Google urbanism 2010–2020: From infrastructural control to growing bit by bit

Abstract

Chinese

This article examines Google’s political-economic influence in the emerging ‘digital growth machine’ through two urban-tech initiatives, Fiber and Sidewalk Labs. The findings highlight the company’s dual role as both a platform and an infrastructure, its capacity for collaboration with local governments and its iterative, experimental use of urban environments. It argues that Google’s urban-tech power in cities is neither fixed nor easily defined; the company purposefully remains ambiguous in order to continually test and invest in new ventures, fuelled by the speculative ethos of Silicon Valley and the demands of venture capital. Using Google as a case study, the article calls for a broader theorisation of tech power in cities, focusing not just on economic heft but also on the ways that tech companies enlist other actors in speculative projects, and adapt, pivot and repurpose their products in response to local demands.

Keywords

infrastructure local government platform urbanism Sidewalk Labs smart cities

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abdullah

(2017) Google’s broadband war redlining Black communities. The Philadelphia Tribune, 6 January. Available at: https://www.phillytrib.com/commentary/googles-broadband-war-redlining-black-communities/article_78510d50-d377-59ef-8032-2db568d647c4.html (accessed 4 March 2025).

Baykurt

(2019) The city as data machine: Local governance in the age of big data. PhD dissertation, Columbia University, USA.

Baykurt

Raetzsch

(2020) What smartness does in the smart city: From visions to policy. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 26(4): 775–789.

Bergen

(2016) Google Fiber is the most audacious part of the whole Alphabet. Vox, 11 May. Available at: https://www.vox.com/2016/5/11/11613308/google-fiber-alphabet (accessed 4 March 2025).

Birch

Bronson

(2022) Big tech. Science and Culture 31(1): 1–14.

Birch

Muniesa

(eds) (2020) Assetization: Turning Things Into Assets in Technoscientific Capitalism. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Botero Arcila

(2021) The place of local government law in the urban digital age. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3848202 (accessed 21 February 2024).

Bozikovic

(2022) The end of Sidewalk Labs. Architectural Record, 22 March. Available at: https://www.architecturalrecord.com/articles/15573-the-end-of-sidewalk-labs (accessed 8 April 2025).

Budds

(2016) How Google is turning cities into R&D Labs. Fast Company, 22 February. Available at: https://www.fastcompany.com/3056964/how-google-is-turning-cities-into-rd-labs (accessed 4 March 2025).

10.

Carr

Hesse

(2022) Technocratic urban development: Large digital corporations as power brokers of the digital age. Planning Theory & Practice 23(3): 476–485.

11.

Doctoroff

(2016) Reimagining cities from the Internet up. Sidewalk Talk, 30 November. Available at: https://medium.com/sidewalk-talk/reimagining-cities-from-the-internet-up-5923d6be63ba (accessed 21 February 2024).

12.

Dougherty

(2016) Cities to untangle traffic snarls, with help from Alphabet unit. The New York Times, 17 March. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/18/technology/cities-to-untangle-traffic-snarls-with-help-from-alphabet-unit.html (accessed 4 March 2025).

13.

Edwards

Cooper

ZGT

Hogan

(2024) The making of critical data center studies. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies. Epub ahead of print 23 January 2024. DOI: 10.1177/135485652312241.

14.

Fields

(2023) Big capital, precision technologies, and structural power in the U.S. housing market. In: Panel 2: How Is Digitization Changing Investments in Housing? Bringing Digitization Home: How Can Technology Address Housing Challenges? Symposium, March 2022, Joint Center for Housing Studies, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA.

15.

Flow (2025) Overview [LinkedIn page]. Available at: https://www.linkedin.com/company/flow—a-sidewalk-labs-company/about/ (accessed 4 March 2025).

16.

Gandy

Nemorin

(2020) Transportation and smart city imaginaries: A critical analysis of proposals for the USDOT smart city challenge. Journal of International Communication 14(14): 1232–1252.

17.

Google Fiber (2019) Saying goodbye to Louisville. Google Fiber Blog, February 7. Available at: https://fiber.googleblog.com/2019/02/louisville_7.html (accessed 12 September 2024).

18.

Grisales

(2016) Google fiber install process draws hundreds of complaints. Austin American-Statesman, 1 March. Available at: https://eu.statesman.com/story/news/2016/02/23/google-fiber-install-process-draws-hundreds-of-complaints/10170070007/#:∼:text=The%20complaints%20include%20home%2C%20landscape,against%20it%20or%20its%20contractors (accessed 4 March 2025).

19.

Halegoua

(2020) The Digital City: Media and the Social Production of Place. New York, NY: New York University Press.

20.

Halpern

LeCavalier

Calvillo

, et al. (2013) Test-bed urbanism. Public Culture 25(2 70): 272–306.

21.

Hardesty

(2024) Fiber wasn’t always the darling: Remember Google Fiber and FiOS. Fierce Network, 17 April. Available at: https://www.fierce-network.com/broadband/fiber-wasnt-always-darling-remember-google-fiber-and-fios (accessed 8 August 2024).

22.

Harris

(2016) Secretive Alphabet division funded by Google aims to fix public transit in US. The Guardian, 27 June. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jun/27/google-flow-sidewalk-labs-columbus-ohio-parking-transit#:∼:text=Secretive%20Alphabet%20division%20funded%20by%20Google%20aims%20to%20fix%20public%20transit%20in%20US,-This%20article%20is&text=Sidewalk%20Labs%2C%20a%20secretive%20subsidiary,obtained%20by%20the%20Guardian%20reveal (accessed 4 March 2025).

23.

Harvey

(1982) The Limits to Capital. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

24.

Heath

(2016) Inside the plan to cover New York City’s streets with free, blazing fast Wi-Fi. Business Insider, 1 March. Available at: https://www.businessinsider.com/inside-linknycs-free-public-gigabit-wifi-plan-2016-2 (accessed 21 February 2024).

25.

Hellman

(2022) Big Tech’s ‘voracious appetite,’ or entrepreneurs who dream of acquisition? Regulation and the interpenetration of corporate scales. Science and Culture 31(1): 149–161.

26.

Hendricks

(2011) Google’s big news connects the Dottes. The Kansas City Star, 31 March. Available at: https://infoweb.newsbank.com/apps/news/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-2004&rft_id=info%3Asid/infoweb.newsbank.com&svc_dat=WORLDNEWS&req_dat=0F41EC32601CE3D6&rft_val_format=info%3Aofi/fmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Actx&rft_dat=document_id%3Anews%252F136514365C3BA170 (accessed 4 March 2025).

27.

Kak

(2023) Make no mistake—AI is owned by big tech. MIT Technology Review, 5 December. Available at: https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/12/05/1084393/make-no-mistake-ai-is-owned-by-big-tech/ (accessed 20 March 2024).

28.

Koebler

(2016) Google is lighting up dormant ‘dark fiber’ all over the country. Motherboard, 25 February. Available at: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/google-is-lighting-up-dormant-dark-fiber-all-over-the-country (accessed 21 February 2024).

29.

Logan

Molotch

(2007) Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

30.

Lohr

(2015) Sidewalk Labs, a start-up created by Google, has bold aims to improve city living. The New York Times, 10 June. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/11/technology/sidewalk-labs-a-start-up-created-by-google-has-bold-aims-to-improve-city-living.html#:∼:text=The%20founders%20describe%20Sidewalk%20Labs,the%20cost%20of%20city%20living (accessed 4 March 2025).

31.

Luque-Ayala

Neves Maia

(2019) Digital territories: Google Maps as a political technique in the re-making of urban informality. Environment and Planning. D, Society & Space 37(3): 449–467.

32.

Mattern

(2020) Post-it note city. Places. Available at: https://placesjournal.org/article/post-it-note-city/ (accessed 1 December 2024).

33.

Mayer

(2021) From peat to Google Power: Communications Infrastructures and structures of feeling in Groningen. European Journal of Cultural Studies 24(4): 901–915.

34.

McElroy

Vergerio

(2022) Automating gentrification: Landlord technologies and housing justice organizing in New York City homes. Environment and Planning. D, Society & Space 40(4): 607–626.

35.

McGee

(2016) Pastors to Google Fiber: Don’t exclude poor communities. The Tennessean, 28 June. Available at: https://www.tennessean.com/story/money/2016/06/28/pastors-google-fiber-dont-exclude-poor-communities/86484240/ (accessed 4 March 2025).

36.

Mejia

(2015) A pressure chamber of innovation: Google Fiber and flexible capital. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies 12(3): 289–308.

37.

Mitchell

(2013) Google buys Provo community-owned network. Community Networks, 19 April. Available at: https://communitynets.org/content/google-buys-provo-community-owned-network (accessed 12 September 2024).

38.

Molotch

(1976) The city as a growth machine: Toward a political economy of place. American Journal of Sociology 82(2): 309–332.

39.

Moy

Bui

(2023) Do Black-owned restaurants matter? Yelp and platform visibility amid a racial reckoning. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology 60(1): 1080–1082.

40.

O’Kane

(2022) Sideways: The City Google Couldn’t Buy. Toronto: Random House of Canada.

41.

Parkar

Zérah

Mittal

(2023) Platformisation, infrastructuring, and datafication. Economic and Political Weekly 58(14): 53–60.

42.

Plantin

Lagoze

Edwards

, et al. (2018) Infrastructure studies meet platform studies in the age of Google and Facebook. New Media & Society 20(1): 293–310.

43.

Pressman

(2017) Google Fiber still expanding but more slowly than ever. Fortune Magazine, 29 March. Available at: https://web.archive.org/web/20170715043715/https://fortune.com/2017/03/27/google-fiber-expanding-slowly/ (accessed 12 September 2024).

44.

Range Association of Municipalities and Schools (RAMS) (n.d.) Google Fiber project development agreement Kansas City. Available at: https://broadband.ramsmn.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Google-Fiber-Project-Development-Agreement-Kansas-City.pdf (accessed 4 March 2025).

45.

Rosen

Alvarez León

(2022) The digital growth machine: Urban change and the ideology of technology. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 112(8): 2248–2265.

46.

Sadowski

(2020) Cyberspace and cityscapes: On the emergence of platform urbanism. Urban Geography 41(3): 448–452.

47.

Schmahmann

Ramiller

Fields

(2024) Platform firms, commercial real estate cycles and San Francisco’s growth as a tech cluster, 2008–2020. Annals of the American Association of Geographers 144(1): 139–163.

48.

Shapiro

(2020) Design, Control, Predict: Logistical Governance in the Smart City. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

49.

Sottek

(2013) Google Fiber is coming to Provo, Utah by late 2013. The Verge, 17 April. Available at: https://www.theverge.com/2013/4/17/4234258/google-fiber-is-coming-to-provo-utah (accessed 4 March 2025).

50.

Subrahmanyam

KVJ

(2010) Google’s fiber network is attempt to force telcos to change. The New York Times, 10 February. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/external/venturebeat/2010/02/10/10venturebeat-googles-fiber-network-is-attempt-to-force-te-33607.html (accessed 4 March 2025).

51.

Surico

(2022) Can technology help cities manage curbs better? The New York Times, 24 August. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/24/business/curbside-management-cities-technology.html (accessed 4 March 2025).

52.

Terrell

(2013) Network free K.C. Harper’s Magazine Online, 20 March. Available at: https://harpers.org/2013/03/network-free-k-c/ (accessed 21 February 2024).

53.

Terrell

Jackson

(2013) Only connect. Harper’s Magazine, April, pp. 68–69.

54.

Welch

(2019) Google Fiber is leaving Louisville in humiliating setback. The Verge, 7 February. Available at: https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/7/18215743/google-fiber-leaving-louisville-service-ending (accessed 12 September 2024).

55.

Wells

Attoh

Cullen

(2023) Disrupting D.C.: The Rise of Uber and the Fall of the City. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

56.

Wiig

(2015) IBM’s smart city as techno-utopian policy mobility. City 19(2–3): 258–273.

57.

Zukin

(2020) Seeing like a city: How tech became urban. Theory and Society 49(5): 941–964.

58.

Zukin

(2021) Planetary Silicon Valley: Deconstructing New York’s innovation complex. Urban Studies 58(1): 3–35.