This week, Forbes and Joel Kotkin released a list of the “world’s smartest cities.”
“In today’s parlance a “smart” city often refers to a place with a “green” sustainable agenda. Yet this narrow definition of intelligence ignores many other factors–notably upward mobility and economic progress–that have characterized successful cities in the past.
The green-only litmus test dictates cities should emulate either places with less-than-dynamic economies, like Portland, Ore., or Honolulu, or one of the rather homogeneous and staid Scandinavian capitals. In contrast, I have determined my “smartest” cities not only by looking at infrastructure and livability, but also economic fundamentals.”
The list included:
1. Singapore
2. Hong Kong
3. Curitiba, Brazil
4. Monterrey, Mexico
5. Amsterdam
6. Seattle, Washington
7. Houston, Texas
8. Charleston, South Carolina
9. Huntsville, Alabama
10. Calgary, Alberta
Are these really the “smartest cities?“
January 22nd, 2010 at 8:45 pm
Depends on how you judge, of course. Calgary has a very successful light rail line, however – if that is one of your criteria for livability.
January 22nd, 2010 at 8:50 pm
Aaron -
Great point. The article wasn’t very clear about its selection criteria. Light rail, or public transportation in general, is critical to a region’s livability.
I was just in Monterrey, Mexico last week. An amazingly pretty region with outstanding economic opportunity.
However, the area has few public transportation options and faces major infrastructure issues.
It would be interesting to see how these places scored on the specific criteria
s
January 23rd, 2010 at 4:30 am
Any list of smartest cities that doesn’t include a Silicon Valley city, like Palo Alto, is bunk.
January 25th, 2010 at 8:25 am
Forum for the Future, an NGO based in the UK, has been running a “Sustainable Cities” index for the past three years. Last year Newcastle topped the list. It looks at future-proofing, environmental infrastructure and quality of life:
http://www.forumforthefuture.org/projects/sustainable-cities09
Interestingly, Newcastle isn’t in this top ten.
Also the point about economic progress is suspect – the New Economic Forum today published a paper calculating carbon emissions for each percentage point of economic growth for different areas. Based on existing models, economic growth just means burning more carbon. There are some cities such as Curitaba in Brazil that combine a green approach with economic development, but unless all that development is 100% carbon neutral throughout the supply chain, even the greenest city in the world will still be increasing the amount of environmental damage it is doing through increased building (no matter how “green”), increased commuting, increased energy consumption (probably included “green” products!) and increased consumption generally as a result of more money in an area.
February 1st, 2010 at 7:15 pm
how can Huntsville, Al be considered a smart city when its NASA and military bankrolls basically the whole city? Maybe 50 years ago Von Braun was hero but that was before the unprecedented creativity that’s shown up in cities like SF that don’t rely on the GOVERNMENT to sustain itself…