Antennas

Today, more than half of the global population lives in cities. Our century is urban, but often we forget that cities in the 21st century are also digital. 

Digital technologies have become part of the urban environment and of how we experience our cities. Traffic and surveillance cameras are installed along roads, LED sensors light up as we walk over a zebra crossing, and we can use our smartphones to rent one of the many e-scooters that are parked on our sidewalks.

And yet, digital, or digitalised, cities do not look the same everywhere. Digital technologies have been placed in very different, and very material, urban environments. 

So how do digitalised cities look like around the globe? How different are digital cities in the Global North and in the Global South? And how has our personal experience of our own cities and neighbourhoods changed because of new technologies? 

This podcast explores the diversity of digitalised cities in our urban century, and interrogates the tension between the material and intangible aspects of technologies in cities.

This is Antennas, an original podcast with the voices of some of the students of the master track “Urban Digital Transformation and Innovation” offered at the Institute for Housing and Urban Development Studies at Erasmus University Rotterdam. 

Their voices will tell us their personal stories and experiences of how digital technologies have changed their cities, and what we might have gained or lost along the digital transformation of our cities.

Welcome to Antennas! 

The hum and clatter of activity that is associated with city life is often referred to as a city’s auditory landscape or ‘soundscape’; In the context of the urban, the International Organization for Standardization (the ISO), defines ‘soundscapes’ as the ‘acoustic environment perceived or experienced by people’. Simply put, we can think of an urban soundscape as the collection of ‘sounds’ or noises that we often associate with our day-to-day experiences of living in cities. 

Today my musings will focus on the evolution of the noise-cancelling technology of headphones and how this technology, is contributing to moderating and possibly even altering the soundscapes and our experiences of life in the urban.

To delve into this topic, I'll do so by drawing on my own experiences and observations, as well as the work of theorists like Bijker who offers an analytical lens from which I will explore the evolution of noise-cancelling technology of headphones with consideration to urban soundscapes.

(Jingle increasing at the start of the pitch and then fading out)

This is Antennas, an original podcast that explores the diversity of digital cities worldwide, and that interrogates the tension between the material and intangible aspects of technologies in cities, and how they have changed our lived experiences of being in the urban. 

My name is Melodie Campbell and I am one of the students of the master track “Urban Digital Transformation and Innovation” offered at the Institute for Housing and Urban Development Studies at Erasmus University Rotterdam. 

This is my antenna.

Before I delve into the evolution of noise cancelling headphones, I'd like to explore the concept of urban soundscapes by drawing on my own experience of being an international student here in the Netherlands - which has offered a starkly different auditory landscape to familiar sounds back home. 

Walking out of Rotterdam Centraal, on my arrival last year, what struck me almost immediately was how much quieter this city seemed to my foreign ears - it seemed like someone had turned down the volume of peoples conversations in public spaces like stations compared to soundscapes of similar scenes back home in South Africa.. where the rumble of boisterous chatter… and the cacophony of street vendors vying for their next customers attention are often the backdrop of a typical transit scene.

Contrasted with Cape Town, the tempered frequency of chit chatter here in Rotterdam, seemed so striking to me on day one that waiting for tram no 7, I enquired of a stranger, if this is a typical  Friday afternoon street scene.

So while this contrast highlights contextual differences, urban soundscapes are not without effect – with some sounds welcomed while others are relegated to the ‘noisy corner’ of sheer nuisance. 

In a paper from 2023, Kang notes that the impact of soundscapes include health, culture and economic related effects and while I cannot discuss these here it brings me to the focus of my musings in this podcast – noise-cancelling headphones. And full disclaimer, I too own a pair.

Like the New Yorker columnist Kyle Chayka so aptly describes and to quote “more people than not seem to have small antennas [.........] … peeking out of their auricles.. while others have obtrusive cups ... [...] ... clamped to the sides of their heads like minimalist Mickey Mouse ears. Many of these devices are equipped with noise-cancelling technology that muffles the ambient sound of the world” – this visual imagery seems to ring true based on my observations around campus, and which potentially could translate to blocking out the familiar sounds of birds chirping, bicycles and their infamous bells, the occasional bells of the carillon chiming, barcode scanners at the Spar checkout, and more recently the clunks and clamour of construction work - all which have become more commonplace to my ears than the boisterous chatter of student interactions as I make my way around campus (without my headphones, that is). 

To understand how noise-cancelling headphones has become such a commonplace ‘artifact’ in terms of its use in the urban, let's consider its evolution through the lens of Bijker’s theory of the socio-technical construction of technology or SCOT (for short). Biker’s SCOT framework helps us see that technologies are not just products of inventions void of social context but highlights how social groups shape technology and the ways a technology is used as objects or  “artifacts” to quote Bijker..who goes on to propose that because objects can mean different things to different social groups it exhibits what he refers to as “interpretive flexibility”. Further to this, he proposes that as consensus is reached about an object’s meaning and function it signals “closure” with “stabilisation” occurring when an object’s form and function becomes relatively fixed and widely accepted.

Reflecting on the evolution of noise-cancelling headphones through Bijker's SCOT, we can identify some key leveraging points and shifts in how this technology is understood and used – so let me explain because what's interesting to note is that before headphones had anything to do with music (or listening to podcasts on the go, I should add), it was invented by an engineer, Nathan Baldwin in the early 20th century (1910s) to improve sound clarity for telecommunication use by the US navy (for defence purposes)                                                                                         

The first personal headphones were then launched in 1937 by the company Beyerdynamic and were typically used by sound engineers and reporters. But it was also around the 1930s that early experiments with sound dampening and acoustic isolation for the aviation industry began. 

Thereafter, the concept of active noise cancellation was developed by Dr. Lawrence J. Fogel, who in 1953 filed a patent for a system to cancel noise in communication headsets intended for aviation purposes. 

But it took a few more decades of the continued development of active noise cancellation technology before the first noise-cancelling headphones were launched. So let’s fast forward to 1986 when the company - Bose - released its first active noise-cancelling headphones; marking a significant milestone in making this technology commercially available, albeit still primarily for the aviation market. 

That is until the 2000s, which marked the increasing popularity of portable audio devices (such as iPods and MP3 players). This period may not have represented a detour from that of the primary aviation focus since the form the technology took had not changed, but as proposed by Bijker, I see how the 'interpretative flexibility' of this technology was being shaped by users and producers, with noise-cancelling technology being adapted and marketed for personal listening devices. 

So much so that in the 2010s, noise-cancelling headphones became more of a mainstream consumer product, with a wide variety of brands and models becoming available. The rise of wireless technology such as Bluetooth has also since been integrated with noise cancellation .. and has further enhanced its convenience and appeal.   

This brings us to the 2020s and the COVID-19 pandemic, where the shift to remote work fuelled demand for noise-cancelling headphones for purposes of enhancing focus and productivity while working from home. But also – what is noteworthy is its increasing use as an accompaniment for everyday activities out in the urban. 

And with marketing campaigns emphasizing not just audio quality but its lifestyle benefits what is of particular interest here – is its ability to offer an escape from the nuisance of urban noise. The great escape from urban noise seems to have been further accelerated by the shift to wireless headphones, improved battery life and wireless connectivity which all seem to have made noise-cancelling headphones more practical for everyday use in urban environments. 

And so applying Bijker’s SCOT lens, a question to ask is if noise-cancelling headphones have become a 'stabilized' technology, or if its meaning is still in flux in terms of its use in the urban? 

And while you might or might not ponder that question,  I think I’ve found a plausible sounding explanation for the reduced volume of chit chatter I noticed on my arrival in the Netherlands and around campus. 

But that’s not all....we also see intensifying debates about the social implications of widespread noise-cancelling headphone use, including concerns about social isolation and users situational awareness in urban environments, especially while commuting ... 

Chayka, in his New Yorker article, argues that noise-cancelling headphones are to quote a “fundamentally antisocial technology” allowing users to be in their own internal world and in the outside one, simultaneously. 

Others like Russo, a professor in neuroscience, who found a direct correlation between music and stress reduction, suggests music - assumingly mediated through technology such as noise cancelling headphones - allows users to create a “a personal bubble against the assaults of daily life” of stress-filled urban environments. 

And so circling back to urban soundscapes, I'd like to leave you with a few lines of further enquiry, if I may .... 

For starters: What does the seeming increasing number of noise-cancelling headphone users, with their 'Mickey Mouse' ears or antennas, suggest about our urban environments?   

What does it potentially suggest about cities management and mitigation of the soundscapes of built environments and with that the well-being of those who live in the urban and who find themselves on either side of the invisible auditory divide, those users and non-users of noise cancelling headphones?" 

Looking through Bijker’s lens of SCOT, what problems could it suggest and conversely how are noise-cancelling headphones being co-opted as solutions for users to address urban noise? 

These are complex questions with no easy answers. But what I appreciate about theories like Bijker’s SCOT it that it certainly presents us with clues. So on that note, I would like to encourage you to delve deeper into this topic by exploring the growing body of literature of urban soundscapes and how technology is altering urban dwellers experience of city life.

Thank you for joining me on this exploration of noise-cancelling headphones and urban soundscapes. 

I hope it has offered you a few sound bites into the frequency of city life and provided a few further considerations as to the role of technology in digitally mediated life in the urban. 

This is Antennas, signing off.

(Jingle fading in in the background and then slowing fading out)

Disneyland as an Urban Lab for Smart Cities: Was Walt Disney an Urban Planner

Introduction

There is something about Disney theme parks that has always caught my attention, not only as a child, but especially now as an adult. I’m not talking about the obvious fact that theme parks are literally designed and engineered for people to experience the best day of their lives. There is something beyond its purpose of entertainment that I’ve always engaged with even as a child, and I think it’s related to using technology for organization, functionality, and adding this element of interactiveness. In this episode, I want to explore the parallels between Disney theme parks and the concept of Smart Cities. I also want to explore to what extent a theme park works as an urban lab for Smart Cities technologies. Lastly, how can theme park-inspired technologies shape the way we interact with the city?

Pitch

(Jingle increasing at the start of the pitch and then fading out)

This is Antennas, an original podcast that explores the diversity of digital cities worldwide, and that interrogates the tension between the material and intangible aspects of technologies in cities, and how they have changed our lived experiences of being in the urban.  My name is Sofia Nelson and I am one of the students of the Master track “Urban Digital Transformation and Innovation” offered at the Institute for Housing and Urban Development Studies at Erasmus University Rotterdam. This is my antenna.

Main text

I was raised in Tijuana, a city in the northernmost part of Mexico that borders the US, which meant that Disneyland was only a 3 hour drive away. Coming from a place where interacting with the city was often a restrictive, dull, and sometimes even hostile experience, a trip to Disneyland always meant more than just the rides, meeting Disney characters and trying tasty food. It meant feeling safe, taken care of, and counting on reliability. The ‘magic’ I experienced in this theme park was not only coming from the fireworks, parades, special effects, or how they somehow manage to make it snow in California. It came from how a day in this theme park was the closest thing I had ever experienced to functionality and efficiency in a built environment. 

Looking into this as an adult and aspiring urban planner, it all makes sense: Walt Disney himself was an urban planner. And not just any kind of urban planner, he was particularly passionate about creating the cities of tomorrow. Think about it. He literally had a whole vision for EPCOT, which stands for Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow. If you’re not familiar with EPCOT, it’s one of the four Disney theme parks in Florida; it showcases innovation, technology, and celebrates international culture. However, a theme park is not what Walt Disney had originally envisioned for this project. He wanted to create a functional and livable city. A circular city with greenbelts and high-tech transportation systems; some sort of sandbox for social innovation. As he was pitching the project, Walt Disney said how EPCOT ‘will always be introducing, and testing, and demonstrating new materials and new systems. And EPCOT will always be a showcase to the world for the ingenuity and imagination of American free enterprise.” 

So EPCOT was intended to be used as what we urban planners call an “urban lab”: an observed environment where innovation, technologies, ideas and even policies can be tested. The only difference is that urban labs tend to be embedded in the city, whereas EPCOT was perhaps a bit isolated from the real world. In other words, urban experiments usually happen in the urban context itself. 

This being said, it should not come to a surprise that many of the technologies and innovations developed for Disney parks have actually been adopted for real world applications. Some of these technologies have even been displayed in the World Fair. For example, Ford’s Magic Skyway was displayed in the 1964 New York World’s Fair, which used a continuous chain-driven track in which the vehicles themselves did not have a motor; but they were essentially being pulled together by the track itself, continuously with no need for a driver, leading to high-ridership capacity. This was the predecessor that inspired the PeopleMover in Disney World, which uses linear induction motors. These are basically magnets on the tracks that propel the vehicles. This technology is similar to the one used for maglev trains, for example in the Shanghai Maglev.  

Other interesting Disney park technologies with real world applications include: Trackless rides, such as Rise of the Resistance (which is probably my favorite Disneyland ride at the moment), use similar technologies to the ones used in autonomous vehicles. Disney parks have also implemented AI and machine learning that use real-time data for predicting and managing crowds to avoid congestion. Also projection-mapping or augmented reality is huge in Disney parks, which is typically used for public art installations or even digital city planning. 

I think it is fair to say that Walt Disney’s vision that he had back in the 1960s for living in the future and bringing the future to our present, together with the innovative spirit that is carried through his legacy in modern Disney parks, overlaps significantly with what we nowadays call Smart Cities. This being said, I would like to explore to what extent a theme park can work as an urban lab for Smart Cities technologies. How well do these technologies and systems actually translate into the real world? 

Before we dive into that, what even is a Smart City? There have been different definitions overtime, but early ideas of Smart Cities were associated with the idea that all systems are in perfect communication and coordination with each other, are highly centralized, and virtually anything can (and should) be automated. However, because we now look at them more critically, just like we have throughout the DIGEC specialization, the definition has evolved. Now Smart Cities are not only about infrastructure, data, and efficiency, but they’re trying to focus more on citizens, community concerns, public values, and creative problem solving. What we see in Walt’s vision aligns more with early definitions of Smart Cities. 

So again, how well do Disney parks technologies translate into the real world? One of the most common criticisms about Smart Cities is about how corporations can influence the adoption of these technologies, because they’re promoting their products and therefore their motives are related to increasing profit, not necessarily providing new solutions for urban problems. But thinking critically has made us question: when and where are these technologies truly necessary? While Walt Disney really was aiming for his innovations to provide real-world solutions, for example high ridership capacity with the PeopleMover, his ideas were ultimately a product of arguably one of the biggest corporations in existence. This makes us question how much of his vision was focused on providing innovative solutions for the city, and how much was simply about selling an experience. 

Another common criticism is regarding technocentrism, which is the idea that the implementation of technologies is the only way to improve cities. While there is no way to say with certainty that Walt Disney’s ideas were fully technocentric, I do think it is safe to say that he was very passionate about bringing technology into many aspects of people’s lives: from the cities, to our homes. But again, to what extent are these technologies truly necessary? 

Lastly, I want to highlight this interesting dichotomy happening between how the intangible elements of Smart City technologies are accepted in theme parks, yet challenged and questioned in the urban context. What in a theme park is acceptable as “magic”, in the real world the unknown and this idea of a “black box” can be scary. So, to what extent do city dwellers accept the ‘magic’ of technologies, without fully understanding what is happening behind the scenes? As these technologies continue to be diffused, more people look for transparency and want to understand, more or less, what happens to things like our data and privacy. 

Moving away from criticism, I want to bring it back to the element of interactiveness and fun that exists in theme park technologies and how adopting this in an urban context can shape the way we experience the city. Living in Rotterdam, I have already experienced some parallels between this city and Disneyland. In general, moving around the city feels super interactive, like you’re constantly engaging with the built environment in a very stimulating way. Coming from a place where there are no trams, no metro, no trains, or ride-share services, having all of these options to move around the city makes experiencing the city substantially more exciting. And to compliment this, there is art, events, and this juxtaposition of old and modern architecture. Also, cycling around the city makes it feel more tangible and like you’re part of it: not like you’re living in the city but living with the city. 

Another thing that reminds me of Disneyland is the NS app, which not only centralizes mobility in an impressive way, but I also just recently discovered it provides information on shops and services at train stations. The attention to detail in the NS app reminds me of the Disney Resort app, where all information from restaurants, shops, mobility, and queue times is all centralized in a single platform. Two other smaller details that remind me of Disneyland are how the security cameras in Rotterdam Centraal are designed in a less hostile way, round-shaped and with bright colors. The other one is seeing the projections of that little turtle on the wall when taking the metro.

Closing

While Disney parks are not completely urban labs by definition, they have successfully developed technologies that have been diffused beyond the park’s walls. There is also something to learn about the experience of interacting with design and technology, and about adding an element of fun and joy to that interaction. Because living in a city shouldn’t be all about convenience and efficiency, it should be enjoyable and exciting too. Lastly, whether or not Walt Disney was actually a good urban planner is for you to decide. Some food for thought.

(Jingle fading in in the background and then slowing fading out) 

Duration of episode: 10 min. 

Intro

Welcome to Antennas. I’m a student in the Master’s track in Urban Digital Transformation and Innovation at Erasmus University Rotterdam, exploring how cities are reinvented by digital technologies. Today, I will divide the story into two transport systems—one in my hometown, Shenzhen, China, and another in Rotterdam, Netherlands, where I live now.

Both cities wear the badge of "smartness," but their paths diverge sharply. Shenzhen dazzles with algorithmic precision, while Rotterdam champions transparency. Yet beneath the glow of innovation lies a haunting question: Do these systems serve people—or just those who fit their digital mold?

Pitch

(Jingle increasing at the start of the pitch and then fading out)

This is Antennas, an original podcast that explores the diversity of digital cities worldwide, and that interrogates the tension between the material and intangible aspects of technologies in cities, and how they have changed our lived experiences of being in the urban. 

My name is DIGEC student and I am one of the students of the master track “Urban Digital Transformation and Innovation” offered at the Institute for Housing and Urban Development Studies at Erasmus University Rotterdam. 

This is my antenna. 

Part 1: Shenzhen - The Algorithmic Mirage (1:50 – 4:49)

Let’s start in Shenzhen’s metro—a place where the future feels tangible, but fragile.

For Payment? You can use facial recognition, palm scans, QR codes, or even Apple Pay. 
For Navigation? Digital screens on platforms show real-time crowd levels in each train car, and women-only carriages are kept warmer for comfort. Inside the trains, more screens guide you: which exit leads where, where to find elevators, even how to transfer efficiently. 

But here’s the catch: when I took my grandmother to the metro, she froze at the ticket gate, staring at a wall of glowing icons and unfamiliar digital guidance. “Where’s the cash machine?” she asked. It was hidden in a corner, unmarked. But fortunately, a staff member eventually helped, but her hands trembled as she fumbled with coins. For her, the metro’s "smart" design is a wall of abstraction.

This is the digital divide laid bare. Shenzhen’s metro runs on algorithmic governance—AI optimizes crowd flow, temperature, even passenger behavior. But for millions like my grandmother, rural migrants, or low-literacy people, it’s a maze of exclusion.

And there’s a darker layer: Who controls the data? Cameras capture your face, sensors log your route. This data fuels efficiency, but citizens have no voice in how it’s used. Convenience comes at the cost of agency.

A haunting detail: One day, I noticed a small label on the women’s carriage screen: “Temperature +2°C.” (temperature with 2 degree higher) Is this algorithmic empathy—or a programmed stereotype that assumes women “need warmth”? When technology tries to define human needs, does it truly understand us? That’s a question.

Part 2: Rotterdam - The Transparency Trap (4:50 – 6:52)

Now, let’s cross continents to Rotterdam. Here, the metro feels refreshingly human—until it doesn’t.

When I first arrived here, I faced a ticket machine selling only day passes, one-day pass, three-day pass, week-pass. No single rides! I paid around €15 for a day ticket just to travel from Alexander to Kralingse Zoom. 

And the exits? One time, at Blaak station, I circled for 15 minutes with three baggage, looking for an elevator. You know, I have already been here for over half a year. RET system for signage is cryptic, even for locals.

But Rotterdam has a secret weapon: open data. Forget to tap out or tap in? Don’t worry. The OVpay app lets you manually correct your fare. Transit schedules and crowd metrics are public, inviting citizens to co-design solutions. Unlike Shenzhen’s black-box algorithms, Rotterdam’s system thrives on sunlight.

Yet shadows linger. I met an elderly lady at Beurs station. She struggled to use the OVpay this app on phone. She didn’t know how to correct her route because she forgot to check out. And some visually impaired riders also find the interface daunting. Open data empowers, but only if the tools are truly inclusive.

Last year, some students used open data to create an “Accessible Metro Map,” marking all elevators and ramps. But when they requested real-time crowd data to improve it, the government refused, citing “privacy risks.” Even in transparency’s embrace, power plays its game.

Part 3: Redefining "Smart" - Beyond Code, Toward Compassion (6:53 – 8:12)

Shenzhen and Rotterdam mirror two visions of urban “smartness”: One chases algorithmic perfection, sacrificing humanity at the altar of efficiency. The other preaches democratic access, yet stumbles on everyday usability. But a truly smart city shouldn’t force this choice. 

In Shenzhen, we could: Add cash-first lanes with neon signs, not hidden corners. Program screens to offer dialect voice guides, not just standardized Mandarin. Publish monthly Data Transparency Reports explaining algorithmic decisions.

In Rotterdam, we might: Simplify apps with one-click voice assistants, not nested menus. Invite seniors to co-design tactile ticket symbols. Install 3D tactile maps at stations, letting fingertips “see” the way.

The deeper truth: When engineers talk “smartness,” they speak in code and sensors. But for my grandmother, “smart” simply means riding the metro alone without fear. True intelligence hides in the folds of empathy we too often overlook.

Closing

Next time you step into a metro station—whether in a city of face scanners or data activists—just ask: Are elders lingering at gates, lost in a maze of digital tools? Do abstract signs leave travelers stranded? Is “open data” truly open—or just a toy for the tech-savvy? Urban transformation isn’t a race for the shiniest tech. It’s a test of humanity. As Shenzhen and Rotterdam teach us: True smartness isn’t measured by silicon, but by compassion.

Thank you for tuning in to Antennas. Wish our cities become havens for all. I’m a student from IHS, representing Urban Digital Transformation and Innovation all students to host today’s podcast. See you next time.

(Jingle fading in in the background and then slowing fading out)