In early May, Google’s sister company Sidewalk Labs made headlines all over the world when they announced they were “no longer pursuing” their plans to create “the world’s first neighbourhood built from the internet up” – a grand aspiration of applying their technological know-how to make urban life easier and better for residents, just as Google has done for millions of people online. (If you’re new to smart cities and their implications for the social impact sector, get caught up with this three part series published previously on Future of Good.)

Why does this matter to anyone outside Toronto, especially when communities large and small are still grappling with the effects of COVID-19? 

For starters, your community likely has its own smart city strategy in the works. Two years ago, the federal government announced the Smart Cities Challenge and put $75 million in prize money up for grabs. Almost 200 communities applied, 20 were shortlisted, and four ultimately were chosen as winners by an independent jury. Of those that were unsuccessful, many are being supported by the Community Solutions Network, an initiative of Future Cities Canada that provides municipalities with advisory services, knowledge resources, and learning opportunities to help them shape and advance their smart city projects and plans. Some have chosen to partner with private sector vendors like telecom companies. The extent to which the community is involved in any part of it varies widely, and that’s where the social impact sector needs to step up, rather than sit it out.

Sidewalk’s departure from Toronto is a remarkable end to an aggressively ambitious dream: a brand new neighbourhood – an entire district, if they had their way – serving as a live testbed for innovative technologies that would aim to solve chronic issues like congestion, unaffordability, and carbon emissions. Sidewalk CEO Dan Doctoroff and Google co-founder Larry Page were convinced that advances in technologies like artificial intelligence and wireless sensors, if applied to the scale of a city, would bring about “a revolution in urban life” on par with the development of “the steam engine, the electric grid, and the automobile.” Eric Schmidt, then executive chairman of Google’s parent company Alphabet, said that Sidewalk Labs was inspired by “all the things you could do if someone would just give us a city and put us in charge.“

Three years ago, they got their chance. In March 2017, Waterfront Toronto, the agency co-created and co-governed by the municipal, provincial, and federal governments to steward and manage the redevelopment of Toronto’s waterfront, issued a global Request for Proposals for an “Innovation and Funding Partner” for Quayside, a 12-acre parcel on Toronto’s still redeveloping eastern waterfront – a blank canvas that was a 10-minute bike ride from the booming downtown of a growing, diverse, global city. It could not have been a more perfect showcase for Sidewalk Labs to live out their dream, and in November 2017, they were announced as the winner of the RFP. Sidewalk put $50 million USD on the table, just to get the ball rolling for initial project planning, design, and testing of new technologies – and of course, public engagement efforts to win over local residents.

That last objective did not go well. 

In the two and a half years since the announcement, the project was plagued by high-profile resignations from advisors and Board members, and has accumulated notable critics ranging from former Blackberry co-CEO Jim Balsillie, to former Privacy Commissioner of Ontario Ann Cavoukian, to governance and technology expert Bianca Wylie (hailed as the “Jane Jacobs of smart cities”). The pushback was not just about data privacy – critics were disappointed, aghast, and infuriated at a litany of issues, accusing Sidewalk of overreaching their mandate, subverting the democratic process, and perhaps most of all, consistently providing vague answers from the earliest town hall meetings all the way to their final yet “frustratingly abstract” 1,500 page Master Innovation and Development Plan. A grassroots campaign called #BlockSidewalk was spawned to convince Waterfront Toronto to halt the partnership with Sidewalk and start over anew.

“Turns out building cities is hard, and they weren’t that good at it.”

In the end, Sidewalk walked away first. 

So what does this have to do with the social impact sector? A lot, actually. In a time where neighbourhood businesses, essential social supports, and government services are migrating online, our well-documented digital divide is creating additional barriers for those already at a disadvantage. Technology companies we rely on every day are unable to control the spread of misinformation and hate on their platforms. And governments are being forced out of their comfort zone, suddenly having to weigh the public health benefits against the privacy concerns of digital contact tracing apps, for example. Just like in our personal lives, the social impact sector cannot escape the intersection (and implications) of technology, public policy, and social equity. 

Before heading up OneEleven, one of Toronto’s best known tech startup accelerators, Siri Agrell was the director of strategic initiatives for Toronto Mayor John Tory, and brings a deep understanding of both technology and city-building to the discourse around smart cities – a term she’s not actually a fan of. She believes the real issue at stake, and the reason other communities should pay attention, is about ensuring that our democratic institutions continue to be relevant and equipped to serve the public good in a technology-enabled 21st century. 

“To me, the threat we’re currently facing is one of a post-institutional time, when people have forgotten, taken for granted, or have been disillusioned from the role institutions are meant to play in their lives. They’ve given up on government, on media, on post-secondary education. And so into that void come alternative options, like Facebook for your news. The problem with that is they are not designed for the public good, but for the shareholder, and there are consequences to that.”

“Everyone thinks government kind of sucks, right?” she continues.

“And a lot of people in the private sector think that they’re better at running things more efficiently and effectively. Well, what’s happened recently is that a lot of big tech CEOs, who have a lot of wealth, have taken an interest in trying their hand at things that were traditionally the domain of government – Amazon becoming a healthcare provider, or Elon Musk talking about hyperloops for transportation, for instance. And one of the issues with Sidewalk was this idea that they could build a small city and run it themselves. Turns out building cities is hard, and they weren’t that good at it.”

Nabeel Ahmed is a smart cities researcher who works at Open North, a Montreal-based nonprofit that helps government and community stakeholders “build ethical and collaborative ways to use data and technology to solve complex problems.” He says, “Trying to bring about change in complex systems, such as cities, is rife with pitfalls. There are no simple techno-fixes to the deep systemic challenges such as homelessness, inequity, and food insecurity.”

Beyond the folly of relying on technological silver bullets, Ahmed also points out the human aspects of city-building, and the care that must be taken to ensure equitable participation and influence in decisions that affect people’s lives. “Change is inherently political – it is about power. When we engage in a process of change, we are engaging with power dynamics that we may not fully understand or be ready to deal with,” Ahmed continues. “In addition, change produces winners and losers, and we must be attentive to ensure that we do not reinforce harmful power dynamics. Communities and individuals that may be at risk of harm, or who have expressed concerns, must be engaged in both helping to identify the problems and create appropriate responses. Otherwise, a project can be seen as a top-down, paternalistic initiative.”

When we engage in a process of change, we are engaging with power dynamics that we may not fully understand or be ready to deal with.

Agrell points out that technology can bridge, or exacerbate, existing gaps and barriers to equitable access, especially in the context of critical government services that are increasingly delivered digitally, thanks to COVID-19. “As more and more services and opportunities shift online, we’re going to see a widening gap between those who have access and those who don’t. You will have places that are deploying technology to help serve their residents and those who don’t. You’ll see those who have the benefits and the service continuity guaranteed by broadband access, and those who don’t.” Agrell also highlights the often overlooked role of public institutions in regulating harmful practices, such as “services provided by the private sector who currently have no real regulated barriers to bad behavior: who can price gouge, who can monitor, who can do all kinds of things. From a social impact perspective, we’re going to see those who are traditionally most vulnerable become more vulnerable.”

Ahmed is cautious about applying lessons from the tech sector, such as quick, iterative cycles of testing, learning, and tweaking, to community-building can be tricky. “We have to be careful about trying new things if we don’t know enough about the risks. It’s important to begin by genuinely trying to understand the problems, rather than leading with suggested solutions,” he says. “Communities are not test subjects. Instead, communities can help design experiments in ways that ensure safety and yield meaningful lessons.” 

Agrell believes that transparency and accountability are at the heart of the issue, and can restore the fractured trust in government and other institutions to serve residents’ interests. “I think that one of the reasons so many people have drifted away from believing in government is that it literally hasn’t worked for them. They can’t access the support, or it doesn’t fit their needs, or it isn’t easy to find and understand, or it’s built for someone who doesn’t look like them. So if you can use technology to improve service delivery – and improve it for everyone – then you can reconnect people to democracy, and to the promise of government. You can show them that government works.”

In the context of building cities of the future post-pandemic, that promise can’t be fulfilled overnight.

In the context of building cities of the future post-pandemic, that promise can’t be fulfilled overnight. Ahmed reminds us that “change takes a long time, for good reason. It takes time to understand the problem, to engage those who are affected, to revise our initial assumptions and plans, and to formulate new approaches.” 

Therein lies what Agrell says is the most important lesson that governments and communities can take away from Toronto’s experience with Sidewalk Labs. “Always remain grounded in what the public needs, what people need, what residents need. It’s not about what the company wants to do. How will it help people? And if you use that lens, you’re set.”

Tell us this made you smarter | Contact us | Report error