© 2019 selection and editorial matter, Claudio Coletta, Leighton Evans, Liam Heaphy and Rob Kitchin. Over the past three decades there has been a concerted move to digitally augment existing infrastructures, roll out new networked infrastructures, and utilize computational systems to tackle urban problems and deliver city services more efficiently. Such endeavours are now encapsulated within the notion of “smart cities”, which advocates claim can help address urban resilience and sustainability in a time of population increases, climate change, and deepening socio-economic inequalities (White, 2016). In other words, smart city technologies are seen to offer an effective way to counter and manage uncertainty and risk. However, as with previous rounds of technological adoption and adaptation in cities - such as those related to energy supply, transportation, and telecommunication - they also create a paradoxical situation wherein the promised benefits (such as convenience, economic prosperity, safety, sustainability) are almost always accompanied by negative consequences and new variances of traditional problems (e.g., reproducing inequality, creating security and criminal risks, environmental externalities) (Greenfield, 2013; Singh and Pelton, 2013; Townsend, 2013). Importantly, this paradoxical relationship and the reproduction of urban problems and risks in a new guise is for the most part ignored in the promotional discourse for smart cities driven by commercial and governmental interests, or is present as a potential new issue to be “solved” by a further round of technological innovation and capital spending.