From “living laboratories” to “living city”: Social space and university mission in the era of smart cities

Abstract

This article was prepared with the financial support of the RFBR and ANO EISI, project 19-011-31231: “Political socialization of Youth in University Cities” The article deals with a number of problems related to theoretical and applied aspects of the university role in various models: as a supporter in the economy of survival or as a driver of technological and socio-economic changes in the era of smart cities. The article goal is to prove the leading role of the university in both the educational and socio-economic areas of the city and region development. The academic relevance of the research is supported by the international economic processes Russia has become a member of, such as the movement of smart cities, the Trianon dialogue (Russia – France) at a high level. Using the Tomsk case, we demonstrated the achievements of universities in the socio-economic changes of the country. Based on historical examples, relevant studies of major urbanists and the author’s ten-year experience of comparative studies of cities, we show how the University can organize city and region social space. The fails associated with the reduction of meaning and uncritical handling of popular theories are analyzed. The article put forward an algorithm of the collaboration of city and university. We use methods of comparing city policies toward the university, historical reconstruction of successful cooperation projects between university and city, analysis, and participant observation during the decision-making process. Problematization of issue solving begins with an analysis of the reduction of theory meaning. This reduction often results in fashionable slogans and transformation programs, which leads to a distortion of these theories and international experience. Such popular theories today include ‘smart’ and ‘creative’ cities. We agree with K. Nawratek, the British urbanist, that such projects are doomed to failure without including the interests of the citizen and the community. The gap with meaning and technocratic abstractness are confirmed on the example of two relevant projects “Smart Grove” and “Living Laboratory” (Tomsk case). We reconstruct the figurative and semantic model of the university grove as the visual space of Siberia and the image of its civilized future. Using the example of the living laboratory of BMW and the Guggenheim Foundation, we reveal the interaction of the city authorities of New York and residents concerning improving the living climate and appearance of the metropolis. Raising the problem of living cities, we consistently consider the university role in the city. We support our position, referencing to an article, published by R. Florida (August 2019), dedicated to the rankings of 50 American cities, which is based on the percentage of university graduates. This confirms the role of the university in the modern knowledge economy, the potential for smart cities development or trivially – for improving the city and region economy. Referencing G. Ave’s publication, the Cleveland case and the projects of the Tomsk university campus, we concluded that to form a university city today means living a full social life.