top of page

Smart, Smarter or (S)Low-tech city? (Part 1)

  • Writer: Alice Pham
    Alice Pham
  • Jun 4
  • 11 min read

Updated: Jun 19

Abstract

  • Show a big picture of smart city development in Ho Chi Minh City, from thoughts to practices.

  • How scholars and specialists think of "smart" in both global and local contexts.

  • From a local critique of Buzzwords to city planning strategy.


If you were in Europe in the past few weeks, you might have experienced a strange situation due to a massive power outage. The Guardian featured the headline: “No one knew what to do’: Power cuts bring chaos, connection and re-evaluation of digital dependency,” highlighting how people were disrupted in their daily routines, which heavily depend on technology. However, I also noticed a contrasting reaction on social media, some people genuinely enjoyed the brief period of disconnection. It reminded me of a scene from my favorite Japanese movie, Survival Family (2017). The story follows a family trying to survive a long journey from Tokyo back to their hometown after a nationwide blackout. With all modern conveniences suddenly gone, they had no idea when the electricity would return.


The offensive scenes of two families who strive throughout the power cut-offs. On the left-hand side are the main characters (I call them the "unskilled family") who are trying to survive with items taken from abandoned groceries. On the other side, a family is eating their handmade dishes from natural ingredients. Just look at the opposite feelings on their faces, and we can easily imagine what will happen in the rest of the movie.


Smart development come up with depending on services


From the invention of the flush toilet to artificial intelligence, technological advancements have continuously made life more convenient. My professor from the Faculty of Urban Studies once pointed out that people communicate more nowadays, but greet each other less. This phenomenon, he said, is not just a sign of economic change, but also of shifting cultural norms and lifestyles.


Society has been moving from a model of independence to one that relies heavily on services. This idea reminds me of related concepts such as the post-industrial society, the industrial society, and the information society. Personally, I believe that with all these conveniences, we are gradually losing our basic survival instincts. From the moment we are born to the time we pass away, we rely on various services to survive, especially in urban societies. Research shows that a person living in an urban area needs access to at least 120 essential services to maintain a good quality of life. Interestingly, after just 5 to 10 years, about one-third of these services may become obsolete and be replaced by new ones. Some services are easy to recognize, such as food delivery, ride-hailing, or house cleaning, reflecting how people may lose basic life skills and, in turn, spend more money to compensate for those shortcomings.


Since the early 2000s, many cities have begun developing smart city models, urban systems programmed and monitored down to the smallest detail using networks of sensors and cameras. These cities aim to integrate information and communication technology (ICT) to optimize urban services and infrastructure. They also prioritize citizen-centric services and encourage participatory governance through digital platforms. Yet these systems are heavily dependent on powers? So what happens if a widespread power outage occurs with no clear timeline for recovery? Smart cities operate through machine networks that require continuous power. A blackout could shut down the very systems that support modern life.


I do not want the out to criticize the smart development, but these projects continue to move forward and offer many benefits as long as major disruptions do not occur.  I feel lucky to have had opportunities to talk with brilliant colleagues from a wide range of disciplines. These conversations have inspired me to think more critically about the future of urban living. Last month, I was on my way to the Asia Smart City Expo 2025, I saw a banner with the slogan: “...Thành phố Hồ Chí Minh phấn đấu trở thành thành phố thông minh...” (“Ho Chi Minh City strives to become a smart city”). I believe this is a great initiative, but why not "beyond the smart city"? These naive questions are my own momentum to push me find and write something about this topic. In the first part, I initially focus on analyze the strategic vision of smart city over the practices and apply policy framework


Smart city agenda


The "Messy Ambitious" Leap Forward.

According to HO CHI MINH CITY'S SMART CITY INITIATIVE FOR THE 2017-2020 PERIOD, VISION UNTIL 2025 agenda (A see the timeline on Agenda above), a important guideline document providing an overview for the implementation of smart city development. This initiative emphasize on 4 pillars to and 9 priority sectors.


There are three periods are mentioned in initiative's timeline, Ho Chi Minh City is in the end of phase 2 (2021 - 2025) if reference in temporal aspect.

  • Phase 1 (2017–2020): Established core tech infrastructure, cloud computing, data platforms, and smart operation centers. Launched essential smart solutions in areas like e-government, traffic, environment, flood control, security, and healthcare.

  • Phase 2 (2021–2025): Expanded and integrated sector-specific smart solutions to tackle major urban issues. Continued updating and using shared data systems.

  • Phase 3 (Post-2025): Enhanced technological capacity, security, and data handling. Upgraded and expanded smart solutions to broader areas of urban life.


However, I want to reference my city that where it actually are in a global frame? Thus, I use 3 generation of smart city to cross-check that Ho Chi Minh City (HCMC) is in the midst of a bold but complex transformation. As it approaches the end of its Smart City 2.0, signs of Smart City 3.0 are emerging. In the policy documents demonstrate the clear city-led strategy with have developed specific plans and identified key pillars for smart city development (data center, operating center, service center, information security center). We can easily figure out applying digital solutions in transportation, healthcare, governance, and planning:

  • E-Government Services: Online platforms now support tax payments, healthcare consultations, and public service access.

  • Urban Technology: Tools for traffic management and flood monitoring are in use (try to address the urban issues like traffic jam, flooding, urban gentrification)

  • Fintech Growth: E-wallets and app-based banking are rapidly expanding.


Moreover, there is a variety of project categories from ECONOMY VIBRANCY to LIVABILITY & INCLUSIVITY (see detail in Smart city agenda - Projects and Map) in HCMC comparing to other provinces. Some projects, for example "Integrated emergency communication system", "Eco-smart city" by Lotte Group, "Saigon Sport City" by Keppel Land, among others aim to improve the quality of life for the city's residents. It's a sign for aligning with core principle of Smart City 3.0 (Citizen-Centric Vision).


While Ho Chi Minh City’s smart city vision is ambitious, the road to realizing it is filled with significant obstacles in both structural and societal aspects, here are some notes that I collected through out the time I was a site investigator for a smart city research project:


  • Fragmented Leadership and Coordination: Despite high-level strategies, the actual implementation suffers from weak interdepartmental coordination and a lack of unified leadership. Without a common vision and streamlined execution, many projects remain isolated and inconsistent.

  • Funding Dependencies: Although the government aims to reduce reliance on external resources by 2030, foreign investment remains central to many smart initiatives. This raises concerns about long-term sustainability and local ownership of digital infrastructure.

  • Outdated Legal Frameworks: Laws and regulations struggle to keep pace with emerging technologies like artificial intelligence and blockchain. This lag hampers efforts to address critical issues such as cybersecurity, user privacy, and data sovereignty.

  • Digital Literacy Gaps: Even though internet penetration and technology adoption are expanding quickly, digital literacy remains low. This makes it difficult to onboard citizens into new systems, reducing the effectiveness of e-government platforms and smart services.

  • Inequality in Access and Adoption: Disparities between urban and rural areas persist, with uneven infrastructure and varying levels of public awareness. Many people remain unfamiliar or skeptical of smart technologies, reinforcing digital exclusion.

  • Public Trust and Perception: There is no consensus on the actual value of smart city programs. Some citizens view them as tokenistic or cosmetic, while others question their relevance to daily life.


Are We Misunderstanding “Smart”?

When I talked to some professors from about "How the city must be in the future?" topic, they actually are the parties of the local critique of Buzzwords. There’s also frustration with the overuse of trendy urban terms, such as “livability”, “sustainability” and “smart”. These words, frequently used in planning documents and real estate ads, can obscure more than they reveal. Instead of clarifying vision, they often confuse the public and create a false sense of progress. If we move through Sai Gon bridge to the east of the city, you immediately see a big ads board like picture below. They are promoting a new type of real estate property: the first TOD (Transit-Oriented Development) real estate model in Ho Chi Minh City. It makes me a bit confused. I'll just drop the image here so we can think about it a bit more.

Likely, the term “smart city” has often been co-opted by real estate developers. Some smart city projects are mentioned on the storyboard, but are they really “smart” in the true sense of the word? Smart lighting, facial recognition doors, and apartment mart urban develop apps are marketed as indicators of modern living, but these features reflect smart housing, not necessarily smart urban development. This has led to what some urban experts describe as "cosmetic smartness," where projects boast features like community apps, surveillance systems, automatic doors, and smart lighting. While these elements appear modern, they often serve more as selling points than as solutions to structural urban challenges like inequality, livability, or resilience.


In many parts of the world, including Ho Chi Minh City, the term “smart city” often lacks clarity and a specific definition. Here, it seems to be based more on the trends, marketing, and interest from investors rather than a comprehensive urban development plan that seeks to improve the city in the long run. Instead of being a positive driver of urban change, the term “smart” is often used superficially as a catchphrase to sell development projects, draw investments, and artificially increase property prices. As far as “smart city” developments go, in Hoh Chi Minh, there is a tendency to remain fragmented and project-oriented. In this case, it would be digitization of specific services such as e-government, fintech, and real estate. This narrow focus does not support the transformation of the entire city. Although such an approach has its benefits, such as raising public awareness and creating some standards, it is still driven by shallow competition and a focus on attracting investment. There is a growing over-dependence on certification systems and digital measurements to define smartness with a focus on apps, metrics, and dashboards. This understanding risks neglecting the intersection of technology with the everyday life and needs of the locals.


The concerning factor here is that “smartness” can easily turn out to be a performance achievement, a way to show off modernity and global competitiveness, whereas other governance systems, planning, as well as data ethics, are still underdeveloped. Smart homes may be equated to smart cities, just as smart applications may be equated with smart governance. Such equivalences tend to occur when initiatives are not appropriately scrutinized. Also, a lot of these smart city models are imported from Western urban discourse, which is interesting as it involves a lot of culture and institutions. They may become irrelevant or even mislead policy when used thoughtlessly in Vietnam. Policies must be designed around the context to ensure they properly align with the historical trajectories, cultural frameworks, and socio-spatial dynamics of the region, rather than simply grabbing them off the shelf. This stark contrast draws attention to an uncomplicated and simpler time, when communities did not require labels to be considered inherently more sustainable. When communities are not grounded in local contexts and cultural frameworks, the adoption of global urban trends becomes synonymous with superficiality.


Rethinking “Smart”: More Than Just Technology

There is a clear call to slow down, to critically examine the terminology, and to ask difficult but necessary questions: Do people really understand what these concepts mean? Are they improving lives? Are we building for technology or for people? At the heart of a truly smart city are smart citizens, engaged, informed, and empowered. Without that foundation, even the most advanced technologies risk becoming tools of exclusion rather than inclusion.

I do remember one expert notes that the original idea of smart cities, attributed to Ken Larson, was never just about high-tech infrastructure, Think beyond the "smart city". At its core, it was about community balance, fair opportunities, and supporting vulnerable populations. Think smart impact over the tangible changes (processes, data usage, governance). This idea aligns with the principles of the UN-Habitat’s Flagship Program on People-centred Smart Cities, which defines a smart city as “people-centred” when it uses digital technologies in an ethical, inclusive, and sustainable way to ensure that no one is left behind.


Coming back with the first question of this part, but what happens when the electricity goes out? In moments like these, the limitations of a tech-heavy “smart city” model become especially clear. Do we need a smart city, a smarter city, or perhaps even a (s)low city? What do these models actually look like in practice, and how do they respond to real world challenges such as power outages, climate stress, or social inequality?  I will delve into these thought-provoking questions in the following section.



Terminology Notes

The concept "Information Society" is used to refer to a wide range of ideas. The term is most frequently used in a broad sense to describe a developing high-tech, economically prosperous service society, where information technology, as opposed to conventional resources or energy, is the dominant technology. 
An industrial society is one in which technologies of mass production are used to make vast amounts of goods in factories, and in which this is the dominant mode of production and organizer of social life.
Postindustrial societies represent a significant shift from traditional industrial economies, emphasizing service-oriented roles and the centrality of theoretical knowledge.
ICT (Vietnam context) The ICT reference framework is a set of functions to link smart regions, applications, and urban services to ensure consistency and synchronization in smart city development, according to Decision 829/QĐ-BTTTT on the ICT reference framework issued on May 31 by the Ministry of Information and Communication.
Phase of smart city: Smart city 1.0 –> Technology driven - Smart cities 2.0: Technology enabled, city-led -> Smart cities 3.0: Citizen-co Driven

References







 
 
 

Comments

© 2023 by Minh Tam Pham

bottom of page