Nov 25, 2019
Co-Cities: Is Analogue the Future of Smart Participation?
At a conference on smart cities and technology, I did not expect to come across a panel discussing the merits of such a low-fi solution like face-to-face communication.
This year’s Smart City Expo, at Fira de Barcelona, was full of what you’d expect from three days dedicated to smart urbanism: drones, mapping technologies, electric cars, AI, scooters, and digital platforms. It was a surprising setting to hear the praise of a tried-and-trusted analogue approach to public participation — talking to each other.
And yet there it was, the Co-Cities: The Strength of Collective Intelligence session spent two hours promoting the value of personal connection as a means to transform urban environments and prepare for the future. Mara Balestrini, moderator and the CEO of Ideas for Change, kicked off the session announcing, “technology alone cannot solve our problems.” At this point, she had my attention.
In a room full of smart solutions and tech evangelicals, it was refreshing to focus on the importance of bringing people into a room together to talk. The moderator and speakers explored strategies to move away from a technocratic approach to urban planning, policy, and project delivery through in-person dialogue, site walks, and listening sessions. And while the concept of co-creation was challenged only as much as a session titled Co-Cities: The Strength of Collective Intelligence could, I appreciated the moderator highlighting the buzzy nature of a term like “co-creation.” We can praise an approach all day, but we also need to point out its limitations.
Patricia Holly Purcell, Senior Strategic Adviser at UN Global Compact, focused her keynote on the need for diversity and personal interactions. Purcell started with the relevant, albeit alarmist, statement, “Ladies and Gentlemen, we are running out of time.” While climate change and resilience was a common theme for the conference, Purcell’s message was more nuanced. She highlighted the need for an analogue approach to collaboration and co-creation models in order to explore urban climatic issues.
Technology has propelled us into a world of hyper connection. “If we want to solve the biggest existential challenges facing the world,” she states “we need to find a way to bring like-minded people from all walks of life to work and socialize together.” This is the premise for her Global Exchange. Still in its nascent stages, the Global Exchange appears to be a platform to bring global stakeholders together in person, and online, to share ideas, experiences, and solutions. The concept is great in theory. As both an academic and a practitioner, I can see the benefits of a tool to support the analogue connection of stakeholders. I’m curious to see how it manifests in reality and am eager to follow along as the Exchange develops. It could potentially be a space to further a much needed conversation around climate adaptation, social equity, and meaningful public participation.
The session was refreshing, considering its context, in its attention to the benefits of authentic and low-fi methods of public participation. However, a focus on social equity and procedural justice was somewhat limited. I’m a strong believer in the aspirational goals of participatory processes and diverse inclusion. That being said, we see many examples where the process checks all the boxes of engagement but still results in inequitable outcomes. One of the first steps towards a more just approach and outcome, is to find ways to elevate and include more voices in municipal and urban decision making. And at the same time, we need to examine who, how, and why people are brought into the discussion.
When I arrived at the Smart City Expo, I fully anticipated to find myself lost amongst a crowd of tech-centric thinkers. I was pleasantly surprised to find like-minded people, such as Mara Balestini and Patricia Holly Purcell, wading through the complex and difficult task of working with and for people.
