Gwyneth Borden: How is technology impacting social and economic divisions in cities?
Who will you meet?
Cities are innovating, companies are pivoting, and start-ups are growing. Like you, every urban practitioner has a remarkable story of insight and challenge from the past year.
Meet these peers and discuss the future of cities in the new Meeting of the Minds Executive Cohort Program. Replace boring virtual summits with facilitated, online, small-group discussions where you can make real connections with extraordinary, like-minded people.
Cities around the globe are discovering the benefits of technology in engaging citizens, delivering better services, managing things like traffic congestion, pollution, and water, in addition to cutting out waste, fraud and inefficiencies to reinvest money into much needed services. IBM in its Smarter Cities work has seen cities take on a myriad of traditional city challenges using technology as a tool in tackling them. But, at the same time, there’s an economic divide – both from an access and opportunity standpoint.
Cities often have grand ideas about what they’d like to accomplish with technology, but in our still challenging economic climate, they find it difficult to make the necessary financial investments needed. This is not a new challenge for cities – getting support for things that can be deemed infrastructure are never as attractive as the shiny new train/park/social services facility, etc. In some cases technology enhances the ease of use, or allows cities to monitor or track information, but the financial benefit may be nominal – in those cases it can be difficult to find funding. Those cities that are fortunate enough to have a talented base of digital natives benefit from innovators or entrepreneurs who create solutions that tackle these challenges – think sensors of all kinds, cell phone applications related to transit and parking, etc.
But in those less fortunate places where broadband infrastructure is lacking or there isn’t the talent pool to develop and create early adopters around new ideas, those cities must look for ways to fund technology initiatives. Even in cases where there are demonstrative cost savings, the upfront expense can be a deterrent; particularly if the savings are perceived to be more long term. Cities live in the realities of election cycles and what doesn’t instantly improve quality of life for residents can be overlooked, which is why it’s important for cities to have and encourage innovators to create solutions that are easily adaptable and can come from the bottom (citizens) upward; like hackathons, which San Francisco and other cities are doing.
But there’s a secondary economic division between individuals who have multiple technology devices versus those who consider their non-data plan cell phone to be their technology tool. The lack of broadband infrastructure, the cost of smart phones and needed data plans, as well as the cost of computers, make it difficult for those in challenged economic situations to be connected. At the behest of cities, some private sector service providers are creating universal access (wireless infrastructure) or are severely reducing the cost of services to broaden technology inclusion. Some organizations like Voto Latino, which focuses on educating, registering and turning out Latino voters have found using cell phone text messaging as an effective tool to connect those who might not otherwise be connected. The San Francisco Department of Public Health’s SEXINFO, a sexual health text messaging service, is great example of how a city can devise a program to meet people across the digital divide.
But economic division goes farther then just device access; cities like San Francisco are grappling with the rapid growth in the tech community with lots of jobs, but having citizens in need of jobs unable to fill them. The skills gap is a huge challenge in the United States – with the retirement of the Baby Boomer generation — there will simply not be enough workers to fill available technology jobs. And with our educational institutions, particularly in those communities that are underserved, still educating students for the 20th Century, the gap will only widen. Cities like New York and Chicago are working with companies like where I work, IBM, to create 9-14 schools that give students the necessary training and educational credentials to get jobs in the technology field. Some technology jobs, such as writing code, could be the vocational jobs of this Century. Writing code is not particularly difficult, it just takes training, practice and attention to detail – organizations like Code Now and Black Girls that Code are focusing on training underserved students in coding with great results; and smart cities will be encouraging such initiatives.
But the practical challenge that I see as a San Francisco Planning Commissioner, is how to balance a burgeoning technology community that provides great jobs and opportunities for some, but still deal with the reality of escalating rents – commercial and residential – that make it difficult for those at the bottom to survive. You cannot legislate economics, and things like land value and costs are something the city does not control. In places like San Francisco and New York, which have limited land, the competitive nature of real estate favors those who can pay the most and restrictions only exacerbate the problem.
The great economic challenge and opportunities for cities will be how to innovate and attract new technologies and the talent they bring, while ensuring that all their residents are able to participate in the innovations that technology has to offer. Some cities are in need of innovators and those places will need to figure out how to build the infrastructure base — schools, universities, jobs – that attract them. The opportunity for the future is using technology to unite voices and communities so that everyone can be at the table. Together – cities, nonprofits, neighborhood groups and the business community must all come together to creatively find ways to deal with these realities.
Leave your comment below, or reply to others.
Please note that this comment section is for thoughtful, on-topic discussions. Admin approval is required for all comments. Your comment may be edited if it contains grammatical errors. Low effort, self-promotional, or impolite comments will be deleted.
Read more from MeetingoftheMinds.org
Spotlighting innovations in urban sustainability and connected technology
People seem frequently to assume that the terms “sustainability” and “resilience” are synonyms, an impression reinforced by the frequent use of the term “climate resilience”, which seems to enmesh both concepts firmly. In fact, while they frequently overlap, and indeed with good policy and planning reinforce one another, they are not the same. This article picks them apart to understand where one ends and the other begins, and where the “sweet spot” lies in achieving mutual reinforcement to the benefit of disaster risk reduction (DRR).
As extreme weather conditions become the new normal—from floods in Baton Rouge and Venice to wildfires in California, we need to clean and save stormwater for future use while protecting communities from flooding and exposure to contaminated water. Changing how we manage stormwater has the potential to preserve access to water for future generations; prevent unnecessary illnesses, injuries, and damage to communities; and increase investments in green, climate-resilient infrastructure, with a focus on communities where these kinds of investments are most needed.
A few years ago, I worked with some ARISE-US members to carry out a survey of small businesses in post-Katrina New Orleans of disaster risk reduction (DRR) awareness. One theme stood out to me more than any other. The businesses that had lived through Katrina and survived well understood the need to be prepared and to have continuity plans. Those that were new since Katrina all tended to have the view that, to paraphrase, “well, government (city, state, federal…) will take care of things”.
While the experience after Katrina, of all disasters, should be enough to show anyone in the US that there are limits on what government can do, it does raise the question, of what could and should public and private sectors expect of one another?