Smart City 2.0: Transforming Cities Into Self-Learning, Self-Modulating Organisms

From 30,000 feet, you could be forgiven for thinking that a city has a pulse. On camera, time-lapse photography of the morning in-rush of traffic, followed by the evening exodus, looks like a beating heart. The road networks in and out of cities create constant streams of cars—they are the veins that transfer cars out to its extremities. Zoom out even further, and footage taken over a longer period reveals how the city grows as its borders expand. Its power network simulates the electrical pulses that race around a nervous system.

The further you zoom out, the more closely a city starts to resemble a living organism. But if our cities are living organisms, they are still pretty basic forms of life. They have no brain, and in most cases, no cognitive feedback loop as to what is happening around their organs (regions). It’s ironic that our most sophisticated form of living, the urban conglomeration, is also the dumbest.

But is all of this about to change? The internet of things, sensors embedded in "intelligent" infrastructure and autonomous vehicles, holds promise of radical progress for the future of our cities. Is the birth of the smart city going to take this amoeba-like organism, struggling for survival at the bottom of a primordial lake, and move it into a sophisticated life form? If our cities are about to evolve from something that simply survives, into a thinking, feeling entity that can self-regulate and self-modulate, we need to ask, what characteristics should these smart city "beings" have? What sort of intelligence do we want them to have; and what are the benefits of that? How will we ensure that the best characteristics will establish and grow and the others will be eliminated? These are critical questions.

Smart cities around the world are at different levels of maturity. In developing countries experiencing rapid urbanization and steep growth in GDP, they have the potential to solve some of urbanization’s most wicked problems, such as congestion, social inequality and exposure to natural disasters. Pushed by multinational tech companies such as IBM, Microsoft, General Electric, Siemens, Oracle, Google and Cisco, billions of dollars are being poured into them. Usually built on greenfield land as city extensions, their shiny new creations—Songdo in South Korea, Masdar in the UAE, Konza Techno City in Kenya, or Palava in India—are viewed as wonders of ingenuity.

But are these cities really "smart"? Now over 10 years old, Songdo is barely 60 percent occupied, with much of its smart technology on hold for the moment. Masdar is well short of its green targets, disconnected from surrounding conurbations and unpopulated. Konza is 37 frustrating miles away from Nairobi and empty—this may as well be a million miles. Palava requires residents to carry socially exclusive "smart ID cards."

The technology these cities employ is impressive, but does it really allow the city to function in a smart way? Does it intelligently connect the many city systems to allow dynamic adaptation, true optimization and deep user centricity, all for the benefit of its residents?


American urban strategist Boyd Cohen makes a call for cities to evolve into what he terms "Smart City 2.0." An evolutionary step up from the tech drivers behind Songdo and its contemporaries, 2.0 sees more thought put into the intelligence installed in cities to ensure the technology solves real-world issues that matter to residents. Beyond this, their intelligent systems are connected and the information is utilized and processed so that the city becomes capable of responsive behavior.

Cohen writes about Rio de Janeiro, where the mayor invited IBM to install a highly effective mudslide early detection system in the favelas. A truly smart city would be one which moves beyond simply noting that a mud slide occurred, to collecting data about the causes, managing those, directing emergency services when an event occurs and notifying residents of alternative emergency housing.

If we are to ensure tomorrow’s cities move beyond functioning as basic forms of life, we must ask some deep questions about what it might take to ensure they evolve in a meaningful way. The evolution must solve relevant problems and make the liveability of residents its central purpose. As engineers, architects and planners, seeing our cities as living beings in which intelligence is connected to relevant functionality is key. Every intelligent organism requires built-in capacity to think and it’s time our cities achieved the same. Now that really is smart.

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. AlterNet’s journalists work tirelessly to counter the traditional corporate media narrative. We’re here seven days a week, 365 days a year. And we’re proud to say that we’ve been bringing you the real, unfiltered news for 20 years—longer than any other progressive news site on the Internet.

It’s through the generosity of our supporters that we’re able to share with you all the underreported news you need to know. Independent journalism is increasingly imperiled; ads alone can’t pay our bills. AlterNet counts on readers like you to support our coverage. Did you enjoy content from David Cay Johnston, Common Dreams, Raw Story and Robert Reich? Opinion from Salon and Jim Hightower? Analysis by The Conversation? Then join the hundreds of readers who have supported AlterNet this year.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure AlterNet remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to AlterNet, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

alternet logo

Tough Times

Demand honest news. Help support AlterNet and our mission to keep you informed during this crisis.