Smart Cities and "Liveability"

In the last week of April, I participated in a workshop on Smart Cities at Imperial College.  The workshop was organized by the Innovation and Entrepreneurship Group of the Imperial College Business School, as part of a new multi-disciplinary research initiative, Ecocit, whose goal is to study how to help urban environments around the world thrive both ecologically and economically.

The study of cities has become a very important topic.  The workshop invitation writes that:  “The infrastructure of future cities needs to support vibrant, innovative and entrepreneurial communities that take advantage of the digital environment and realize their potential to become ‘smarter’.  However, resource constraints, the effects of climate change and growing population with migration to urban areas will all have an effect on the cities of the future and the infrastructure that will provide for communities’ needs.”

Over the last year, we have started to apply the term smart to our ability to infuse intelligence into the very way the world’s systems and processes work.  What makes this now possible is that just about anything we care about can be sensed and measured - any person, any object, any process or any service, can become digitally aware and networked.  We can then make all these various people, things, processes and services much more intelligent by turning the mountains of information we gather from the instrumented components and their interactions into real insights using sophisticated analysis and powerful supercomputers.

A number of institutions, perhaps most prominently IBM, have recently launched smart initiatives of all sorts, from smart grids and transportation, to smart healthcare and enterprises. 

We typically associate the application of information-based intelligence to a system with the ability to operate that system much more efficiently and with higher quality.  That is true when talking about a system of processes, services or things.  But for a city and other systems involving people, efficiency and quality are necessary but not sufficient.  We need to also focus on the human dimensions, what we call liveability or quality of life.
 
This critical human aspect of smart cities was prominent in our workshop, and was particularly well highlighted in the excellent presentation by Nick Leon, who is the Director of Design London, an initiative launched about two years ago between Imperial College and the Royal College of Art.  His recent research has focused on the social and economic vitality of cities.  In his presentation on The Well Connected City, (an earlier version of which can be found here), he emphasized that while technology is crucial, other components must be present to create a thriving, smart city.

Nick said that in the knowledge based economy, innovation is increasingly seen by cities and regions as the battleground for economic competitiveness.  To help them become innovation hubs, these cities and regions are looking at the deployment of pervasive IT and communications infrastructures and related services.  The knowledge economy is being built on these pervasive technology-based networks just like the industrial revolutions of the past two centuries was built on steam, railroads, electricity and automobiles.   

Based on his research, which included quantitative analysis of 168 cities and in depth case studies of 12 cities and districts, Nick has identified three main factors that are necessary to become a successful smart city and innovation hub. 

First is the need to transform the quality and efficiency of public infrastructures and services.  This includes the digital IT infrastructures, such as universal broadband access, but much more.  Given our ability to now embed computational power into just about any physical object we want to measure and control, the digital and physical infrastructures of cities are converging.  We can now better manage critical urban infrastructures, including traffic congestion, energy usage, public transportation, and water distribution.

Second, a smart city should be an attractive place for doing business.  A smart city requires a smart government, in particular one with economic development policies to attract and retain companies and start new ventures.  Such a city or region needs to provide a rich variety of services, both physical ones like transportation and communications that are absolutely required to do business in a globally integrated world, as well as human services like healthcare and education, which are essential to a well functioning community.  But in the end, no asset is more important for companies to thrive in the knowledge economy than talent and human capital.

Just about all innovation studies of the past few years have identified similar factors as critical to a successful national innovation agenda.  For example, the 2004 final report, Innovate America of the National Innovation Initiative organized its recommendations into these three main categories:  talent, investment and infrastructure.
 
But, as we have been discussing, while those qualities are absolutely essential to a smart city, they are not sufficient.  Any city or region that aspires to become an innovation hub must have the ability to attract and retain a large pool of both local and international talent.  To do so, a smart city must be an appealing place to live, the quality we earlier referred as as liveability. 

Liveability or quality of life is a subtle subject.  It includes a rich variety of social, community and cultural services that appeal to the people and families the region is aiming to attract, such as education and training, healthcare delivery, leisure activities and crime management.  It must also include an environment with amenities and programs designed to bring together and connect firms and skilled worker.

A number of magazines publish most liveable city rankings, such as this one in The Economist.  The Economist bases its annual ranking on five categories:  “stability (25%): crime, conflict; healthcare (20%): private & public healthcare; culture & environment (25%): weather, freedoms, culture, food, goods; education (10%): private & public education; and infrastructure (20%): public transportation, international connections, housing, services, telecommunications.” 

I don’t know if these categories are right, or if some other ones better capture the kind of liveability we are after in an innovation hub.  But, it means that in addition to having a first class public infrastructure, as well as being an attractive place for doing business, a truly smart city must work hard on the so-called softer or human aspects that in the end will determine whether people want to come, become integrated into its daily life, and thus help the city become a thriving social community.

I was really happy to see that our Imperial College workshop added this focus on people and liveability to the more classic discussions of physical infrastructure and business environment.  It reminds us that becoming a successful smart city is a complex and multi-dimensional undertaking.  And, it challenges us to apply our sophisticated new technologies, - those that have inspired us to add the concept of smart in front of so many old words and disciplines, - to the human dimension of innovation.

Comments

[Chris Ward]

The 'innovation agenda' may set individuals against corporations.

I innovate (at work, at least) so that IBM can turn a profit and in turn IBM can pay its employees. You need quite a substantial 'machine' to repeatedly bring innovation to market, I have no problem considering myself to be a small cog in a large machine.

But some of the innovations get recorded as 'Industrial Property' ... patents, copyrights, trademarks, etc ... and the existence of the Industrial Property is supposed to enhance the return on the investment. Nothing quite as significant as an ATT patent on a transistor, but broadly similar stuff.

But what happens when the whole city is full of individuals innovating ? Do you have 'industrial property' as such, where some hold commercial rights against others, just like you have 'real property' where it's my choice whether to let you into my house ?

And where do governments stand on this ? Do they encourage investment by corporations ... new auto plant for Detroit, maybe ? Or do they stand by the rights of individuals to use the fruits of innovation as they see fit ?

It's kind-of complex. The discussion looks as if it will run and run.

[Stanley Wong]

Hi, I graduate from IC business school. Acutally I like living in the smart and small cities, however this need two aspects efforts. firstly is the mind of change of people. Secondly, it is the constructions of the city. It should provide all the conditions people wanted.