The Internet of Citizens - the only Smarter City Planning worth having

Just a few weeks ago I watched again the 1969 version of the film The Italian Job. If you only have vague memories of it, watch it again! It is a triumph of faith in modern times and human (well, British…) ingenuity: careful shots of the new 1960s iconic architecture we now no longer appreciated, mythical computers and weird experts, video communication and instant spreading of news – all seasoned by unfailing optimism. Technology was definitely cool!

Not so now.

Now we have and use far better tech than in the film, but we have grown suspicious and sceptical of its value.

Lots going on right now

Yet there is rapid progress in all directions: the Smart City is not the future, because it is already being built today.

A year ago, Manu Fernandez wrote: ‘The more time we dedicate to think these changes as a proximate future, the more time we are wasting to understand its consequences and how alternative uses of current technologies and social practices are transforming nowadays cities’.

Just this month, the City of London announced a new essential public WiFi and launched competitions for ideas for smarter spaces and buildings; automated vehicles are making great strides and progressing to the next stage of testing in the UK and Europe and the first automated minibuses are launched. And more: widespread initiatives to automate the simpler planning permits procedures, interesting platforms to compile local plans and make them searchable and comparable, renewed efforts to have globally shared urban ‘standards’ and indicators.

All this activity obviously means that both technology is getting ready and new thinking is at play. We cannot be in any doubt that we are living an era of transition, with confusion and uncertainties but also opportunities, that perhaps we cannot yet see.

Yet, we have nothing of the faith and positive embrace of new tech displayed in The Italian Job. Perhaps in the 60s we made many mistakes going blindly for innovation - but refusing to engage will not stop change from happening: it will just happen, without direction and without enthusiasm9.

Structural changes in urban infrastructure

Not so long ago, maybe a year, I had an interesting conversation with the director of one of London’s think tanks. He excluded categorically that automated vehicles would be even remotely practical in a complex European city. Yet the technology is in active testing in London and other UK cities, and tipped to be the best way to get the upper hand on the rising air pollution. Also, a few weeks ago, a senior planning officer of the Greater London Authority, himself directly involved in the preparation of the city’s urban development plan, told a group of us that ‘smart’ was not part of their urban planning vocabulary…. (to be fair, he also stated that in his view smarter planning in London meant much better coordination between the different authorities with decision making powers: perhaps not ‘tech-smart’ but very true!)

Amidst the doubts and fog, quietly and without making visible waves, the urban environment around us is being shaped: prepared for 5G telecommunication, recorded in detailed 3D, tagged and interconnected, equipped to a degree we have not seen since the introduction of segregated carriageways with kerbs and electric street lighting. Those ‘little’ changes – apparently rational and simple – transformed our cities and the way we inhabit them. Ultimately transformed our lives: they paved the way for car domination, pedestrian segregation, long working hours – but also increased safety, night time activity, protected spaces and so on.

Starting with tools?

We are clearly approaching our tech future by adopting tools as they become available, but without a clear sense of purpose – why are they needed? Are they bringing us a better future?

By pushing the Smart City narrative into the future, we give up the chance of leading its formation today. Of course, we could be in a situation in which innovators and businesses come together spontaneously and without being aware of it, build up the right picture out of many small jigsaw pieces: just because all spot issues and opportunities and contribute to an unspoken vision from different angles… Or the right jigsaw puzzle could never form, and a lot of energy is dissipated in the process.

Or worse, we struggle for innovation for years and simply ‘consume’ new technologies, without pushing for the technology we need.

Urgent need to think about the city we want

Just recently the world has agreed the way to have a better world – through the 17 Sustainable Development Goals. Goal 11 Sustainable Cities and Communities became the foundation of the New Urban Agenda of UN Habitat III last October, focusing on development and innovation as a propeller for prosperity for all people. We are, therefore, coming out of a period of intense global debates on the principles of what kind of city we want.

This needs to urgently translate into a locally centred manifesto for our countries and cities: what’s the priority here, for us? And what type of technology can help us get where we want to go? And if technology is helping, can we see if we can move in the right direction anyway?

This is a different ‘smart’ – is smart because it takes us where we want to go. If our cities needed, say, a better balance between housing, jobs and education – having sensors on all litter bins may not be so critical. But real-time monitoring of demographic trends, employment activity and synergies between universities and businesses may offer some valuable insights, which could inform a meaningful action plan.

Or if a better mix of housing was needed in time, would it not be worthwhile to dynamically serve these emerging needs, rather than adopt fixed and stereotyped models of development?

Putting people first

We run the very real risk of changing because we can and going nowhere. If cities do not create a better place for us to live our lives, we will not be smart.

City makers never had so much opportunity to understand and learn from people: they can observe what they do and want, they can quantify and profile, and hear their voices through social media. People can be at the centre of defining needs and offering solutions. And there are plenty of chances to talk face to face.

Yet people – citizens – fail to capture the centre ground of the Smart City debates, which drifts into infrastructure, tech talk and centralised, automated, adaptable systems at the exclusion of humanity. No wonder there is so little enthusiasm! We need the Internet of Citizens a lot more than an Internet of Things.