accessed 4 Oct 2011
The Telegraph (5 March 2010) Korean couple let baby starve to death
while caring for virtual child. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/
worldnews/asia/southkorea/7376178/Korean-couple-let-baby-starve-
to-death-while-caring-for-virtual-child.html. Accessed 29 Nov 2012
Mollenkopf JH, Castells M (eds) (1991) Dual city. Restructuring New
York. Russell Sage Foundation, New York
Moon T.-H, Heo S.-Y, Park K (2010) Public knowledge based on-line
participation system for planning and developing U-City. Melbourne
2010 Knowledge Cities World Summit. Proceedings Document 88,
pp 1357–1372. http://www.melbourneknowledgesummit.com/por
tals/14/proceedings/documents/88_Moon.pdf. Accessed 12 Oct
2011
Mumford L (1938) The culture of cities. Harcourt, Brace and
Company, New York
Mumford L (1961) The city in history: its origins, its transformations,
and its prospects. Harcourt, Brace and World, New York
Murakami T (2003) Establishing the Ubiquitous Network Environ-
ment in Japan. From e-Japan to u-Japan. NRI Papers, No. 66.
http://www.nri.co.jp/english/opinion/papers/2003/pdf/np200366.
pdf. Accessed 10 Sept 2004
Murakami T (2004) Ubiquitous Networking: Business Opportunities
and Strategic Issues. NRI Papers, No. 79. http://www.nri.co.jp/
english/opinion/papers/2004/pdf/np200479.pdf. Accessed 23
Aug 2006
Murakami T (2005) Japan’s National IT Strategy and the Ubiquitous
Network. NRI Papers, No. 97. http://www.nri.co.jp/english/opin-
ion/papers/2005/pdf/np200597.pdf. Accessed 23 Aug 2006
RFid Gazette (26 Nov 2005) Public sector initiatives in RFID. RFid
Gazette. http://www.rfidgazette.org/2005/11/public_sector_i.html.
Accessed 10 Sept 2011
Park S.-J, Bae S.-Y, Jin J.-H, Suh J, Park S.-C (2006) Ubiquitous Water
Recycle Management Service Proposal in Ubiquitous City.
Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Artificial
Reality and Telexistence-Workshops (ICAT’06), pp 558–561.
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=40893
12. Accessed 10 Sept 2011
AI & Soc (2013) 28:491–507
Sclove RE (1995) Democracy and technology. The Guilford Press,
New York
Shin D-H (2005) Design and development of next generation of
information infrastructure: case studies of broadband public
network and digital city. Knowl Technol Policy 18(2):101–125
Shin D-H (2009) Ubiquitous city: urban technologies, urban infra-
structure and urban informatics. J Inf Sci 35(5):515–526
Shin D-H, Kim W-Y, Lee D-H (2006) Future public information
infrastructure: lessons from four US case studies. Info
8(3):47–59
507
Weiser M (1996) Ubiquitous Computing, Web site, 17 March 1996.
http://www.ubiq.com/hypertext/weiser/UbiHome. Accessed 8
Sept 2011
Zhang D, Guo B, Li B, Yu Z (2010) Extracting social and community
intelligence from digital footprints: An emerging research area.
In: Yu Z, Liscano R, Chen G, Zhang D, Zhou X (eds) Ubiquitous
intelligence and computing (UIC): 7th international conference,
UIC 2010. Proc. Springer, Berlin, pp 4–18
123