How the Notion of ‘Smart Cities’ Has Changed
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.
In my recent book “A New Digital Deal” the various building blocks for successful smart city strategies have been examined and articulated. Among the most important: the delivery models and the business architectures that accompany them.
The very notion of a “smart community”, what is constitutes, who or what is to deliver it and why – all of it has been subject to near constant change in the past fifteen years. At the heart of many definitions and endeavors has always been a technology proposition, for better or for worse. In the early 2000s, discussions, projects, pilots and thought-leadership focused on infrastructure. Broadband. High end connectivity and how that would impact (and change) the way we think of healthcare, mobility, retail or education. The second chapter was led by large technology companies and focused on solutions and solutions architectures, some of them closed and proprietary. The third chapter is focused on data. Big data, analytics, viewing the future of smart cities as a market of city data, powered by platforms.
With this third chapter having opened up, the smart city gives rise to ‘the City as a Service´. The maturing of the City as a Service concept may entail the death of the old Smart City concept with its heavy emphasis on upfront Capex investments and heavy infrastructure. Yet as the delivery models change, so do the business architectures underneath them.
Smart city propositions are moving from a hardware- and solution-driven market, to a software- and data platform-driven one, from an asset centric approach to a service centric one. Slowly but surely, community digitalization efforts are changing from having a simple transaction (say, between a municipality and a service provider) at the heart, to the smart city becoming a market place: the City as a Service is on the rise. The latter allows for the principle of ‘consumption economics’ to be introduced, with different societal stakeholders (including government and citizens) to consume ‘digital’ only as much as they need.
Platform dynamics have become common in various markets and domains. From taxi services (Uber) and apartments (Airbnb) to a medical doctor at your doorstep within the hour, platforms with their demand side economies of scale, ecosystem value creation and external resource orchestration dynamics are become common good. They may become the vehicle to drive smart cities to full maturity, powered by an ecosystem of city service providers, consumers and prosumers. However, we are not there yet. How the City as a Service evolves, when and with whom, will greatly depend on a number of questions and how communities address these. How virtually integrated should smart city business architectures and their delivery models be? Do we opt for private sector to own and manage top to bottom as in the old telco and cable company model, or do we stress the importance of keeping strategic assets within the public realm? Can a common, shared infrastructure be considered an effective foundation to ensure a free market of data and services evolves?
The analogy with an airport can be made: the airport serves as a shared platform for competing airlines, as opposed to each airline owning and operating its own airport. Broadband infrastructures, data, analytics capabilities, services, solutions, sensors: what level of vertical integration is deemed desirable by your community? What level of unbundling of these layers will help smart city free market dynamics to evolve and innovation to be continuous?
Take outdoor light poles for instance: these can be considered strategic assets in the streets of a city as they evolve to become the smart phone of the street, converging power, broadband, sensors, routers and more. Who owns that asset today and who should own it tomorrow?
Investors are increasingly interested in facilitating concession models financing the infrastructures of our day and age, including outdoor light pole led light retrofits, public wifi infrastructures and advanced street automation services, foregoing the need for cities to put the capex investment upfront. For cash strapped cities in dire need to reinvent themselves this may prove attractive, as much as it does for cities that really wish to procure smart city solutions as a service, much as one would procure electricity. The concession model can be a great way forward yet, here too, the earlier question applies: who owns the assets and how vertically integrated or unbundled should the various layers of all of these models be? How do we ensure a minimum of public control is retained over assets that are carry long term relevance and value to the community? And how can ´permanent innovation´ be baked into such longer term concession models?
Technological advances come fast, and long term concession models may be helped by ‘anti-embarrassment clauses’ that allow for regular technology refreshes and innovative input. Such constructs are already being proposed by investors acting in collaboration with service providers and technology companies. Beyond the quintessential vertically integrated telco model or the concession proposition, we may also want to put more thought into the creation of cooperatives and public private partnerships that help us to alternatives. We have made such choices before: think energy or broadband provisioning for instance. Think rural energy cooperatives emerging from the late New Deal programs to the ´broadband as a public platform and utility’ approaches adopted in the early 2000s in Europe, versus vertically integrated energy giants or the quintessential cable company. Similar choices are on our tables now and the stakes are high.
There is not one ideal choice, and no one size fits all. But the choice any community makes will have broad and long term consequences. If the choices of the past determined how we ended up organizing the energy and broadband markets for a generation or longer, the current choices may determine how we organize digitalized communities at large. Nothing could be more important. This framework of building blocks for successful community digitalization has been derived from the book ‘A New Digital Deal – Beyond Smart Cities. How to Best Leverage Digitalization for the Benefit of our Communities’, available on Amazon.
For more about the book: www.anewdigitaldeal.com
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
Housing that is affordable to low-income residents is often substandard and suffering from deferred maintenance, exposing residents to poor air quality and high energy bills. This situation can exacerbate asthma and other respiratory health issues, and siphon scarce dollars from higher value items like more nutritious food, health care, or education. Providing safe, decent, affordable, and healthy housing is one way to address historic inequities in community investment. Engaging with affordable housing and other types of community benefit projects is an important first step toward fully integrating equity into the green building process. In creating a framework for going deeper on equity, our new book, the Blueprint for Affordable Housing (Island Press 2020), starts with the Convention on Human Rights and the fundamental right to housing.
Since the Great Recession of 2008, the housing wealth gap has expanded to include not just Black and Brown Americans, but younger White Americans as well. Millennials and Generation Z Whites are now joining their Black and Brown peers in facing untenable housing precarity and blocked access to wealth. With wages stuck at 1980 levels and housing prices at least double (in inflation adjusted terms) what they were 40 years ago, many younger Americans, most with college degrees, are giving up on buying a home and even struggle to rent apartments suitable for raising a family.
What makes it hard for policy people and citizens to accept this truth is that we have not seen this problem in a very long time. Back in the 1920s of course, but not really since then. But this is actually an old problem that has come back to haunt us; a problem first articulated by Adam Smith in the 1700s.
More than ever, urban transit services are in need of sustainable and affordable solutions to better serve all members of our diverse communities, not least among them, those that are traditionally car-dependent. New mobility technologies can be a potential resource for local transit agencies to augment multi-modal connectivity across existing transit infrastructures.
We envision a new decentralized and distributed model that provides multi-modal access through nimble and flexible multi-modal Transit Districts, rather than through traditional, centralized, and often too expensive Multi-modal Transit Hubs. Working in collaboration with existing agencies, new micro-mobility technologies could provide greater and seamless access to existing transit infrastructure, while maximizing the potential of the public realm, creating an experience that many could enjoy beyond just catching the next bus or finding a scooter. So how would we go about it?