Content uploaded by Gerhard Schubert
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Gerhard Schubert on Apr 12, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
REBUGGING THE SMART CITY
Design Explorations of Digital Urban Infrastructure
NICK FÖRSTER1, GERHARD SCHUBERT2 and FRANK
PETZOLD3
1,2,3 Technical University of Munich.
1nick.foerster@tum.de, 0000-0002-4274-8127
2schubert@tum.de, 0000-0003-1385-5369
3petzold@tum.de, 0000-0001-8974-0926
Abstract. Smart Cities are presented as a straightforward solution to
diverse urban problems. On a closer look, however, the discourse on
‘Smart Cities’ seems wicked in various ways: vaguely defined,
speculative, and fragmented into incommensurable positions.
Focussing on this ‘wickedness,’ we explore the potential of design
approaches to pervade the obscurities and discursive segregations
around digital urban infrastructure. Insights from critical design theory
lead us to an engagement with digital design not only as validation and
enhancement of Smart City projects but as contingent and political
exploration. Design becomes an investigation and remaking of what a
‘Smart City’ means in a concrete context. Hence, this approach allows
an intersection of social and technical, affirmative and critical
perspectives. We explore this approach through an experimental
workshop. Hence, we discuss the unfolding of two design engagements:
the reframing of ‘Smart Lighting’ as cosmopolitical controversy and the
hacking of pedestrian navigation as urban exploration. This approach
shows a double potential: On the one hand, it makes digital design
practices aware of their ambiguous and political effects. On the other,
we scrutinise the possibility of sociotechnical design perspectives as a
research approach towards ‘Smart City’ projects and digital urban
infrastructure.
Keywords. Smart City; Design Theory; Prototyping; Digital
Infrastructure; Urban Studies; Critical Making; Speculative Design;
SDG 9; SDG 11.
1. Introduction
‘By 2050, half of the world's population will live in cities, and cities cause most of the
world's CO2’ (or similar) precedes most Smart City (henceforth: SC) research as a
fateful preamble. Following this urgency, optimising such future cities and mitigating
disastrous effects seems inevitable. Municipal and corporate-led projects promote the
POST-CARBON, Proceedings of the 27th International Conference of the Association for Computer-
Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia (CAADRIA) 2022, Volume 1, 635-644. © 2022 and
published by the Association for Computer-Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia (CAADRIA),
Hong Kong.
N. FÖRSTER, G. SCHUBERT AND F. PETZOLD
potential of technical innovations regarding social, ecological, and economic issues.
'Sustainable Cities and Communities' are envisioned through technology and
infrastructure. Conversely, urban scholars question this simplistic attitude towards
complex urban problems (e.g., Marvin et al., 2016). However, both critical and
affirmative approaches often remain in ‘technological determinism,’ either praising or
condemning the SC generically (Farías & Widmer, 2018, p. 44). Using the term
‘Ordinary Smart Cities,’ Farías and Widmer suggest ‘decentering’ this discussion
towards a more contextual and contingent understanding of how SC projects remake
urban environments (ibid.). Hence, SC projects are not only confronted with urban
complexity but become a part of it. Instead of a univocal and omnipotent solution, the
SC itself resembles the ‘Wicked Problems’ described by Rittel and Webber (1973).
Literally, it seems ‘ill-defined,’ involving heterogeneous aspects such as ISO-norms,
governance practices, everyday activities, and digital networks. Thus, the SC entails
diverse socio-political conflicts, while its realisation remains vague between actual
implementation and wild speculation. This makes it challenging to follow what a SC
means within a specific context and how it remakes urban environments.
Rittel and Webber describe ‘design’ as the reflective practice of exploring, framing
and reframing such complex problems (1973). Building upon this perspective, we
explore the potential of design approaches to investigate and remake the sociotechnical
arrangements of the SC. Instead of planning digital infrastructure as direct ‘solutions’
regarding specific sustainable development goals, we consider (digital) design as a
critical perspective to deconstruct such imperatives and analyse how these goals are
negotiated and contextualised within SC projects. The metaphor of ‘rebugging’
becomes our narrative to engage with friction, contingencies, and possible alternatives
through experimental design activities. This paper discusses how (digital) design
practices allow new insights regarding two related questions: What is a SC? And what
could it be?
On the one hand, we discuss how design practices contextualise the SC in concrete
urban contexts. Could design intersect incommensurable perspectives, like affirmative
and critical arguments, political and technical engagements? How do SC projects
intertwine social practices, political controversies and infrastructure?
On the other hand, we investigate design as an open-ended or even speculative
practice, through which we explore contingencies, tensions, and friction within digital
infrastructure. How could designing remake monodirectional optimisation as a
contingent and political field? Discussing the possible trajectories of SC projects seems
crucial regarding the dynamic development of this domain.
We investigate these questions following an experimental workshop. Firstly, we
survey perspectives from critical design theory to reconsider (digital) design as a
critical approach towards the SC. Thus, we explore how insights from design theory
allow a combination of technical engagements and critical perspectives. We describe
the unfolding of this approach through two design engagements emerging in the
workshop. Thus, we explore how these design activities frame, contextualise, and
remake a SC. Finally, we discuss the potential of (digital) design practices to engage
with the complex sociotechnical configurations of SC projects. Furthermore, we
scrutinise how this sensitivity makes the design of digital urban infrastructure and SC
projects more attentive to the contexts and conflicts they are involved in.
636
REBUGGING THE SMART CITY
DESIGN EXPLORATIONS OF DIGITAL URBAN
INFRASTRUCTURE
2. Designing, Making and Fabulating Smart Cities
Design thinking, participatory projects, and experimental prototyping can be
considered a key ‘modus operandi’ of many SC initiatives (Tironi & Criado, 2015).
Nonetheless, these activities do not lead a priori to a critical engagement. Tironi argues
that prototyping often follows a simplistic ‘validating’ rationale instead of exploring
contingencies and conflicts. Thus, SC projects are only considered solutions to urban
complexity, whereas their inherent ‘wickedness’ is neglected. However, Tironi
continues, these processes may still generate unexpected responses and frictions, which
are worth analysing (Tironi, 2020). So how to consider design as the open exploration
of these contingencies instead of a strategy to solve wickedness?
While McFarlane and Söderström criticise context-ignorant, ‘post-political,’
economy-centred, and technocratic tendencies of SC initiatives (2017, p. 313), Rosner
counters similar problems within the domain of design (2018). Reframing design as
‘Critical Fabulation,’ she suggests focussing on contingencies, situated knowledge,
collaboration and the continuous challenging of presumptions (Rosner, 2018, pp. 184–
186). This perspective resonates with approaches at the intersection of Science-
Technology-Studies and design theory. Variations of ‘Making,’ ‘Design,’ and
‘Prototyping’ combine critical perspectives with material and technical engagements
(Varga, 2018). For instance, Ratto describes ‘critical making’ as a process-oriented
collaborative investigation instead of the search for a single solution. He suggests the
reciprocal combination of concrete technical experimentation and theoretical
discussions. Hence, ‘critical making’ attempts to resolve the dilemma of ‘innovation’
vs ‘critique’ by ‘reintegrat[ing] technical and social work and thereby innovat[ing]
both.’ (Ratto, 2011, p. 258)
However, this synthesis of critique and innovation should not enforce false
consensus over controversial problems. Varga demonstrates how design perspectives
invoke a plurality of political engagements: materially inscribed ‘subpolitics’ in the
sense of Foucault; controversies arising around artefacts following Latour; or as the
composition of a common world through Stenger's ‘cosmopolitics’ (Varga, 2018,
pp. 33–35). Designing becomes a critical activity that deconstructs presumptions,
discovers controversies, and slows down to recompose an urban cosmos. For scholars
like Wilkie, designing represents a speculative method to explore possible political
trajectories of digital technologies (2015). According to Di Salvo, the engagement with
prototypes becomes not only a form of inquiry but a potential to confront and remake
problematic conditions (2014).
Scholars like Tironi (2018) or Hollands (2015) discussed experimental prototyping
to reframe the SC as context-specific, participatory, and knowledge-based. However,
these studies mostly stay vague on the role of digital infrastructure within this remade
‘Smartness.’ While these approaches represent a crucial intervention into a technology-
dominated discourse, we consider the concrete disposition of digital infrastructure as a
relevant part of broader and ‘societal’ discussions around the SC. Hence, we aim to
complement these perspectives through a concrete engagement with digital
technologies. Building upon the introduced approaches, we discuss the potential of
digital design to draw relations between technical and sociopolitical dimensions of the
SC, juxtapose critical and affirmative perspectives, and combine analysis with
speculative trajectories.
637
N. FÖRSTER, G. SCHUBERT AND F. PETZOLD
3. Investigating the Smart City by Remaking the Smart City
A workshop with a small group of Master level students from Architecture and
Landscape Architecture at the Technical University of Munich became an opportunity
for this experiment. The workshop was introduced by an intense research phase of three
days, followed by three months of project development. This format allowed a playful
investigation of digital urban infrastructure based on the described methods. It
introduced mapping, reverse-engineering, and prototyping activities to generate a
concrete understanding of digital urban infrastructure, intervene speculatively, and
explore unexpected trajectories. While we carefully planned a structure of different
methods, we were open to contingencies and dynamics. Instead of focussing on final
results, this paper follows the workshop process through a series of design
engagements.
Though, how to approach a wicked SC? Whereas Ratto (2011, p. 253) suggests
combining technical making with critical research and discussions, the first open
question was where to start these activities. The discourse on SCs invokes a multitude
of topics and heterogeneous topologies, from class diagrams to urban spaces, everyday
practices, and infrastructure networks. Furthermore, digital urban infrastructure often
seems abstract, immaterial, and context-less. SC projects appear in different states of
realisation, ranging from almost banal implementations to Sci-Fi speculation. Inspired
by Rittel and Webber, we introduced designing as a practice of framing and reframing
what ‘Smart City’ pragmatically means. Initially, a series of speculative mapping tasks
were introduced as a design-based exploration of the SC and its involvement in urban
environments.
The participants started mapping a selected urban area. They gathered spatial
patterns, activities, and infrastructure as a collage of existing maps, diagrams, and
sticky notes. They researched different SC projects and discussed how these would
integrate into the observed spaces. The resulting cartography served as a first
‘mapping’ of what a SC means in the local context (see Figure 1, at the left). Hence,
the map became a speculative tool to contextualise and relate diffuse definitions,
speculative projects, and abstract technologies.
Consecutively, the participants focused on one digitally transformed practice or
infrastructure in this map. By this, we turned towards the disposition of digital
Figure 1: Spatial Mapping and Infrastructural Mapping
638
REBUGGING THE SMART CITY
DESIGN EXPLORATIONS OF DIGITAL URBAN
INFRASTRUCTURE
infrastructure and its entanglements in urban environments. The participants
scrutinised the observed system and created a plan of its components, processes, and
media. Inspired by the mapping project ‘Anatomy of an AI System’ (Crawford & Joler,
2018), they discussed how the analysed infrastructure reconfigures spaces, generates
conflicts and becomes political. Thus, digital infrastructure is interpreted as a ‘matter
of concern,’ which interconnects various urban controversies (Latour, 2007, p. 815).
Maps of Smart Parking, Energy Grids or Crowd Monitoring emerged and related
heterogeneous perspectives like class diagrams and claims for a ‘right to the street’ (see
Figure 1, at the right). While these maps showed that digital technologies are neither
abstract nor separated from political questions, we wondered how to explore this
dimension in more detail and move beyond a dichotomic projection of technology on
space or politics on technology.
Hence, we encouraged the participants to choose one situation in their mappings
and rearticulate it through a design intervention. After the initial block phase, these
experiments were developed through longer and less structured design experiments,
accompanied by drawing storyboards, making conceptual prototypes, and open
discussions.
3.1. SMART LIGHTING COSMOPOLITICS
The first discussed project examined the digital transformation of urban lighting. The
initial mapping showed street lanterns in heterogeneous spaces such as parks, parking
lots, highways and residential streets. These lanterns were involved in diverse urban
activities, from traffic to nightly table tennis. Enhancing streetlights represents a
prominent use case for various SC initiatives. Technical research on ‘Smart Lighting’
revealed how digital infrastructure addresses the maintenance, control, and monitoring
of street lanterns. Lighting infrastructure is enhanced through sensors, communication
networks, and control mechanisms (M. Castro et al., 2013). The technical mapping
showed how digital infrastructure reconfigures the circulation of energy, light, control
signals, exchanged light bulbs, and sensor data. Additionally, this investigation
revealed diverse problems addressed through ‘Smart Lighting:’ saving energy,
enhancing the durability of light bulbs, improving maintenance efficiency, or
enhancing the security of nightly streets.
Despite this diversity of problems, the examined ‘Smart Lighting’ projects
followed the monodimensional rationale of enhancing positive effects (e.g.,
maintenance efficiency) while reducing negative impact (e.g., resource consumption).
However, these clear design goals seemed far less unambiguous on closer examination.
For instance, the implied correlation of light and safety turned out more fragile than
expected: ‘Walking through a dark park, does light make you secure or perhaps
exposed?’ Being lit up may not entail the same safety for everybody in every situation.
This point was discussed with historical reference to the 18th century ‘Lantern Laws,’
which made urban lighting an infrastructure of racist oppression. (Browne, 2015).
Another discussion thread addressed which needs and interests are considered within
an automatically controlled lantern network. On the one side, discussing how SC
projects reconfigure urban light became a reverse-engineering of hidden ‘subpolitics’
in the sense of Foucault (Varga, 2018, p. 33). On the other side, the question of who
and what to take into account led the project to cosmopolitics in the sense of Stengers
639
N. FÖRSTER, G. SCHUBERT AND F. PETZOLD
(2005). Thus, the project asked how urban lighting co-creates specific urban
atmospheres, which enable particular activities and frustrate others – lingering, walking
quickly, jogging, feeling safe?
Leonie, who conducted this project, chose the problem of light regulation as a
design brief. She rearticulated these logics of urban lighting to explore their
presumptions, effects, and politics. How could this prototype investigate the involved
rationales, actors, practices, and interests? The first concept (see Figure 2) introduced
a light-jukebox as a metaphorical controller, which allows a tuning of the atmosphere
by various actors. While this attempt seemed promising in general, it still involved a
commodified and human-centred perspective, which seemed not to do justice to the
environmental implications of light.
The next concept targeted opening the jukebox towards unexpected actors and
incommensurable input. Designing the interactions of this experimental ‘Smart
Lighting’ system became an investigation of what and who to take into account and
how to frame the problem of light concerning human usages, safety, resource usage,
and the affected fauna. We discussed how to inscribe these different perspectives into
the digital control of urban light. The debate revolved around wildlife sensing,
youngsters kicking out lanterns, and Dumbledore's deluminator. Finally, the proposal
for a process-oriented prototyping project emerged. A few smart home light bulbs
would be installed in a park near the university. Their brightness, light colour and
animation are modulated through a simple micro-controller. The prototype's interface
and control logic would be adapted successively in reaction to the local environment.
Thus, the lighting system becomes successively attuned to unexpected conditions. The
prototype development would trace the cosmopolitical negotiation over an atmosphere.
Probably because of the non-solutionist focus of this workshop, this promising
concept remains an inspiring mock-up until now.
Figure 2: Storyboard of a Remaking of Smart Lighting
(Image by Leonie Lux)
640
REBUGGING THE SMART CITY
DESIGN EXPLORATIONS OF DIGITAL URBAN
INFRASTRUCTURE
3.2. DIJKSTRA'S DRIFT
The second project scrutinised how the SC and digital infrastructure are involved in the
walk of pedestrians. A mapping emerged from the initial tasks, laying out different
digital technologies along a fictional stroll through the observed area. Thus, this map
explored how sensors, databases, GIS, interfaces, and algorithms monitor and
influence pedestrian movement. Technologies such as individual smartwatches and
air-pollution models co-constitute the practice of how and where to walk. This collage
touched diverse questions of health, safety, traffic, privacy. Ekaterina, who was
responsible for this project, focused on the practice of pedestrian wayfinding for further
exploration. How is the choice, where to walk, remade through air-pollution maps,
traffic data, models, and algorithms?
Even though ‘wayfinding’ currently occurs individually and in the private sector,
we did not want to delimit the discussion of what a SC means beforehand. Thus,
Ekaterina investigated design interventions into the practice of navigation. A first
prototype framed navigation as a negotiation among different factors instead of just the
‘shortest route.’ The user scenario depicted a parent and a child who playfully create a
way to school which is safe and fun. A multi-criteria navigation app would support this
wayfinding. A discussion emerged around this prototype: On the one hand, the
‘learning’ aspect and the exploration of different criteria seemed interesting. On the
other, ‘improving the way to school’ appeared to fall into the trap of optimisation and
securitisation. The prototype established a deterministic relationship between the user
and digital infrastructure, child and parent. Hence, we wondered how to open this
standard SC narrative up through prototyping.
Instead of a deterministic relationship, Kitchin and Dodge describe the involvement
of digital technology in urban practices as a ‘collaborative,’ ‘contingent,’ and ‘context-
specific’ ‘transduction’ (2011, p. 80). Following this thought, navigation becomes a
sociotechnical negotiation between pedestrians and technology. This perspective
resonates with de Certeau's seminal description of walking as the tactical reaction to
Figure 3: Resulting Journeys of the Dijkstra's Drift
(Project by Ekaterina Tepliakova)
641
N. FÖRSTER, G. SCHUBERT AND F. PETZOLD
and re-appropriation of top-down planned spaces and infrastructure (1984).
A second prototype started with a playful investigation of Google Maps. First, the
application generated connections between two places. These routes were distorted and
dragged according to different criteria by mouse clicks and disobedient walking. For a
more detailed insight into this interaction, Ekaterina turned towards technical
wayfinding models, namely Dijkstra's Algorithm. This algorithm addresses the
shortest-way problem through a weighted network graph. A cost function includes
different criteria in this weighting. (Velden, 2014) In the case of navigation, these are
usually distance, congestion, or simplicity.
We discussed how to reinterpret these means-to-reach-an-end as devices for urban
exploration through several prototyping steps. The project took inspiration from
situationist psychogeography. This playful mapping practice rearranges the structuring
and understanding of urban spaces by strolling/drifting through the city (Flanagan,
2013, pp. 194–197). How could we remake navigation as drift through both physical
and digital spaces?
Ekaterina experimented with different cost functions, adding weight to Dijkstra's
network graph. Thus, she played with different logics to connect locations on a map:
the shadiest, hottest, greenest, or most accident-ridden route (see Figure 3). By this, the
data sets were experimentally related to navigation. According to these rulesets, the
algorithm generated semi-absurd journeys to stroll through urban spaces. The walk
along these navigation graphs was documented as video. These movies showed
experiences of urban spaces, which were co-constituted by experimental navigation
rules. Prototyping became an exploration of different rationales of moving through the
city. On a second layer, the prototype allows exploring how these logics intersect with
concrete urban spaces. Hence, it enabled the discovery of the underlying datasets in
urban space. How is the experience of the ‘highest ranked’ way? How does it feel to
wander through ‘hot’ climate data? The prototype recontextualises datasets and
algorithms in the pedestrian's experience. Thus, the documented journey moved
through both urban space and the navigation model. It remakes navigation as an open-
ended exploration of the physical and the smart city.
4. Discussion
This paper described the implementation of SC projects in urban environments as a
wicked problem and experiments with design approaches to understand and remake
how SCs reconfigure urban spaces and practices. Hence, we reviewed perspectives
from critical design theory. Furthermore, we explored experimental and playful design
interventions in a workshop and followed two projects through several design
activities. By this, we discovered the sociotechnical involvement of digital
infrastructure in concrete urban environments as well as possibilities to remake these
constellations. In conclusion, we discuss what insights this perspective allows and how
it is relevant for an extended digital design practice.
We introduced design activities to contextualise and reframe what a SC represents
in a specific context – and what problems it entails. The initial mappings and the
following prototyping tasks successively connected different topologies and aspects,
like technical diagrams, urban spaces, and political issues. Furthermore, these
642
REBUGGING THE SMART CITY
DESIGN EXPLORATIONS OF DIGITAL URBAN
INFRASTRUCTURE
approaches concretised abstract and speculative SC projects through sociotechnical
engagements. The first prototype revealed the complex social and political
entanglements of lighting infrastructure. The ‘Dijkstra's Drift’ intimately related the
abstract network space of digital models and the pedestrian's everyday experience.
Furthermore, both projects allowed de-centring the teleological focus of digital
design and exploring contingencies in the SC. Engaging with ‘Smart Lighting’
deconstructed the usual rationale of ‘optimisation’ and revealed the political
dimensions of this infrastructure. The second prototype reconsidered the target-
oriented function of ‘wayfinding’ as the exploration of hybrid urban spaces. Thus,
design engagements allowed critical insights by challenging presumptions and
exploring alternative trajectories. However, this criticality was not a given but emerged
through design activities, from continuously intersecting technical perspectives with
theoretical discussions and reacting to nagging questions. Both projects even shifted
back and forth between solutionist and explorative approaches. Optimistically, we
interpret this as a productive co-existence of technical and critical perspectives.
On the one side, the presented methods allowed insights into the involvement of
SC projects in urban environments. Of course, these methods are not a substitute for
ethnographic or theoretical investigations of the SC. Nonetheless, the described design
approaches could complement such studies, offering an exploration of the
sociotechnical disposition of digital infrastructure. On the other side, the discussed
methods represent a valuable contribution to digital design practices in the SC context.
They challenge inherent presumptions and investigate how the developed projects
entail contingent effects. At least, the proposed playful approaches offer relaxation to
an often tense and deterministic discourse.
Nonetheless, the presented perspectives bear various potentials for further
exploration. Even if the workshop aimed to contextualise digital technologies, both
presented prototypes were only loosely related to concrete urban spaces. For future
work, it is essential to explore how these practices reconfigure specific urban
environments and how they are affected reciprocally. While this paper focussed on
experimenting with digital technologies, a stronger connection to urban contexts
remains a vast potential. Also, due to the current pandemic, the collaborative and
participatory aspects of the introduced design approaches fell short. However,
including situated perspectives and experiences is crucial to understanding how SC
projects concretely affect different groups and stakeholders. Collaboration becomes an
essential aspect for the further exploration of the presented methods.
Thus, this experiment only represents our first design steps towards wicked
smartness. The documented activities made us problematise and rearticulate the SC in
various ways. The workshop made it move from ‘By 2050…’ to urban spaces,
negotiations around urban light, and situationist navigation tools. Where else could
design take the Smart City?
Acknowledgements
We thank all participants of the described workshop and hope that confusion and
success were well balanced. Especially, we are grateful to Leonie Lux and Ekaterina
Tepliakova, who allowed us to share their process and prototypes.
643
N. FÖRSTER, G. SCHUBERT AND F. PETZOLD
References
Browne, S. (2015). Dark matters. On the surveillance of blackness. Duke University Press.
Castro, M., Jara A. J., Skarmeta, A. F. G. (2013). Smart Lighting Solutions for Smart Cities.
In 27th International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications
Workshops (pp. 1374–1379).
Crawford, K. & Joler, V. (2018). Anatomy of an AI System. The Amazon Echo as An
Anatomical Map of Human Labor, Data and Planetary Resources. Now Institute and
Share Lab. Retrieved November 23, 2021, from https://anatomyof.ai/.
De Certeau, M. (1984). The practice of everyday life. University of California Press.
DiSalvo, C. (2014). Critical Making as Materialising the Politics of Design. The Information
Society, 30(2), 96-105. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2014.875770.
Farías, I. & Widmer, S. (2018). Ordinary Smart Cities. How Calculated Users, Professional
Citizens, Technology Companies and City Administrations Engage in a More-than-digital
Politics. Tecnoscienza: Italian Journal of Science & Technology Studies, 8, 43-60.
Flanagan, M. (2013). Critical play. Radical game design. MIT Press.
Hollands, R. G. (2015). Critical interventions into the corporate smart city. Cambridge J
Regions Econ Soc, 8(1), 61–77. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsu011.
Kitchin, R. & Dodge, M. (2011). Code/space. Software and everyday life. MIT Press.
Latour, B. (2007). Turning Around Politics. Soc Stud Sci, 37(5), 811–820.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312707081222.
Marvin, S., Luque-Ayala, A., & McFarlane, C. (2016). Smart urbanism. Utopian vision or
false dawn? Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
McFarlane, C. & Söderström, O. (2017). On alternative smart cities. City, 21(3-4), 312–328.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2017.1327166.
Ratto, M. (2011). Critical Making: Conceptual and Material Studies in Technology and Social
Life. The Information Society, 27(4), 252–260.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2011.583819.
Rittel, H. W. J., Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy
Sci, 4(2), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730.
Rosner, D. K. (2018). Critical Fabulations. Reworking the Methods and Margins of Design.
MIT Press.
Stengers, I. (2005). The Cosmopolitical Proposal. In B. Latour und P. Weibel (Eds.), Making
things public. Atmospheres of democracy (pp. 994–1003). MIT Press, ZKM Center for
Art and Media.
Tironi, M. & Criado, T. S. (2015). Of Sensors and Sensitivities. Towards a Cosmopolitics of
"Smart Cities"? TECNOSCIENZA: Italian Journal of Science & Technology Studies, 6(1),
89–108. http://www.tecnoscienza.net/index.php/tsj/article/view/217.
Tironi, M. (2018). Speculative prototyping, frictions and counter-participation. A civic
intervention with homeless individuals. Design Studies, 59, 117–138.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2018.05.003.
Tironi, M. (2020). Prototyping public friction: Exploring the political effects of design testing
in urban space. The British journal of sociology, 71(3), 503–519.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.12718.
Varga, H. M. (2018). On Design and Making with STS. Diseña (12), 30–51.
https://doi.org/10.7764/disena.12.30-51.
Velden, L. (2014). Der Dijkstra-Algorithmus. Technical University of Munich. Retrieved
November 24, 2021, from https://algorithms.discrete.ma.tum.de/graph-algorithms/spp-
dijkstra/index_de.html.
Wilkie, A., Michael, M. & Plummer-Fernandez, M. (2015). Speculative Method and Twitter:
Bots, Energy and Three Conceptual Characters. The Sociological Review. 63(1), 79–101.
https://doi.org/ 10.1111/1467-954X.12168.
644
