The debate was inspired, I believe, by The Multiplexed Metropolis , an article Siegele published in the September 7 issue of The Economist which explored the impact of big data on cities. He wrote that the vast amounts of data generated by the many social interactions taking place in cities might lead to a kind of second electrification, transforming 21st century cities much as electricity did in the past. “Enthusiasts think that data services can change cities in this century as much as electricity did in the last one,” he noted. “They are a long way from proving their case.”

The debate consisted of three phases spread out over roughly ten days. We each first stated our respective positions in our opening statements , followed a few days later by our rebuttals , and then finally our closing statements . It was moderated by Ludwig Siegele , online business and finance editor at The Economist, who offered his own remarks in each phase of the debate. Throughout the process, people were invited to vote on the motion, as well as to post their own comments.

A couple of weeks ago I participated in an online debate sponsored by The Economist . The debate was built around the question: Are Smart Cities Empty Hype? Defending the motion was Anthony Townsend , Research Director at the Institute for the Future and adjunct faculty member at NYU’s Wagner School of Public Service. I took the opposite side, arguing the case against the motion.

Cities are the most complex social organisms created by humans. Just about every aspect of human endeavor is part of the mix of cities, and they all interact with each other leading to a highly dynamic system of systems. Moreover, each city has its own unique style and character. As is generally the case with transformative changes to highly complex systems, the evolution toward smart cities will likely take quite a bit longer than we anticipate, but the eventual impact will probably be more transformative than we can currently envision.

Electrification, for example, started in the US, Britain and other advanced nations around the 1880s and took decades to deploy and truly transform cities. The hype around smart cities that I worry the most about is underestimating their complexity and the amount of research, experimentation, and plain hard work that it will take to realize the promise. Smart cities projects are still in their very early stages. Some will work and some will fail. We have much to learn. Highly complex systems need time to evolve.

Commenting on the opening statements, Siegele noted: “Despite the motion being Are smart cities empty hype?, both sides have focused on whether these should be implemented top-down or bottom-up. Most will probably agree that digital technology can make cities smarter - meaning more liveable, more efficient, more sustainable and perhaps even more democratic. But the big question is how to get there and how smart cities will be governed.”

“After reading the opening statements, I thought both sides were not very far apart. Indeed, Irving Wladawsky-Berger opens his rebuttal saying that he agrees with many points made by Mr Townsend: technocratic projects have mostly failed. But Mr Wladawsky-Berger also points out that for bottom-up projects to succeed they need good data, which in turn requires a fair bit of top-down oversight—as do privacy rules, law enforcement and a city's physical infrastructure.”

While innovations almost always emerge bottom-up from individuals, research communities and start-ups, their successful implementation and deployment requires a fair degree of the kind of top-down governance best provided by companies, government agencies or professional organizations. Throughout my remarks, I emphasized that platforms are the most effective architectures for achieving the right balance between bottom-up innovation and top-down governance. Successful platforms are able to attract a wide ecosystem of developers, who will in turn create a large number of innovative applications and services. The more such applications and services, the more valuable the platform becomes. The bulk of the innovation will generally come from the ecosystem, while the governance and support come from the platform providers.

In discussing the nature of smart cities platforms, Siegele asked whether I thought that cities would adopt proprietary platforms. “Absolutely not,” I answered based on my personal experience over the past 20 years with a number of complex initiatives, including IBM’s Internet strategy. I then added:

“Complex platforms like those we envision for smart cities must be firmly grounded on open-source software and open industry standards jointly developed by their key stakeholders, as is the case with the Web. In fact, smart-city platforms will probably be developed leveraging the Web and other such open Internet-based infrastructures. Only then can they attract a large ecosystem of innovators - including individuals, start-ups, professional organizations, established companies and city agencies - that will build a wide variety of applications and services on the platform.”

The qualifier smart, whether applied to cities, health care, or government, essentially means information-based or data-driven. Thus, the promise of smart cities is inexorably linked to the general promise of big data and data science, major initiatives which some have felt are themselves being over-hyped.

Our new big-data tools have the potential to usher an information-based revolution, helping us better understand the behavior of cities and other highly complex social institutions. But todo so, we must learn how to best leverage our big-data tools - their benefits as well as their limits - and how to surmount major obstacles, including privacy concerns. This will take time, and the necessary educational and research programs are in the very early stages.

The final vote on the motion, Are Smart Cities Empty Hype?, was very close, with 46% voting yes and 54% no. We received 55 comments, a number of which were quite insightful. One in particular, by Rick Huijbregts, nicely captured my feelings about smart cities in this paragraph:

“I applaud every Mayor, planner, engineer, builder, politician … and tech company that is trying to bring new ideas and capabilities to the table that will ultimately help create networks of sustainable communities that can handle the population growth, economic shifts and political hardships, and create new opportunities for everyone. Smart Cities is not an end-state, and the journey has only just began. Rather than focusing on all that is wrong, maybe we focus on all that is good - learn from it - and evolve.”