Hindsight is often crystal clear. When asked what has changed in the smart city movement over the past five years, many city leaders described a reflection like this: early over-enthusiasm for the potential of emerging smart city technologies may have steered them away from their most central focus—residents, their perspectives, and their needs.

Kevin Martin, manager of Smart City PDX in Portland, Oregon, responding to a recent Smart Cities Dive survey on the five-year evolution of the smart city movement, said that five years ago, the smart city movement was not people-centered but focused on technologies that were oversold and that communities did not need. He noted that this technology-first approach "largely failed" because cities did not become trusted stewards of data and technology, especially in underserved communities; at the same time, cities lacked the policy processes and systems to support the data use and collection that new technologies brought.

Martin said Portland's smart city path has since shifted. "Moving from focusing on technologies like autonomous vehicles to working with Portland communities to develop a more comprehensive and equitable approach to digital city development has been a satisfying evolution."

In the survey, local leaders from other major U.S. cities also said that over the past five years, they have shifted the focus of their smart city initiatives from implementing the latest technologies to prioritizing the needs of communities and their residents. Some of these new priorities include finding smarter ways—including using new technologies—to meet those needs while protecting resident privacy. A significant factor driving this shift was the COVID-19 pandemic, which exposed inequalities, especially gaps in digital access, and highlighted the need for government transformation.

Saying goodbye to the 'technology arms race'

To date, the U.S. smart city movement has been marked by some high-profile projects that have not always come to fruition, including Sidewalk Labs' Toronto development project and Replica's work in Portland. Other major tech players also seem to have cooled off: Cisco, a tech giant and early smart city enthusiast, announced late last year that it would consolidate one of its major smart city software platforms.

In recent years, perceptions of innovative forms have evolved, noted Jen Sanders, executive director of the North Texas Innovation Alliance, which is also part of the larger National Smart Cities Partnership.

"The 'smart city' movement and its terminology were once very focused on grand visions," she wrote in an email interview, and people described such visions "often in the form of autonomous vehicles, flying cars, and other flashy forms."

Even those who once saw value in such efforts now recognize their shortcomings.

Linda Gerull, executive director and chief information officer of San Francisco's technology department, said that five years ago, the focus on new technologies generated new data streams that helped understand various problems facing the city, but the costs of the technologies were difficult to justify and were not used in ways that delivered new services. "While these technologies were exciting, the topic felt hollow because they did not fully address the challenges and needs residents faced."

Debra Lam, managing director of the Smart Cities and Inclusive Innovation program at the Georgia Institute of Technology, said vendors drove the "first wave" of the smart city movement, selling new hardware and software they claimed would make cities smarter, which created an unnecessary "technology arms race." Lam noted that in adopting these technologies, many cities did not start from a problem. "They were somewhat like thinking 'this is the solution' and then trying to figure out how it fits into the city, rather than starting from the problem and considering which technologies in their broader toolkit were most appropriate."

Jennifer Clark, chair and professor of the Department of City and Regional Planning at The Ohio State University, said cities are now finally beginning to choose interventions and projects from the menu of available technologies based on local conditions and concerns. With this shift in thinking, cities have strengthened internal smart city expertise, enabling local leaders to focus more on using technology to meet the needs of the city and its residents, Lam added. Clark also noted that smart city companies are recognizing the complexity of the smart city market and the realities of building and managing public-private partnerships.

At the level of more routine city operations, technological innovation has not yet effectively addressed certain urban challenges, including illegal dumping, neighborhood blight, and flood monitoring, said Jesse Bounds, director of the Mayor's Innovation Office in Houston. If smart city innovation requires residents to interact with government through technology, then today's broader awareness of the depth of the digital divide suggests cities still have progress to make in this area. Bounds said in response to the survey that when many residents do not even have access to or the ability to use computers or the internet, "it's hard to talk about smart cities." He said, "There are many novel solutions that work in an ideal laboratory environment, but none that work at scale."

Refocusing on 'unsexy' technology and smaller goals

San Francisco's Gerull said that today, the "digital city" concept is widely used to describe the modernization and transformation of city services and systems, providing better accessibility for residents and viewing services from an equity perspective. It also makes cybersecurity and data privacy cornerstones.

Sanders of the North Texas Innovation Alliance said the core elements of a smart city are rarely visible to the average person walking down the street. However, she said, people can experience the impact of these investments in their daily lives, such as shorter commutes, faster 911 responses, or lower asthma rates. "That's why starting with simple and in many cases 'unsexy' technology is the foundation for creating comprehensive value," she said. "Once anchor infrastructure, governance, and functionality are in place, the public sector can achieve a 'pragmatically cool' risk/innovation balance."

Karen Lightman, executive director of Carnegie Mellon University's Metro21: Smart Cities Institute, noted that the most transformative changes cities can make today often stem from breaking down information silos—information often stored in outdated ways—and making data openly accessible.

Some cities are communicating their more modest goals and efforts, as well as the resident-first approach they are taking. Lightman noted that the City of Boston's Smart City Playbook is a leading example of how a city defines and communicates its approach to engaging with vendors and potential technologies. Kris Carter, co-chair of the Mayor's Office of New Urban Mechanics in Boston, elaborated on this approach. Over the past five years, the city has "redefined innovation as care," he said in the survey response. Boston's smart city efforts are "not about 'moving fast and breaking things,' but rather as a practice of care—care, co-care, and caring," Carter said. He also said the city has shifted to "not worshiping efficiency, because cities are not data flows but people; sometimes, the social fabric of a city can be lost to a singular focus on process improvement."

The City of Orlando has also realigned its approach. In 2019, it began developing its first smart city master plan, and has since redefined it as the "Future Ready City" initiative. The city is currently implementing short-term strategies outlined in the plan, including better defining the digital divide, partnering with the entrepreneur community, and testing a food rescue logistics platform, said Michael Hess, director of Future Ready, in response to the survey.

David Edinger, chief information officer for the City of Denver, said smart cities, once dominated by vendors and their priorities, are now defined by city governments and their priorities. Denver is currently focusing on a "small number" of smart initiatives to avoid spreading resources too thin, Edinger said in response to survey questions. This includes an initiative aimed at improving air quality near schools, as well as a data center project that Edinger considers "a pillar for future efforts."

Washington, D.C., has also in recent years shifted its smart city focus from technology to how it trains and prepares its employees, residents, and businesses so they can all have fair opportunities in the digital age, the city's Office of the Chief Technology Officer said in a statement responding to the survey.

Phoenix Mayor Kate Gallego said the smart city concept has become more comprehensive, going beyond technology implementation to encompass meaningful community engagement, fluid communication capabilities, eliminating waste, sustainable environmental practices, smarter resource use, and a better quality of life. But the shift to new approaches is also a challenge for many practitioners. "While the concept of smart cities is becoming more familiar, it is still a new concept for many practitioners," Gallego said in the survey response. "Ensuring practitioners understand the comprehensive approach and holistic thinking required to achieve a truly smart city is a challenge."

Pandemic-driven reflection

The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the normalcy of city life, closing shops and restaurants, emptying offices and commuter trains, and sending swarms of delivery drivers through the streets. It forced cities to reassess their priorities and challenged city leaders to be more inclusive in their planning.

As cities turned to technology to respond to the pandemic, some shortcomings became apparent. Dallas, for example, quickly discovered it had a language problem. "While some resident-facing city services already offered translation services, the pandemic and the more widespread use of digital communications led to an increased need for broader language access," Amanda Nabours, IT architect for the City of Dallas, said in response to the survey. The city subsequently created a map detailing the most commonly spoken languages in each ZIP code area, enabling Dallas to expand the availability of translation services and materials.

The pandemic also exposed the limitations of technology in underserved communities. Brian Dillard, chief innovation officer for the City of San Antonio, said in response to survey questions that the pandemic "created more urgency around issues like the digital divide, data governance, digital infrastructure, and community co-creation." Jeanne Holm, deputy mayor for budget and innovation for the City of Los Angeles, echoed similar sentiments. "The pandemic changed how Los Angeles delivers services and strengthened the focus on equity, especially around issues of internet access, connectivity, and digital literacy," she said in her survey response.

"What the pandemic did with internet access was make inequality impossible not to see," said LaVonna Lewis, associate dean for diversity, equity, and inclusion at the USC Sol Price School of Public Policy. Schoolchildren—suddenly forced to attend classes online—might not have internet access at home, or their service might not support siblings and working parents being online simultaneously.

Some cities were hit hard by declines in tax and other revenues due to business closures, nearly halted tourism, and canceled conventions. "Federal intervention helped cities a lot, but if your tax base wasn't strong to begin with, it's harder," said David Sloane, professor of urban planning and spatial analysis at the USC Price School. Emily Yates, smart city director for Philadelphia, said in response to the survey that finding funding for smart city projects became a "constraint" as the city implemented significant budget cuts. Art Thompson, chief information officer for Detroit, also said in his survey response that "financial challenges will continue to be challenging as we seek to deliver more information."

Pursuing inclusive processes and equitable outcomes

Clark of The Ohio State University said that, like other parts of the technology industry, the smart city movement is "maturing." She said this shift is partly due to resistance from civic groups to specific interventions, such as data-collecting smart streetlights, and large-scale integrated smart development projects, like the defunct Sidewalk Labs Toronto plan. "Today, community engagement and trust are essential for setting smart city priorities when adopting tools and processes designed for communities," Clark said.

One problem with this "tech backlash" is that it has fostered "very extreme" views of technology, Lightman said. "What I worry about is this idea that all facial recognition is bad. That's a very black-and-white way of thinking," she said. For example, with connected and autonomous vehicles, regulatory changes and the "hard work of consensus building" have slowed progress, noted Brandon Campbell, smart mobility manager for Tampa, Florida, in response to the survey. "We are still seeing progress, but five years ago, the industry may have had overly optimistic expectations about the timeline for technology maturity," he said.

Portland is now also focused on "rebuilding trust" and applying its smart city work to basic justice principles, Martin said. It is developing new policies with various underrepresented communities to provide a foundation for its data and technology use, such as policies ensuring that surveillance technology, machine learning, and artificial intelligence do not harm civil rights and liberties. "We believe the process of rebuilding trust begins with community engagement, policy development, and the systems that govern data and technology," Martin said. "Digital justice demands more transparency, accountability, and access to technology, information, resources, literacy, and decision-making."

Change has also come with the pandemic. Holm of Los Angeles said that previously, the city's "smart city focus was more on technology than on who has access to technology and understands how to use it." In Philadelphia, where a quarter of the population is at or below the federal poverty line, "equity and inclusion are critical to all SmartCityPHL pilots and projects," Yates said.

But Lewis of USC warned that what planners want may not be what city residents want or find valuable. "If these are not things they want, or if they have not been educated about how the initiative responds to some of their needs, then there will be a disconnect that we have to address," she said. Dillard of San Antonio agreed. "The pandemic has made a smart city approach centered on people's needs more urgent."

Cailin Crowe contributed reporting to this article.