Uncharted Territory: Urban Innovation and the Role of Government
With the rise of urban impact entrepreneurs – early stage companies developing consumer products and services that make urban living better – there has also come an increase in tension between those entrepreneurs and existing regulations. Government policy, dating back decades, could not have anticipated the emergence of collaborative consumption, crowdsourcing, or alternative resource management. It’s tempting to hope that the conflicts between innovative urban companies and regulators are circumstantial and fleeting. But trends point us in a different direction.
The surge of urban impact entrepreneurs
If anything, we anticipate a surge of urban impact entrepreneurs. 81 percent of Americans now live in cities – and this urbanization is dramatically influencing the way most people live and work. At the same time, we are experiencing reductions in municipal revenues nationwide. So there is a compelling market opportunity for entrepreneurs to step in and tackle some of the most pressing challenges facing the swelling ranks of city dwellers.
Furthermore, success begets success: the achievements of companies like Uber and Airbnb will encourage others to follow in their footsteps. Across the country, we are seeing bicycle sharing companies like Alta Bicycle Share, food truck networks like Off the Grid, and crowdsourced community investment platforms like Fundrise pop up. A new wave of entrepreneurs is rising to solve urban problems.
More urban innovators means more government interaction
Given this rise of urban impact entrepreneurs, we anticipate even more potential interaction with government. They may not be looking to get hired by government or embed themselves within government, but these entrepreneurs are working on issues about which government cares a great deal (think: mobility, waste management, housing, health, and education). Whether entrepreneurs look at these interactions as an opportunity or an annoyance will, in large part, determine their ability to succeed in the marketplace.
It’s not that entrepreneurs can’t fight regulators and win; it’s just a lot harder to be productive moving forward.Some have argued that these innovative entrepreneurs should not be subject to traditional government oversight, as their very models (peer-to-peer, digital, etc.) encourage self-policing. But, regardless of how you feel about regulation and public oversight, government isn’t likely to relinquish the role of consumer protector any time soon.
So it’s important for urban impact entrepreneurs to learn to work with government. This way, they can avoid antagonizing powerful interests who can stand in their way. It’s not that entrepreneurs can’t fight regulators and win; it’s just a lot harder to be productive moving forward. Consider the case of Uber, which has managed to clash with several municipalities in its expansion process. The popular app is currently facing a wave of competition from companies who are doing a better job collaborating with city leaders.
The value of entrepreneur/government alliances
Both government and urban impact entrepreneurs can take productive steps to minimize friction – the key is communication. Most entrepreneurs have no idea how to navigate the tricky political landscapes of cities. And most city officials have no idea how to communicate with entrepreneurs about their priorities and concerns.
Some municipalities are embracing entrepreneurs by creating new offices to accommodate and foster innovation. Examples include the San Francisco Mayor’s Office of Civic Innovation and the Boston Mayor’s Office of New Urban Mechanics. Hopefully, we will see this trend continue. After all, government officials have incentives to work with entrepreneurs to produce job growth and improve the lives of their constituents.
The harder question is: how will urban impact entrepreneurs approach their relationship with municipalities moving forward?
Most entrepreneurs don’t think about government. After all, early stage companies are busy worrying about product design, customer acquisition, and investors. However, for urban impact entrepreneurs, learning how to interact with government should be as important as learning how to pitch a venture capitalist.
We would like to see new urban impact companies develop legislative strategies so that they can more thoughtfully approach municipalities. For example, Luther Lowe, the Director of Government Affairs & Business Outreach at Yelp, has devised a playbook for expanding into new cities in a “less painful” way. In it, he outlines a strategy of cultivation – both of the general public and of regulators. Collaborating with government to develop mutually agreeable solutions isn’t always easy, but dealing with hostile regulators is worse.
Government isn’t going anywhere in the near term. So it’s important for urban impact entrepreneurs to embrace government as an important stakeholder during their growth. City officials have access to data, resources, and networks of individuals who can help entrepreneurs effectively address the needs of consumers. But they can also obstruct entrepreneurs and keep them from securing the resources they might need to succeed. Both government and urban impact entrepreneurs stand to benefit from innovation, leading to better solutions for all city dwellers. The question remains how (or if) they will rise to the challenge.
 “2010 Census Urban Area Facts,” US Census Bureau Website, 26 March 2012: http://www.census.gov/geo/www/ua/uafacts.html.
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
The best nature-based solutions on urban industrial lands are those that are part of a corporate citizenship or conservation strategy like DTE’s or Phillips66. By integrating efforts such as tree plantings, restorations, or pollinator gardens into a larger strategy, companies begin to mainstream biodiversity into their operations. When they crosswalk the effort to other CSR goals like employee engagement, community relations, and/or workforce development, like the CommuniTree initiative, the projects become more resilient.
Air quality in urban residential communities near industrial facilities will not be improved by nature alone. But nature can contribute to the solution, and while doing so, bring benefits including recreation, education, and an increased sense of community pride. As one tool to combat disparate societal outcomes, nature is accessible, affordable and has few, if any, downsides.
I spoke last week to Adrian Benepe, former commissioner for the NYC Parks Department and currently the Senior Vice President and Director of National Programs at The Trust for Public Land.
We discussed a lot of things – the increased use of parks in the era of COVID-19, the role parks have historically played – and currently play – in citizens’ first amendment right to free speech and protests, access & equity for underserved communities, the coming budget shortfalls and how they might play out in park systems.
I wanted to pull out the discussion we had about funding for parks and share Adrian’s thoughts with all of you, as I think it will be most timely and valuable as we move forward with new budgets and new realities.
There is a risk of further widening the gap between so-called ‘knowledge workers’ able to do their jobs remotely and afford to move, and those with place-based employment who cannot. Beyond that, retreating residents might take the very identity and uniqueness of the places they abandon with them.
Nurturing the community-resident bond could be an antidote to these dismaying departures, and new research sheds light on how. A recent report by the Urban Institute and commissioned by the Knight Foundation surveyed 11,000 residents of 26 U.S. metro areas to uncover what amenities created a “sense of attachment and connection to their city or community.” Three key recommendations emerged in Smart Cities Dive’s synopsis of the results.