Proceedings at this Aspen Italia City of Venice Forum got underway with recognition by those present of the difficulty in unambiguously defining what constitutes a “smart city”. On the one hand, it can be associated with the integrated application of innovative technologies to the management of a city, and on the other, it evokes the adoption of methodologies to optimize and coordinate low-cost solutions and best practices already in use, or at least already known of. It was noted, however, that almost paradoxically, the frequent mention made of smart cities in discussions regarding the future of (Italian) cities has instead of resulting in clarity compounded confusion and uncertainty surrounding the concept.
It was felt that the three keywords for examining this issue with a view to achieving the necessary clarity are: passion, problems, and possibilities. As regards passion, it was argued that a “smart“ city should exert an emotional and seductive appeal over its users, in the sense of being experienced as both lovable and livable. Based on the fact that around 75% of the European population lives in cities, discussions are underway at the European Commission level regarding the possibility of formulating a “European Urban Agenda“ capable of pinning down a “European urban dimension“, by exploring the necessary conditions for multilevel governance of cities. Indeed, for some time now and in various international contexts, there have been efforts aimed at encouraging sustainable urban density models, the creation of walkable cities, the promotion of cultural heritage as a unifying factor of different cultural identities, and the roll-out of more advanced technology in the delivery of urban services. However, these models – which fall within the broader definition of “smart” – are proving to be expensive for both users and authorities. In the United States, for instance, while those cities which in recent years have cultivated the cultural heritage, art and leisure market have become the most expensive to live in, they have also witnessed a concentration of new-tech industries in historic buildings, so that in Manhattan, the majority of new start-ups have made their headquarters in pre-war buildings.
In terms of problems, it was submitted that those which most seem to hamper urban management, in Italy and elsewhere, are often linked to inadequate bureaucratic mechanisms, including slow approvals procedures, the fragmentation of powers, and the proliferation and duplication of institutional responsibilities. In addition, the participants stressed the need to bear in mind that cities like Venice – which was considered as virtually constituting an extreme yet representative amalgam of other Italian historical cities – must also contend with other types of risk. On the one hand, there is the vulnerability of authorities vis-à-vis companies offering technological services to resolve urban management problems, and on the other, there is the risk of turning into a single-focus urban complex (such as if Venice were to become solely a tourist-oriented city). At the same time, there are longstanding fundamental problems still to be resolved, like the lack of social housing, issues relating to the structuring of public transport, as well as other problems that are becoming more and more serious, such as those caused by the increasing complexity of waste management and those stemming from climate change and the associated ever-more frequent natural disasters.
Even a unique city like Venice, protected by a physical structure that is a home, a heritage site and a hosting venue all at the same time, and whose future is the focus of global attention, seems to be encountering a growing fatigue under the weight of difficulties. It was acknowledged that these are difficulties that the administrative authorities of other cities also complain of and share, particularly due to the effective impossibility of obtaining state assistance to improve local services. Against this backdrop, however, widespread interest is emerging with regard to the adoption of innovative practices in local-area and urban management and planning, which finally seems to have been sanctioned by recent Italian laws governing metropolitan cities, and which looks to be heading in the direction of further streamlining and optimization, pursuant to legislative proposals relating to Italy’s provinces and regions.
In light of these considerations, the participants turned to address the question of what possibilities the future might hold for advanced societies, which seem to moving towards a third industrial revolution. This latter would seem to demand a fresh take on urban issues and new concessions to overcome them – a kind of new code as was the Athens Charter championed by Le Corbusier in the face of the first industrial age. It was observed that the third industrial revolution could or should, in a best-case scenario, bring about the repopulation and rehabilitation of historic centers and smaller towns, thanks to new employment opportunities resulting from emerging technologies (such as those associated with 3D manufacturing, start-ups, big data management, academic institutions, and so on). Much was made, however, of the need to bear in mind proposals of the recent past, which would still seem to hold lessons for the present.
At this point in the proceedings, the rather pragmatic and “political” debate turned to a consideration of the splendor of Venice and other Italian city-states, regarded as “historical” examples of smart cities. This discussion ranged from the musings of Thomas Mann, who made of Venice a symbolic warning to all of us against decadence; to the plans of the great Italian architects of the postwar period for the so-called gronda or “eaves” area lying between the Venetian lagoon and mainland, which – though never carried out – stand as testament to a vision for a new Venice; and to the expression of hopes that ecological infrastructure such as the Mose floodgate system might fully manifest the efficiency of the innovation underpinning it. Mention was also made of the fact that in the 1960s, while working on a project for a new hospital in Venice which never came to fruition, Le Corbusier was wont to extol on the intelligence and modernity of the transport system that Venice, over the course of its history, had succeeded in devising.
In summing up, Venice was described as a high-profile example symbolizing and testifying to the possibilities for redevelopment of historic urban environments along smart city lines. The Forum attendees nevertheless emphasized the need for the assumption of collective, open and participatory responsibility to ensure the city’s greater vibrancy, cementing its place as an irrefutable example of indispensable urban quality and as a beacon for cities of the future.