'From smart cities to wise'

Welcome to the Climatetech SuperCluster on 19th March with some notes – 'from smart cities to wise'...

Figure 1: ‘not in the algorithm’

If human interaction is about zero…

As a kid in the 1960s I got the bus to school, and soon got to know everyone at the bus stop – now everyone is on their feeds and apps, and human interaction is about zero… So does smart city tech point towards a city of strangers controlled by distant overlords – or – a city of local synergy and cohesion?? And how to enable business models, value chains, investment vehicles and innovation ecosystems to ensure that?? 

All this comes to a head with AI, and just now the conflict of AI guardrails with the AI-enabled killing fields of the US Department of War:  when the AI firm Anthropic refused to licence this use of its system, the Department not only cancelled the contract but declared them a threat to national security.

As for the smart city transition, in simple terms, cities depend on transport, which depends on energy markets, which depend on the Gulf states, which are now entangled in the AI-enabled war. But there are wider and deeper issues, in that cities now run on many inter-connected digital systems, for security, education, employment etc: if the ‘military-industrial-technology’ overlords invest in AI-enabled war machines, they are likely to be ok with AI-enabled social engineering. And then we are on a slippery slope, from ‘smart city’ as technical and benign, towards an ‘unsmart’ city as hijacked by the forces of power, inequality and colonisation (Figure 1).

This theme now runs far and wide. The United Nations Habitat program on "People-Centred Smart Cities" asks similar questions, along with the ITU ‘smart and sustainable cities’ program and others. I would argue that these are all important, but perhaps, missing some deeper layers of the crisis – or opportunity, for transition from ‘smart to wise’ (or at least ‘wiser’).

Smart versus unsmart cities

Our question starts with the purely technical functions of smart city systems, in clean energy, low impact transport or waste management. We can then draw from experience – for every technical system there is a social, economic, and political baggage behind it.

In Shanghai some public libraries are now run by robots: like a coke in a vending machine,

the book comes out in the tray – you can select the book on the keypad or let the AI decide based on your profile. This is very efficient for distribution of books, but useless for the human side of the library experience – contact, empathy, co-creative advice...  

We can generalise from examples of bus stops and libraries:  for every smart system which is efficient, low-cost, low impact etc, there is potential for an ‘unsmart’ system with a city of disconnected strangers making profits for distant investors.  There is also an alternative – that of human-centred ‘wiser’ systems, which can enhance social engagement, synergy, trust and cohesion, as in Figure 2.

Figure 2:  From functional tech to liveable communities

So what is a wise or ‘wiser’ city?  

Broadly, we can say this is an urban system with capacity for collaborative (‘co’-) learning, communication, co-creation and co-production: with a wider community of interest, deeper layers of value, and further horizons of change – all adding up to a ‘collective urban intelligence’. The result is to transform the system, whether large or small, from one mode of operation to another: -

• Mode-I: functional growth/change, in a ‘clever’ system: the ‘city as machine’. (Where to put 5000 houses is a Mode-Ikind of problem).

• Mode-II: biological evolution, with ‘smart’ systems: the ‘city as winner-takes-all’. (How to make profit from 5000 houses is a Mode-II problem of innovation and competition, and the ‘smart’ winners often gain at the expense of ‘unsmart’ losers).

• Mode-III: human co-evolution, through ‘wise’ systems: the ‘city as civilization’. (How to foster a liveable community with 5000 houses is a Mode-III kind of problem).

These systems are not exclusive – every city system needs a combination of each. We often find that Mode-III aspirations are handed to local governments, who lack the funding even to achieve for Mode-I results, and then call on the private sector for a Mode-II service, which then excludes the ‘unsmart’ losers, who call again for Mode-III aspirations – and so the cycle goes around.

Technology trends & trade-offs

Current technology trends, as reported by Future Today Strategy or Global Cleantech 100, seem to suggest multiple varieties of intelligence – firstly between materials or components which are increasingly responsive, then via sensors and controls, then by AI-enabled learning, and then with human-in-the-loop interactions. For example, Living Intelligence can be framed as a convergence of AI, biotechnology, and advanced sensory systems. ‘Material intelligence’ is at the convergence of nano-chemistry, synthetic biology and micro energy, to enable self-cooling buildings, ultra resilient infrastructure, or adaptive building structures. ‘Agentic intelligence’ sees the convergence of agentic AI, IOT sensors and platform economics, moving from passive tools to autonomous decision-making, where ‘action models’ are starting to overtake learning models. 

We then contrast with evidence such as the global risk assessment of the World Economic Forum: from the poll of experts, the 2026 ‘risk-scape’ is headed by geo-economic confrontation, state-based conflict, extreme weather events, social polarisation, misinformation or disinformation. So we could put a simple question – ok, could this smart technology or device increase or mitigate these risks? For instance ‘loitering guard’ apps can make public spaces, car parks or empty streets – more safe, secure and walkable – but we ask, what is the trade-off in privacy and surveillance, corporate capture, social exclusion and polarization? And then there’s the bigger question of a wiser alternative – how to design a system for public safety which promotes social cohesion, tolerance and mutual aid, or at least enables their self-organization?

Exploring wiser city systems

At the UN Habitat World Urban Forum 2024, our workshop with the Guangzhou Institute for Urban Innovation –"From Smart City to Wise Citi-verse" – explored examples of digital twins, street trader apps, and VR/AR/MR in public health. With the synergistic method and Pathways Toolkit we asked for each, what could possibly go wrong – what structures of power are reinforced – who could hijack them and how? And then - what kind of change to the app, platform, scaffold, MR, data system or user community, could point in the direction of a wiser city?

In reality, such ideas have to fit sooner or later with the larger structures of investment, infrastructure, organisation, engineering and so on. So a simple appeal to the city government - "Hey guys, look at the impacts of your new system – maybe not good – what are you going to do?" may not be so effective. A more structural approach is called for – where ‘wiser’ systems are designed from the start not only for technical functions, but also human aspirations.

Another Manchester case study is the Looper project: working with local residents on local problems in three cities around Europe. In each case there were disconnections and gaps and barriers between the needs of the people, as seen by those communities, and the provision of services or infrastructure by the authorities. So we put sensors for pollution, noise, speed etc, in the hands of the citizens, where the results were visible and easy to read, and then organised meetings for citizens to exchange on an equal basis with the authorities and experts. The result became the ‘Looper model’, which started a series of discussions with local government.

Figure 3:  Innovation:  from smart to wise

Enterprise & innovation perspectives

Navigating ‘from smart to wise’ may not be simple for enterprises out there … so in Figure 3 is map of an innovation system, and the potential synergy and coordination. The indicators of success are set out in the chart here, based on the WIPO global innovation index, and the ‘Synergy-scan’ tool of the Deeper City.  We then look beyond the supply or demand chain at the whole socio-eco value chain, and then possible added value synergies between different parts of the chain. Synergies between public procurement and skills development, for example, need to work between departments: synergies between cultural intelligence and knowledge diffusion suggest new modes of public communication.

Such a mapping can then show opportunities ahead: in particular the possible synergies between different stakeholders – city authorities, national regulators, engineering institutions, investment community, small enterprises, training providers, civil society organizations or resident groups. It also highlights that social fabric, if we say this word, is actually a key to a successful smart-wise city innovation system. The role of human ‘enablers’ may be crucial to bridging the gaps, for example in climate-tech building retrofit – i.e. civil society stewards / guardians who promote the synergies between householders, investors, builders, suppliers and policy-makers - as on the stakeholder pathway mapping in Figure 4.

Figure 4:  Innovation: from syndromes to synergies

In conclusion, current technology trends see incredible potential – with new combinations of sensing and feedback systems, material systems, biological and energy systems and agentic / learning models suggesting new possibilities for ‘collective technology intelligence’.

We can apply a similar logic to the human side, where to design, produce, apply and mobilise these, we need to explore new combinations of ‘collective political intelligence’, ‘collective cultural intelligence’ and so on." 

The combination points to the effects on society of this or that technology, device, material or platform: does this transport app or waste system enable human interaction and social cohesion? With the pace of change, there are no clear answers and final results, but we can say these may be vital signposts on a fast-moving frontier. Turbulent times, it seems, call for extra foresight…

Graphics © Joe Ravetz under Creative Commons License: ‘Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share-Alike’ 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0).  Users may reproduce them, for educational or non-commercial purposes, on condition of full attribution.

Written by Joe Ravetz. He leads the Future Cities & Governance themes for the Manchester Urban Institute. He set up the 'Mind-lab’ for research on the collective intelligence of cities, economies and societies, based on the source text Deeper City: collective intelligence and the pathways from smart to wise’.  He is also a Principal of SAMI Consulting, and gives keynotes, reviews, foresight and ‘vision-eering’ workshops in many countries.