Yet possibly we should simply let go of the term, too contaminated?
Do you think that the label âsmart cityâ is in a way detrimental at this point as the hay day of âeverything smartâ maybe has already been there (in terms of a buzzword, not in terms of solutions) and do you think that there would actually be a better term to describe the type of improvements to city live and development you are working for and with?
How do you call it when thinking or talking to other experts?
Hi Bas, have you given a link here already to the book? In how many languages is it out now?
Do you see a difference in talking with European and for example Middle East and Asian policy makers? My feeling is that in Europe, for example in Holland I still have to do a lot of convincing politicians about the urgency of the issues, as they have no engineering or scientific background (nearly all economists or lawyers -exaggerating a bit.
Just out
In some parts of the world, where the politicians are scientists and engineers, potential threats were countered early by building a strong cybernetic system harnessing infrastructure, hardware and services so that devices could control systems from the architecture. We need architectures that can frame the dispersion of IoT devices; otherwise, we increase cybersecurity risks.
https://www.digicert.com/blog/guest-opinion-iot-devices-need-greater-conformity-and-security
it is not at all helpful to use âsmart cityâ, in nearly every context and setting. a better way of framing this is to focus on the drive to make a city more responsible, whether to emerging trends, to the under-represented, to the emergent crisis, etc. I do see some smiles on faces when I push cities and their partners (like utilities) to focus on the âresponsive cityâ.
1 Like
To better understand some of the subtle nuances here, Iâd suggest that check out this dynamic non-profit organization, where I serve on the Board alongside a Microsoft executive, a city leader, a Black & Veatch executive, and others. Their next webinar for leaders will be quite a good one (and itâs always free to join). It convenes on April 21st: Place Matters: How Cities Can Compete in the Next Future of Work Paradigm
Feel free to send along a note - my email is gordon@gordonfeller.com
3 Likes
Does the smart city have to be a capitalist city?
The term has always been problematic. âSmartâ cannot be measured and whatever is smart today wonât be so smart tomorrow. The other part, âcityâ has its own challenges: by merely focusing on cities (as opposed to smaller communities) we are condoning new divides, new digital divides and that is problematic. Next, yes, the term got too much associated with tech heavy experiments. BUT urban innovation has been with us for thousands of years - think Roman aquaducts. The tech led smart city chapter is just a relatively small step in a much larger set of chapters on digitalization and our communities
being capitalist city is not an essential ingredient for success.
being an extremely unequal city creates big barriers.
being a rich city is not an essential ingredient for success.
but having some resources is certainly going to help.
2 Likes
I do not think so, my opinion. Innovations that address needs, purpose, are welcome, no matter what economic system carries them along.
I like the way of framing this in terms of design thinking and process and then also breaking open a bit the notion of âpurposeâ for that is where we can make a lot of progress : focus on slow money, micro payments and innovative ways of funding.
In the effort of making changes and improvements to cityplaning and such using some âsmartâ solutions, have you seen more successful/interesting initiatives by municipalities/governments or by privat/corporate entities?
one thing that can support + complement the âpurposeâ discussion is the âoutcomesâ discussionâŚwhat is it that actually needs to be achieved? and for whose benefit?
1 Like
I / we need to be mindful of using the term âpurposeâ also. We may think we agree on purpose to then discover we got all of the assumptions wrong. But that is a process that can be moderated effectively
the ones that stand out in my mind as the best successes are the ones that get it right by creating workable public-private partnerships . and amongst those public-private partnerships the ones that stand out in my mind as the best successes are the ones that focus on benefitting real people, and not only benefitting the city government leaders or the corporate leaders. Iâve published lots about this and one article can be found here: https://www.nrpa.org/parks-recreation-magazine/2020/august/leveraging-public-private-partnerships/
2 Likes
Yes, I think so. Why drag a lot of history along that has shown no successful adoption? I think it is indeed time for a new umbrella, I like your word âpurposeâ al lot.
'purpose-powered cities" is sooooo much better than âsmart-citiesâ
2 Likes
umbrellas are always tricky but we need them to start the conversation. Common purpose? What I have always liked is âgeneric infrastructuresâ but yes wow that is a conversation killer! 
I truly do not think a smart city business model will ever exist, and much data is hard to pin down as an asset with a stable value. So, personally, I think framing the question in that way wonât get us anywhere. But we can think of creating the conditions that will help regulate, monitor, guide and where desired, monetize data and algorithm and to do so in an unbundled fashion from specific stakeholders/companies
1 Like
âgeneric infrastructuresâ is soooo much better than âgenetic infrastructuresâ
1 Like
purpose-powered sounds great! full of energy and agency