[brockers]

It looks like the whole crux of the authors arugement rests on this paragraph:

"But cities are not machines that can be optimized, nor are they labs for running experiments. Cities are not platforms with users, nor are they businesses with shareholders. Cities are real places with real people who have a right not to live with whatever “smart solutions” an engineer or executive decides to unleash."

The reaction seems more visceral than thoughtful. Cities in many ways ARE machines that need to be optimized; and, regardless of our feelings, are always in a constant state of experimentation. Cities may not be platforms, but they are certainly businesses with shareholders called voters. Businesses are real places with real people; and while I agree that they should have the right to live without any "smart solution" that a business would like to unleash... my neighborhood covenant (enforced by city ordnance) already disagrees with my opinion.

I don't disagree with the intent of the author, but she failed to make any reasonable argument in support of her point.