Brain Food for Pioneering Spirits: What actually makes a city “smart,” and what does urbanization mean for the people left behind in rural areas? In Room #872 of the Deep Talk Club, under our overarching theme “Pioneering Spirit with brAIn,” the group digs into sensor-lit streets and smart trash bins, Germany’s data-shyness, surveillance versus anonymity, and the widening gap between big cities and everywhere else. Listen in on the examples that came up and the perspectives that emerged in dialogue…
Note: This session was recorded live in German as part of the Deep Talk Club, so the video above is German-language audio only. What follows is an English translation of the conversation, lightly edited for readability — the back-and-forth between the moderator and participants is preserved, but the original timestamps and speaker names have been left out.
A wonderful good morning to you all. Today we’re talking about smart cities and urbanization, and we want to take a close look at what’s actually meant by smart cities and urbanization, and what urban ways of living will look like in the future. I’m really curious what all comes together here too. We’ve already talked about smart technologies in general, in terms of end devices, and touched on one thing or another there. I’d already announced that smart cities would get its own separate room, looked at here in connection with urbanization, and that’s exactly what we’re doing today. Let me pick up a few terms first, which I looked up for their definitions, and offer them to you as an impulse. Smart cities — I think most people probably have some picture of that from the media already. Wikipedia says a smart city is an umbrella term for holistic development concepts aimed at making cities more efficient, more technologically advanced, more ecological, and more socially inclusive. These concepts include technical, economic, and societal innovations. And on the aspect of what urbanization actually means — Wikipedia has something on this too. Urbanization refers to the spread of urban ways of living. This can express itself, on one hand, in the growth of cities, and on the other, through infrastructure development in rural regions that’s comparable to urban standards, and through a change in the social behavior of people living in rural areas. Whereas the term “city growth” — because that’s another related term — refers more to the expansion of existing cities through construction, commercial, and industrial development, urbanization also includes processes of social change in its scope. Just to make that distinction here too — that’s also on the Wikipedia page. So let’s take a look — these are just some first impulses, first definitions, to give you a clearer sense of where we’re headed today, and what’s actually behind these terms. Feel free to expand on this with other definitions, or if you think this doesn’t quite capture it, or you’d like to add the following point, please go ahead. Otherwise, as I said, we want to look at what’s actually changing here, how it plays out, and how that changes the aspect of urban ways of living. It probably makes sense to bring in one thing or another that you’ve already heard about — so where does this actually already exist, where is a lot happening already. And especially regarding smart cities, I found a page I thought was really interesting, from Telekom Magenta Business, from Austria. There’s a list there, dated July 11, 2022, under the keyword IoT, listing the ten most innovative smart cities in the world. And in first place, as of that date, is Darmstadt — because it’s one of the cities that’s actually the third city in Germany, after Berlin and Hamburg, that Deutsche Telekom has equipped with a 5G network. I found it quite interesting that Darmstadt comes in right at first place here. But since, of course, Deutsche Telekom is the one that equipped it with 5G, and this is from Telekom Magenta Business, and then it gets named first right away — I’m not entirely sure who determined this ranking among the ten most innovative cities, or why exactly Darmstadt ends up in first place. So that’s up for debate, but at least it’s interesting that it’s listed here among these ten most innovative cities alongside Barcelona and so on. And I find that quite exciting, because some of you might think we’re not that far along here, in inverted commas. But there are already quite a few showcase examples within Germany too — maybe not entire cities, but at least certain aspects here and there where you could say, in this or that context, Germany is definitely part of the conversation too. And I know especially about Hamburg — I’ve read and heard a lot about that — Hamburg in particular is often at the forefront with test tracks and so on for various things, when it comes to trying things out and moving them into a test phase, so they can later be adapted and transferred to other areas. Right, and with that I’d like to open up the round. I’m really, really curious what you all have to say. So you’re all very warmly invited — do you have examples, thoughts, and so on? What does this actually mean for us? Where are we heading with this? Are we allowed to look at this with joy, or with worry? All these aspects are welcome. So please join in, and let’s turn this monologue into a dialogue with different thoughts. It’s not about being an expert in the field, but simply bringing in what you’ve picked up, what you’ve observed, read, seen, into the exchange. It doesn’t have to be limited to Germany either — feel free to look at it more globally too. Even when we’re traveling or something similar, we pick up on quite a bit too. So you’re warmly invited to bring in your thoughts and experiences. Just a reminder again for everyone, that the room is being recorded for the entire time and will be published accordingly. That means anyone who joins automatically agrees to that. And we have three small rules — a profile photo where you’re clearly recognizable, first and last name, and at least one sentence in your bio. Anyone who doesn’t want that for whatever reason is warmly invited to just put something in the chat, and then we can pick that up here too. Right, with that I’ll mute myself and see who’d like to join in.
A wonderful good morning, dear Sabine. So, I don’t know if my internet is good enough right now — can you hear me? Right now, yes. Can you understand me? Yes. Yes, I’m having a problem with the house again. Yasemin, you’re quite brave, how you always stay so calm about it — I think that’s great. I really only have a small contribution, because I don’t know that much about it. At the Buga garden show, there’s a house near us with a smart city display, and I checked it out. The idea there is to give people direct insight into parking and air quality data. So the idea is simply, you drive into the city, and your system picks all that up and tells you directly, there’s the right parking spot, or there’s the least traffic, so you get there the best way. That’s one thing. And air — just aggregating the data and saying, right now we have far too much pollution here. That’s just two data points for now. We’ve set up a cube like that and say, here we are, smart city, and want the whole thing. We have a second example in the city too, though I can’t say too much about that one — we have a lot of former conversion areas from the Americans, and there’s actually a neighborhood called Benjamin Franklin. Those are old officers’ villas that got sold as they were, and people were able to redesign them a bit, but a lot of new housing was also created there — though I have to say, as someone who works in construction financing, I have enough insight to know that it’s quite expensive relative to the area, so really it’s mostly bringing in people who can afford it anyway. There are construction companies that structured it differently from the start — they didn’t sell the land along with it, but kept the leasehold rights, so the apartment stays a bit cheaper and remains affordable for people. And in that area, the city of Mannheim has also included a smart city element — they built a new tram line and want to use it a bit as a showcase. From people who live there, what I’ve heard so far is that not much has changed yet, but at least they want to do something. That was my first contribution.
Yes, wonderful, thank you, thank you so much. And there are probably a lot more examples out there that we pick up on peripherally too, but maybe it’s just that we don’t necessarily place them directly under “smart city.” Maybe that’s also the reason why some people find this a bit difficult to grasp. That means, basically, it’s often not entire cities we can think of, where smart city is already 100 percent built out everywhere, so to speak, but rather developments in different forms and shapes, where maybe in one city or another you find small examples, like the one you just mentioned, Sabine. And of course cities differ quite a bit in how strongly these developments are expressed. And basically it’s partly about bringing to mind again what actually falls under this. And yes, this thing with air measurements and so on is something that’s listed for Darmstadt, Berlin, and Hamburg too, particularly under this description of Darmstadt that I read out to you a bit earlier. There are a few things included there. For example, the tram, which can run partially automated or remote-controlled, and various sensors that already work and are installed in various places, so that pollutants in the air can be measured, for example. And it says, for example, that the sensors sit in the gray boxes belonging to Deutsche Telekom and record the levels of nitrogen oxides, ozone, and particulate matter there. And in the future, such sensors could be placed practically anywhere. And electricity consumption on the 5G network is extremely low. The robust sensors are supposed to be able to run maintenance-free for at least ten years. So you can also see here, when it says maintenance-free operation, that this has effects elsewhere too — it’s not just about whether these are intelligent systems, but also about aspects like maintenance and so on, how you can use that later — but this also, and now we’re right in the middle of this complexity again, opens the door for further discussions right away, in terms of what it means, if there’s less maintenance, for society, for jobs, and so on. So you can see immediately how the first chain reactions get triggered here, if we think in terms of interconnections. Then, regarding Barcelona, this Telekom page also mentions that the trash bins distributed throughout the city measure their fill level and report when they need to be emptied. The sensors often sit on streetlights and also register how many pedestrians pass by. If there’s little activity on the sidewalk, the lights get switched off, for example. In the future, Barcelona also wants to tackle more complex projects. In other countries — I heard, for example, that in Australia they work a lot with roundabouts and things like that, and that in certain areas there are no traffic lights at all, so systems like this can be used to handle one thing or another. That means infrastructure plays a huge role in all these aspects that can be looked at together here. And smart cities is, first and foremost, of course about all these technological aspects, but especially in terms of urbanization and so on, these developments that are taking place — and we had this in the definition too — it’s not just about technologies, but about the developments happening in relation to cities in general. And on one hand, infrastructure plays a role, social factors, economic factors, political factors are also aspects that concern urbanization, though not city growth. And so, we’re allowed to think a bit more broadly here and bring in further examples too. And I think, at the latest here, you might have noticed one development or another, if you look at it a bit historically — what actually happens with urban development in general? Especially when we think about discussions like, what’s happening in rural areas, what’s happening in the big cities, how do people migrate away from more rural areas toward urban areas. So I think each of us has some memory of this, or something to contribute. So we can approach the topic this way too. Sabine, do you have further thoughts on this too, maybe?
Yes, cities certainly do plan, and especially, a lot of mistakes have certainly been made in the past too, which makes it very, very, very difficult. I myself lived in a neighborhood for a long time — we then moved away, precisely because the urban planning there wasn’t done properly. They’d originally advertised it as a family-friendly new development, and then they simply overloaded it by putting in far too much social housing. And here in Benjamin Franklin, this new conversion area, I don’t know if things are that different. The problem is, you first want to house a lot of people, and with this smart city thing, of course, you also want everything to be sustainable, technologically advanced, and mobility plays a role there too, and it’s very difficult, because, well, in the neighborhood where I lived, the infrastructure was handed over to a local construction company. Great, right? What was their focus? Fitting in as many apartments as possible. We tried to get a somewhat bigger plot of land, but we didn’t get it, because they said, we need to fit in so-and-so many units, which I actually understand. But what they also did, for example, was that the green spaces were far too few, the parking spaces were far too few, and people ended up parking on both sides of what was actually meant to be a through-street for the neighborhood, so that nothing was possible there anymore. So it’s a very contentious thing when you combine these two aspects — really, you’d always need to bring in an independent authority that brings together this smart city and mobility thing with the wishes of the residents, and doesn’t just put the economic consensus on top. I find that very, very difficult. What I also wanted to say earlier, since you mentioned the lights — I think that’s a great idea, but we did notice during the Corona crisis that in a lot of neighborhoods the lights got turned off at 10pm, and of course that’s something to look at critically too, because it touches on the topic of safety. If my daughter is walking home alone at that point, and only one person is walking there, we don’t need to turn the light on just for one person.
Yes, thank you, thank you so much. Just with the difference that, in the context of smart cities, it wouldn’t be that someone manually switches it off at a certain time, but rather that the sensors would actually be able to measure or check whether someone is there or not. And that would then determine, for example, whether the light is on or off. That means it would actually speak in favor of it, because there’s automation behind it, based on actual need, rather than us manually deciding at what time electricity gets saved, which might then create other problems elsewhere, like the risk of crime or similar, because it makes things easier for that. So it’s really exciting, this whole thing with urban planning too. It becomes pretty clear that there’s an incredible amount of complexity involved, especially since it’s not just all these technical aspects we’re talking about here, which are already complex enough on their own, given the technological developments and so on. You need a corresponding infrastructure for that. That of course costs money too, and takes time to implement everything accordingly, and then to test it and see if it works, or to follow up and optimize, and so on. And on the other hand, there are also social factors. This partly involves aspects like integration, which we already touched on a bit — especially with this mobility topic, where we said we’re also allowed to think about groups like people with disabilities, or families, and so on. That means it really does have a whole lot of facets that need to be taken into account here too. Of course we could also bring in aspects that are already partly considered today, but expressed very, very differently in different cities, I think — something like integration, or the idea of integration or inclusion, which is actually supposed to be taken into account in this urban planning too. I say “supposed to,” because I don’t think it’s necessarily really succeeded everywhere, in terms of people with a migration background, for example. So we have various urban clusters, for example, where certain groups of people end up concentrated together, and so on. These are all aspects that also play a role in the context of this urban planning, that get taken into account here too — sometimes more, sometimes less. So, as I said, I’m a bit cautious here, because depending on where you look in Germany, there are very, very strong differences. Of course you could then say, well, per se this is something that should be taken into account in urban planning. We’ve made mistakes in the past there. And the question is, how can you then
undo something that’s already there — and that’s the next layer of complexity, in inverted commas. Because if, for example — I think this is a good example to illustrate it — certain clusters have already formed, you can’t just empty out the housing there and reassign it all, or something like that. That takes many years in a lot of places, before a development like that can somehow be steered over time in any way. And if it’s private property or something like that on top of it, it becomes even harder for the city to intervene at all from a planning perspective. So there are a whole lot of aspects that come together here. The city can, of course, go into planning here and there, especially with these technological things. But even here it’s not just pure planning that gets done — companies come into play too, of course. That means it involves cooperation, planning that sometimes has to be done far in advance, before you actually get to experience or see one thing or another implemented. That’s one thing. The other thing I’d like to bring up, and I’m really curious about this too — especially these smart cities are, ultimately, well, I’m curious what you’ll say about this — especially these smart cities, as nice as some of it might be, on the other hand, if you think about it carefully, a lot of technologies get deployed here too, where data has to be collected, for example — like with the lights, where recognition needs to happen, whether there are people there or not — all the way to, if you take this further and look at certain countries where this is already more developed, where all this data gets collected, and what you can then do with that data, in inverted commas — does the whole thing maybe head in a certain direction too? And that’s also one of the discussions happening in this context — that while it might simplify life in some places, it also opens up possibilities that might not seem so appealing, if it heads toward, say, total control, in inverted commas. So if you think in the direction of facial recognition with cameras or similar, because this digitalization is increasingly present everywhere. If we look away from smart cities in general for a moment, and look at, for example, how far along we already are at airports, at passport control or wherever, where everything gets scanned somehow, and in the future maybe even facial scanners or similar could be used. So if you just think five steps further ahead, some concerning aspects definitely come into play here too. And that brings us back to this “do we want this?” and “what’s it good for?” question, and I’m really curious what you all have to say about this too, and I’d like to warmly invite the others to join in too, to get into an exchange here, bring in different thoughts, and not just from, let’s say, the positive perspective, but also from the perspective of concerns — feel free to critically question one thing or another, whether it’s the right direction, where you might see obstacles or challenges, maybe even ethical concerns, so we can bring in that level too. Sabine, would you like to say something about that too, or has anything else come to mind for you?
Yes, I can say something briefly, though I’ll have to sign off after that, because I have an appointment. Yes, that’s probably the problem in Germany in general again — you’d probably first have to sign a data protection agreement before you could even get this tool on your phone. And if someone really reads through that, a lot of people won’t do it after all. And what good is the data to me if it’s not complete? So if, say, my daughter didn’t accept that and just walked past, and the light doesn’t come on because she doesn’t have the app on her, or whatever. Though, since this works via sensors, that wouldn’t actually be the problem — but I think we’re just too data-shy in Germany to even give consent for something like this in the first place. Although, of course, I also see the problems — not everything gets used well, and I can see both sides of it, that’s certainly a difficult problem. I wanted to say one more thing before I go, it just occurred to me. We were once in Copenhagen, and Copenhagen, for example, is a city that’s been thinking ahead in terms of urban planning for many years. And I think that’s always the problem — if you build a new district today, you can put a showcase smart city there. But the acceptance, that all has to be found first. And if people already think the way they do in Copenhagen, with their bicycles, and the bike highway, and every car brakes for the bike and lets it go first, that’s already a completely different mindset coming from the city itself than what we have in Germany. So we now have a bike highway in Zurburga [phonetic], which is great, you can ride your bike there, but in the city you have to wear a helmet and be careful just to get through. So I still see a lot of problems there. Yasemin, I unfortunately have to sign off now, even though I find the topic very, very interesting, but I see Jürgen is taking over from me. Have a lovely day, everyone.
Yes, wonderful, thank you, thank you so much to you too, dear Sabine. And that’s an important aspect that Sabine just brought up at the end too — that it also has something to do with mindset, or with a shift in thinking, because it takes time to get used to one thing or another over time, in inverted commas, especially things that are unfamiliar to us, which can also be worrying. That’s one thing. The other is that it then also actually gets used. Not everything happens automatically, so to speak, but it also requires a conscious use of, for example, bike highways, which she mentioned. And so it also has a lot to do with people. It’s not just the pure technology that comes with infrastructure and so on, but in a lot of places it also has to do with how people think and act. And in that context, before I bring in Jürgen, I’d like to give a quick pointer, because I saw this in the US — in the San Francisco area in particular, there are actually various shops and so on where, in the spirit of introducing people to something, or checking whether people are ready for it, in inverted commas, certain things actually get tested. For example, there was a shop where you can’t see the cook at all anymore, or something like that — you order something, and in the background there are robots preparing the dish and making it available. And you can then open a corresponding drawer and take out the finished dish, once you get the notification that the food is ready. And tests like that get carried out, for example, to see how it’s received, how far along we actually are at that point. That means work constantly has to be done here to see how far along the population actually is. Can I already take this step in one place or another, or do I maybe need intermediate steps to accompany that, to accompany this process? I found that really exciting, and thought it fit in quite well here. Jürgen, a wonderful good morning. What do you say about this topic?
Good morning, dear Yasemin. Good morning everyone. What I have to say about this topic, in particular, ties in with your last remarks, with a certain caveat I’ll state up front — I have absolutely no expertise in this topic, and I actually came into this room today to listen, understand, and learn. But one of Sabine’s points triggered something for me — this thing with the lamps and the safety aspect, and, as you said, your last point about acceptance. And over the course of the last half hour, I tried to approach this by asking myself, why do people, why do cities even exist, and how did city-building come about? And as far as I know, city-building happened because work was created through a community coming together, and on the other hand, especially in the early medieval period, with castles, it was about the aspect of safety. And if I now form the opposing positions to these two — on one hand we have the pair of work and, on the other, non-work time, meaning leisure time. And for the second position, safety, I wouldn’t put insecurity as the opposite, but rather anonymity, especially with regard to modern surveillance systems, which we all know, some of us partly, and especially how they’re used in China. So that was, or is, for me the hook for this term “smart,” meaning clever. I don’t want to go off into a philosophical digression here, saying that if I postulate “smart cities” today, then the past was somehow unwise or idiotic — no, that’s not meant to be the point, but for me it’s an approach. Cleverness also requires — and this is where it ties into your last remarks — that this smart-ness, this cleverness, generates a benefit that the other party, meaning the citizen, also recognizes. And as we know, our entire life is built on bipolarity, is grounded in bipolarity. And that’s where, for me, this thing with the lamps clicked into place — I thought, yes, I would absolutely support something like that, and certainly all parents too, who know that their daughter or son is walking home from the disco at 10pm. Other people don’t see this advantage, because they feel controlled instead. And for me, basically, this topic, especially with this division into work time and leisure time, and then backing it with a clever concept, as you already said, is a huge challenge, and my approach would definitely be to start from the user side, not the technology side, but from the user side — those who are supposed to support this system — to establish a ranking there too, what’s more important to them? Is it safety or anonymity? Would they gladly give up leisure time if they could also find work outside the city, but find the ambiance within the city? So that’s already a challenge from the start, for the logical structuring, and that’s built right into the word SMART. Thank you for listening.
Yes, wonderful, thank you, thank you so much, and especially with the terms you brought up again around safety, work, and so on, I think that’s interesting too. It would be too simple if we just looked at urban development on its own here, in inverted commas, because especially when it comes to work — if we consider that, well, wherever there’s work, people come together, and this urbanization ultimately happens partly because there’s work in certain areas — the flip side of that is that it becomes less attractive elsewhere, for example for companies, and so there are fewer and fewer job opportunities there. That means what becomes really exciting, in terms of this complexity, is on one hand discussing progress, so to speak, looking at it and becoming aware of what it takes and from which perspectives we can look at it, and at the same time, it’s not just progress, but potentially, especially in rural areas and so on, also a kind of “regression,” which has been observable for many, many years too — in terms of, for example, are there jobs there, or are people really forced to drive longer distances and so on to get to work. And here technologies play a role again too, infrastructure plays a role. Because how is it today? Today it’s actually already the case that, well, we already opened up aspects like mobility and so on — especially if someone is in a more rural area, our infrastructure isn’t very well developed there either, to get from A to B, for example. Maybe instead of driving, they’d rather take the train or something similar. And because the infrastructure isn’t sufficiently developed, it leads to a lot of people preferring their car after all, because it’s faster, or whatever, or because otherwise they’d have to wait for hours. And there we already have the connections back to the topic of remote work, and so on and so forth. That means you can see how quickly an incredible complexity lies behind all these topics. That means not just looking at the big cities that are developing further here, from various perspectives, to create acceptance too, seeing the user side and so on, but also looking at the same time at what happens in parallel, if we do that and steer progress in a certain direction, so to speak, going into the implementation of various things. What does that mean, in reverse, for other places — that we don’t “leave behind,” in inverted commas, the non-big-cities, as I’ll just call them for now — and this also has effects, in the overall view, on real estate prices, on jobs that no longer exist there. That more and more clusters form, that big cities become clusters where people have to go, whether they want to or not, because they have no other options — all the way to the aspect you also brought up, leisure time. When it comes to how you spend your leisure time, it’s also really, really interesting to look at what options are available there. That’s certainly expressed differently in different cities, but especially if you have a family, kids, or something like that, you quickly notice that in a lot of cities there isn’t really much choice — on one hand, not enough green spaces, and on the other, not enough activities you can pursue with family and so on. That means really creating options here too, not just keeping an eye on technological progress, but also looking, on the other hand, at what leisure options are available. And by the way, I also found this really exciting regarding Australia, because a friend of mine was just there recently, and told me, for example, that they have barbecue areas there, and the city even provides the gas, so people can just bring their food and grill outdoors, and so on. Those are also nice aspects of leisure options — creating these kinds of spaces, so to speak. I find that really exciting too. Jürgen, would you like to follow up on that too?
Yes, especially the topic you brought up, not forgetting the surrounding environment either. That takes me back to my own time — I lived in Munich for over 40, 45 years, and then, because of changes in electronic media and the possibilities to do my job outside of Munich too, I moved out here to what’s practically the outback, near-solitude — but I hear a lot of voices from the surrounding area too, and I think that’s based on the fact that a huge number of people still commute to work in Munich — the nearest urban cluster to me, in terms of housing, is Rosenheim, and a mass of people commute from there to work in Munich. The same is true, for example, in Augsburg too, in very large numbers, though the city scale is of course different there. And then I think you have to take a step back and note — people commute in who spend their leisure time in one urban environment, due to the circumstances there, into an environment where they carry out their work, in parentheses, have to carry out their work. And I think, this is just a guess of mine, but one worth considering, that this basically creates a potential for conflict, which I might express myself by saying, I, Jürgen Kertt, when I have doctor’s appointments in Munich, for example, I’m glad I don’t live in Munich anymore, for various reasons. And there we’re back exactly at the topic you brought up, thankfully, of leveling things out, so that a discrepancy in how you value your life time, leisure time on one hand and work on the other, doesn’t diverge too far apart. So I think that’s a really important point. Thank you.
Yes, wonderful, thank you, thank you so much. And that brings us to a lot of the discussions that follow from this too, like, for example, that real estate prices go through the roof because of developments like this, where not enough attention gets paid to this, and housing shortages, and so on. All these discussions are ultimately tied to developments like this too. That means, if people don’t decide to commute, but want to be right there on-site, in inverted commas, then of course there’s a lot of demand, and because of that demand, and the low supply, in inverted commas, discussions like the one around Berlin come about, where real estate prices have gone through the roof to the point that hardly anyone can afford it anymore, and so on, so that people start having discussions about whether housing space might need to be limited or something — that a single person shouldn’t live on, I’m exaggerating here, 200 square meters, but that this might need to be looked at more closely. And suddenly we’re on a completely different level of discussion. We’ll actually take a closer look at that too, especially these political aspects and discussions that get had here. So I think it’s really important to first look at, and approach, these individual aspects on their own, so that later, in our closing week, we can pick up what’s happening on the political level right now, and the discussions taking place there, and examine those discussions from various perspectives too, so to speak. I’m really, really curious about that too. So we’ll have the opportunity to touch on that here already too. And yes, this discrepancy is simply something that really shouldn’t be forgotten, because this discrepancy keeps growing, and especially when we talk about technologies and so on, and infrastructure — well, that’s a precondition, that this infrastructure gets created — and the bigger this discrepancy grows between, I’ll just call it this way, as an extreme, rural areas and cities, big cities — though of course it’s not just rural areas, this can already be observed in the surrounding area of a big city, doesn’t have to be rural where you only think of greenery or something, but just not being directly in the city, but in the surrounding area — all these structures, in inverted commas, infrastructures, of course can’t just be conjured up overnight. That means it’s also years of neglect, in inverted commas, that’s partly taken place here too. And the bigger the discrepancy gets, the more you can see and perceive it externally. And even once you say, okay, now we need to do more here, it also takes a corresponding amount of time to plan and design that again. Because it also has a lot to do with, for example, the ground needing to be dug up to lay certain lines, to make it possible in the first place, and so on and so forth. And then it also takes years again in development, so to speak, before, say, a company decides to do something in an area like that again, because it has certain advantages. And of course the question then arises, do we maybe also need support from outside here, so something can be done to restore attractiveness, so the movement doesn’t just go toward the big cities, but there’s also a development in the opposite direction. That would be worth considering in this context too. Or Jürgen, what do you say to that?
Those are all conceptual constructs that certainly approach the problem. I’d just like to throw in one more position, in contrast, dear Yasemin, that actually makes the complexity even bigger — namely the topic of progress. I just read a report this morning about the development of remote work as a result and consequence of the experiences, or necessities, of Corona. And it seems — I’ll phrase this really carefully — it seems that, broadly speaking, the pendulum is swinging back the other way, that a lot of companies, and I know this concretely from America, from the big banks, are proceeding quite rigidly and have abolished home office, so this pendulum is swinging back toward in-person work. So for me that’s also a challenge, and it increases the complexity of any planning fundamentally, in the sense that I shouldn’t base my assumptions too quickly on some notion of progress or a belief in progress. I know this is a huge problem — it might not even be solvable, because I have to make assumptions in planning regarding the progress of the environment I’m operating in. But for me it’s essentially tied to the topic of user acceptance, in this case citizen acceptance. Because if it turns out that such actions, such “smart actions,” turn out, after a relatively short and manageable time for everyone, to actually not be so smart after all, then you’ve achieved exactly the opposite — not approval, but rejection. So, I’m sorry, but I can only add another building block to this extremely difficult and enormous challenge of our time. Thank you.
Yes, wonderful, Jürgen. Thank you, thank you so much, even toward the end of the room here. Because that ultimately raises the question, and shows how important this acceptance really is. And on one hand there’s a certain unplannability, in inverted commas, because it’s challenging to make assumptions, not knowing exactly. That shows that examples like the one I brought up from San Francisco, really having shops like that and so on to actually test behavior and see how far people actually are, might not be such a bad idea after all — maybe with certain pilots, to check this acceptance and act accordingly, based on the results you get. And the other thing, which I’d like to bring up as a final point, brings us back to this aspect of accompanying people. So the question that follows from this is also, how good or how sensible are smart cities and so on, really? It’s not just technology — and here we have exactly the same aspect we also observe in workplaces or companies. That means it’s not just structures and processes and digital systems that get implemented, but we’re dealing with a really, really essential factor here — the human factor, and acceptance. That means, we simply leave people behind if we just implement things and bring in the systems. And you can adapt that one-to-one, basically, to this topic of smart cities too. You can do it, sure, but that doesn’t mean acceptance is there yet, and that then creates rejection or resistance in one place or another accordingly. And the question is, how am I allowed to, and how do I need to, accompany the whole thing, so acceptance actually happens? And I find that really exciting, because at the latest here we’re heading back toward the topic of education. Jürgen, would you like to add something to that, to close?
Yes, that should also be the closing point, dear Yasemin. Something else comes to mind after your remarks — I find myself asking, fundamentally, whether everything needs to be knowingly, deliberately planned, organized, and influenced from some kind of administrative or bureaucratic perspective. Because we all know, panta rhei, everything flows. Even if I plan as well as I possibly can, the environment I’m operating in has its own flow speed. And maybe that’s worth considering too — instead of forcing an already bloated bureaucracy and administration to deal with all these “smart reflections,” maybe you hand over a certain portion of this to self-governance and self-organization, namely to the citizens themselves. Maybe that’s also a possible step, a puzzle piece for development, where we’d have a big advantage. I think then you wouldn’t even need to worry about acceptance anymore. Thank you for this topic, which really got to me and got me thinking, dear Yasemin. And to everyone, have a good day. Ciao, take care.
Yes, wonderful, thank you, thank you so much. And I think it’s important to emphasize here again, as on the other days too, that it’s not at all about being an expert in this field, but, and that’s the whole idea behind this overarching theme Pioneering Spirit with Brain, really daring to take this path, engaging with topics that might not belong to our own expertise, because it’s incredibly important to recognize these interconnections, this complexity on one hand, and on the other, through these first approaches we make, and by really engaging with topics, to start thinking, to sort our own thoughts, and maybe even get curious about digging deeper into one thing or another, looking at it more closely, in order to then, above all, bring it back together afterward, and not look at these topics in isolation from each other — and a lot, a lot of the decisions we make in everyday life can actually take a completely different direction too, if we look at one thing or another in context, and against that backdrop maybe come to different decisions for ourselves too, whether privately, professionally, or in our own business. And for that reason, tomorrow we’ll be tackling the topic of space tourism. I’m really looking forward to that too. And, well, is it vision or capitalism, and who pays the highest price — that’s the question we’ll be going in with. And you’re all very, very warmly invited to join in with your thoughts on this topic of space tourism too. I’m really curious which direction the room develops in tomorrow, and I’m looking forward to going on this journey of exploration and discovery together with you, with the various impulses and thoughts from different people who’ll hopefully join in tomorrow, and I warmly invite you all to be there again at 8am tomorrow morning. With that, have a wonderful day, thank you for participating, and see you tomorrow. Ciao!
