For over a decade, regional leaders worldwide have been leveraging technology and data in an effort to develop what are commonly known as smart cities. Some of these efforts, however, have stumbled not because of technological constraints, but because they neglected the very people they were meant to serve. As city officials realize that the success of smart-city initiatives depends on placing people—not technology—at the center, a shift is taking place in the approach to designing “smartness”.
The Danger of Overlooking Community Needs
Some smart city initiatives have overlooked local needs and traditions, leading to resistance and eventual project failure. Two examples include Quayside—an unsuccessful waterfront revitalization plan undertaken in Toronto—and a smart city initiative involving the church of Santa Maria Tonantzintla in San Andres, Cholula, in the Mexican state of Puebla. In the first case, a lack of seriousness about the privacy concerns of the local community contributed to the eventual failure of the project. In the second, a lack of transparency and respect for the local customs led community leaders to view the project as favoring outsiders rather than residents, sparking widespread protests and limiting the success of the project.
Both examples showcase the importance of communication between urban planners and community leaders in designing smart cities that are rooted in community needs. Inclusivity is essential in terms of access to technology and also in planning and decision-making. A lack of consideration for how people might respond to new technologies can lead to community unrest and project failures, resulting in a lose-lose situation.
Finding Pressing but Solvable Challenges
On the other end of the spectrum, successfully working with local communities to identify pressing needs that can be addressed through technological solutions can greatly improve the well-being of a city’s residents.
Mexico City’s use of technological applications to simplify bureaucratic procedures is a prime example. As highlighted by the Milken Institute’s Global Opportunity Index, government transactions are difficult throughout Latin America. Based on data from the Interamerican Development Bank, it takes almost seven hours to complete a government transaction in Mexico, which is above the regional average. Simultaneously, saving time in interactions with the government is one of the most efficient applications of technologies that improve quality of life indicators, according to a report by McKinsey Global Institute (MGI).
Aware of the negative impacts of bureaucracy on its residents, Mexico City’s officials set about digitalizing government interactions. Within a few years, the city developed Llave, a public portal that currently provides Mexico City’s residents with access to over 90 permitting processes and other services. Arriving at this solution wasn’t a matter of technology alone—it required regulatory changes and collaboration of legal authorities with community leaders to implement and popularize a win-win solution.
Engaging Communities to Build Smart Cities in the US
The United States (US) has been slower in its smart city journey than Asian and European nations at a similar level of economic development. In the 2024 ranking of smart cities by the World Competitiveness Center, no US city made the top 20, and only three (New York, Boston, and Washington DC) made the top 50. This has been largely due to hesitance among the US population—a 2018 survey revealed that 66% of Americans don’t want to live in a smart city, mainly due to concerns about privacy and mass data collection.
Engaging communities is crucial for the process of smart city development in the US. According to the previously mentioned report by MGI, the use of digital applications could significantly increase the share of residents who feel connected to the local community and government. Efforts to leverage this use of technology are already underway in US cities. In Raleigh, North Carolina, AI chatbots manage 90 percent of calls to administrative agencies, speeding response time, while in New Rochelle, New York, citizens can make suggestions and evaluate city projects through an online platform.
City officials’ ability to ensure all residents have access to online platforms will be another determinant of the success or failure of US smart cities. As discussed in the Milken Institute’s 2024 Best Performing Cities report, communities across the US grapple with challenges created by the digital divide between large and small cities. Even within large cities, the sparse availability of free wi-fi hotspots and limited awareness of digital solutions restrict access to the city’s applications. The awareness and usage of the city’s digital applications are higher in Latin American cities such as Medellín, Colombia than in US cities such as Austin, Los Angeles, or Boston. Once again, a human-centric solution that engages community leaders will be key to the widespread adoption and success of smart city solutions.
Toward a Smarter, More Inclusive Future
As cities across the world continue to race towards “smartness,” city officials need to ask: Who benefits from these innovations, and are they solving real problems or just showcasing technological advances? The answer to developing successful smart cities lies in inclusivity. Only by focusing on residents’ needs, addressing systemic barriers, and respecting local contexts, can smart cities achieve their true potential as engines of opportunity, sustainability, and efficiency.
