Sustainability Atlas
Mobility & Built Environment·15 min read··...

Interview: the builder's playbook for Smart cities & connected infrastructure — hard-earned lessons

A practitioner conversation: what surprised them, what failed, and what they'd do differently. Focus on data quality, standards alignment, and how to avoid measurement theater.

The global smart cities market reached $877.6 billion in 2024 and is projected to exceed $1.4 trillion by 2030, growing at a compound annual rate of 15-29% depending on scope definition. Yet for every Barcelona achieving 25% traffic reduction through AI-enabled intersection management, there is a Songdo languishing at half its projected population or a Sidewalk Labs Toronto cancelled amid privacy controversies. We spoke with practitioners across city planning, infrastructure engineering, and urban technology to understand what separates successful deployments from expensive failures—and what they wish they had known before breaking ground.

The practitioners interviewed for this piece—representing municipal governments, systems integrators, and venture-backed startups—converge on a counterintuitive insight: the technology itself is rarely the point of failure. Data quality, standards alignment, and governance structures determine outcomes far more than sensor specifications or platform capabilities. Here is what they learned, often painfully, about building connected urban infrastructure that actually works.

Why It Matters

Cities house 85% of Americans and account for 75% of global carbon emissions and 60-80% of energy consumption. The infrastructure decisions made in the next decade will lock in operational patterns for generations. A poorly conceived smart lighting system wastes millions; a well-designed one reduces energy consumption by 70% while providing the connectivity backbone for air quality monitoring, traffic management, and public safety.

The stakes extend beyond efficiency gains. By 2025, an estimated 27 billion IoT devices will be deployed globally, with smart city applications representing a significant and growing share. These devices generate unprecedented quantities of data about how residents live, move, and consume resources. Municipalities that fail to establish robust data governance frameworks risk either surveillance overreach that erodes public trust or data silos that prevent the cross-domain insights that justify smart city investments.

For engineers and project managers, the smart city domain presents a peculiar challenge: technical competence is necessary but insufficient. Success requires navigating procurement processes designed for road paving, not software subscriptions; managing vendor relationships where lock-in is the default business model; and building coalitions across departments that have historically operated in isolation. The practitioners we interviewed emphasised that political savvy and stakeholder management consume more project time than technical implementation.

Key Concepts

Data Quality Over Data Quantity

"We deployed 4,200 sensors across the city and discovered that raw data is worthless," explains a smart infrastructure director at a major US metropolitan area. "The real work is cleaning, validating, and contextualising that data so it actually supports decisions. We spent 80% of our analytics budget on data engineering, not machine learning."

The distinction between data collection and data utilisation emerged as a recurring theme. Cities that succeeded invested heavily in data pipelines—the unglamorous infrastructure that transforms sensor readings into actionable intelligence. Those that failed often purchased impressive hardware without budgeting for the integration work that makes it useful.

Interoperability Standards

The fragmented vendor ecosystem creates persistent interoperability challenges. A traffic management system from one vendor cannot communicate with a parking management system from another without significant custom integration. The FIWARE open standard, developed with EU support and adopted in over 60 city pilots globally, represents one attempt to address this fragmentation.

"We learned to specify FIWARE compliance in every RFP," notes a city CIO from the Pacific Northwest. "It doesn't guarantee seamless integration, but it establishes a common data model that makes integration possible. Without that foundation, you're building a Frankenstein system where nothing talks to anything else."

Privacy by Design

The collapse of Sidewalk Labs' Toronto Quayside project in 2020—after three years of development and significant investment—demonstrated the consequences of underestimating privacy concerns. Critics labelled the project "surveillance capitalism," and community opposition ultimately made the development politically untenable.

Successful implementations now embed privacy considerations from project inception. This includes data minimisation (collecting only what is necessary), clear consent mechanisms, transparent data ownership policies, and regular privacy impact assessments. A 2024 analysis of 28 global smart city strategies found that only half explicitly address big data governance, and most cities lack adequate data protection measures.

Outcome-Based Procurement

Traditional procurement optimises for specification compliance and lowest bid. Smart city projects require outcome-based procurement that evaluates vendors on demonstrated results rather than technical checkboxes.

"We shifted from buying products to buying outcomes," explains a procurement innovation lead at a Midwest city. "Instead of specifying sensor models, we define the outcome—15% reduction in traffic congestion at target intersections—and let vendors propose solutions. That changes the entire relationship from adversarial compliance to collaborative problem-solving."

What's Working

Barcelona's Integrated Urban Platform

Barcelona has emerged as a reference implementation for smart city infrastructure. The city deployed 12,000 IoT sensors for smart lighting that adjusts to pedestrian presence, reducing energy consumption while improving safety. Smart parking applications connected to 500 sensors guide drivers to available spaces, reducing circling traffic that contributes to congestion and emissions.

The city partnered with Cisco to establish Barcelona as an "epicenter" for smart city development, integrating traffic management, environmental monitoring, and public Wi-Fi into a unified platform. AI-enabled traffic systems have achieved 25% congestion reduction, while waste collection optimisation reduced fuel consumption by 17%.

Critically, Barcelona's approach emphasised local capacity building. Rather than outsourcing to consultants, the city invested in internal data science capabilities and open source infrastructure. The platform's APIs enable third-party developers to build applications, creating an innovation ecosystem rather than a closed procurement relationship.

Singapore's Smart Nation Initiative

Singapore's Smart Nation programme, operational since 2014, demonstrates sustained government commitment combined with comprehensive execution. Contactless payment systems serve 7.5 million daily public transport users. The city-state achieved comprehensive digital connectivity that enables everything from telemedicine to autonomous vehicle trials.

What distinguishes Singapore is integrated governance. Rather than distributing smart city responsibilities across siloed agencies, the Smart Nation and Digital Government Group provides centralised coordination while respecting agency expertise. This structure enables cross-domain data sharing that would be politically and technically difficult in more fragmented systems.

Copenhagen's Climate-First Approach

Copenhagen's target of carbon neutrality by 2025 drives every smart city investment toward measurable climate outcomes. District heating systems utilise waste heat from power plants, reducing reliance on fossil fuels. The city's digital twin infrastructure enables planners to model energy flows and test interventions before deployment.

Siemens automatic and driverless train technology, scheduled for completion by 2033, represents the next phase of Copenhagen's transit modernisation. The integration of renewable energy, building automation, and electric mobility demonstrates how smart city investments can compound—each system enhancing the effectiveness of others.

India's Smart Cities Mission Scale

India's Smart Cities Mission has deployed Integrated Command and Control Centers (ICCCs) across all 100 target cities, with 94% of 8,067 planned projects completed as of May 2025. The programme installed 84,000 CCTV cameras for public safety, 9,433 smart classrooms across 2,300 schools, and 172 e-health centers.

The scale of deployment enabled learning across cities. Kakinada's ICCC, with 34 digital boards and adaptive traffic signals, provides a template for smaller municipalities. The mission's coordination structure—linking central funding to local implementation plans—balanced standardisation with contextual adaptation.

What's Not Working

The Technology-First Trap

Songdo, South Korea, was designed as a smart city from inception, built on reclaimed land with cutting-edge technology integrated into every system. Yet the city remains sparsely populated—a monument to top-down planning that prioritised technology over organic urban vitality. Similar patterns emerged in Masdar City (UAE), which missed nearly every milestone and now operates as a partial commercial zone rather than the full zero-carbon ecosystem originally envisioned.

"These failures share a common pattern," observes an urban planning researcher who studied multiple smart city projects. "Technology was the starting point rather than the response to clearly defined problems. You cannot engineer community."

Interoperability Failures

A major East Coast city invested $50 million in smart infrastructure only to discover that systems procured from different vendors could not share data. The traffic management platform used proprietary protocols incompatible with the environmental monitoring network. Integration efforts consumed two years and an additional $15 million—costs that could have been avoided with standards requirements in initial procurement.

The absence of unified security standards creates additional vulnerabilities. IoT devices deployed across city infrastructure—smart meters, traffic lights, environmental sensors—present attack surfaces that centralised IT security frameworks were not designed to address. Multiple cities have experienced breaches where compromised vendor systems triggered city-wide vulnerabilities.

Privacy Backlash

Toronto Quayside's cancellation demonstrated that technical excellence cannot overcome governance failures. Sidewalk Labs proposed comprehensive data collection across the development, with ambiguous policies around ownership, access, and retention. Community organisations mobilised effectively, and political support evaporated.

The lesson was not that cities should avoid data collection, but that data governance must be resolved before technical deployment. Residents will accept sensors that improve their lives when they understand what data is collected, who controls it, and how their privacy is protected.

Vendor Lock-In and Sustainability

Multiple practitioners described being trapped in vendor relationships that became extractive over time. Initial pricing attracted municipal approval; subsequent maintenance contracts, required upgrades, and proprietary integrations consumed budgets that had no corresponding capacity expansion.

"We signed a ten-year contract that seemed reasonable in year one," recounts a city technology director. "By year five, we were spending 40% of our smart city budget on a single vendor's maintenance fees for a platform we couldn't migrate away from. The switching costs were designed into the architecture."

Key Players

Established Leaders

Cisco operates as official partner at Smart City Expo events globally and provides networking infrastructure for municipalities worldwide. Their 2024 AI-driven smart city platform achieved 46% improvement in real-time data management and 39% energy efficiency gains in pilot deployments. Cisco's shift from the discontinued Kinetic for Cities platform toward infrastructure-focused solutions reflects industry maturation.

Siemens offers the Xcelerator ecosystem integrating AI, digital twins, and IoT for comprehensive smart city solutions. Their €4.5 billion Siemensstadt Square project in Berlin—groundbreaking in July 2024 with completion targeted for 2035—serves as a global blueprint for urban brownfield development, accommodating 35,000 people with integrated energy management and 50% EV charging infrastructure.

Microsoft provides Azure Digital Twins and IoT Hub infrastructure underlying multiple smart city implementations. Their $544.54 million UAE data center deal in 2025 and collaboration with C40 Cities on AI-driven urban resilience solutions demonstrate continued commitment to the sector.

Schneider Electric focuses on energy management and building automation, with recent partnerships including TMH for EV fleet smart charging. Their solutions achieve 30% energy reduction in pilot cities through integrated grid management.

Emerging Startups

Hayden AI raised $178 million in Series C funding (led by B Capital and Alphabet) for AI-powered traffic management and violation detection. Deployed across 15 US cities, the platform processes 2.1 million violations monthly, generating $47 million in municipal revenue with 87% year-over-year growth.

Aira secured €145 million in Series B funding (Temasek, BNP Paribas) for heat-pump energy solutions—the largest smart city-adjacent raise of 2024 in Europe. Their focus on electrification of heating aligns with urban decarbonisation mandates.

BreezoMeter provides air quality monitoring across 100+ city platforms, processing 150 million daily API queries with 340% year-over-year contract growth. Their data feeds enable cities to issue health advisories and optimise traffic routing during pollution events.

Actility operates IoT device networks with LoRaWAN connectivity serving 60+ smart city pilots and 4.2 million sensors. Customers report 31% average cost savings through optimised infrastructure management.

Key Investors & Funders

US Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act allocated $100 million annually through 2026 for smart community technology, with $65 billion designated for smart grids and EV charging infrastructure.

SoftBank Vision Fund continues deploying its $100 billion investment vehicle into AI-enabled urban technology, with particular focus on autonomous vehicles and mobility platforms.

SOSV ranks as the most prolific early-stage smart city investor, with 112 unicorn-origin deals and investment ranges of $1-5 million at seed stage scaling to $10-25 million at Series A.

EU Innovation Fund and European Investment Bank provide substantial public capital, including €750 million to H2 Green Steel and significant allocations to urban sustainability initiatives.

Action Checklist

  1. Establish data governance before procurement: Define data ownership, access policies, retention limits, and privacy protections as prerequisites for vendor selection. Document these requirements in RFPs and contracts.

  2. Specify interoperability standards: Require FIWARE compliance or equivalent open standards for all smart city procurements. Include integration testing with existing systems as acceptance criteria.

  3. Pilot before scaling: Deploy new technologies in limited geographic areas with clear success metrics before citywide rollout. Use pilots to identify integration challenges, refine data pipelines, and build internal expertise.

  4. Build internal data engineering capacity: Budget for data cleaning, validation, and integration work—typically 60-80% of analytics investment. Resist vendor promises that artificial intelligence will automate these functions.

  5. Structure outcome-based contracts: Define measurable outcomes (congestion reduction, energy savings, response times) and tie payments to verified achievement. Include provisions for migration assistance if relationships end.

  6. Engage communities early and continuously: Conduct privacy impact assessments with public input before deployment. Establish ongoing feedback mechanisms that surface concerns before they become political crises.

  7. Plan for vendor transitions: Ensure data portability and avoid proprietary lock-in by requiring open APIs, standard data formats, and documented integration points that enable future flexibility.

  8. Coordinate across departments: Establish governance structures that enable data sharing between transportation, utilities, public safety, and planning departments. Cross-domain insights justify smart city investments; siloed deployments rarely deliver promised returns.

FAQ

Q: What is the typical ROI timeline for smart city infrastructure investments? A: Returns vary significantly by application. Smart LED lighting typically achieves payback within 3-5 years through energy savings alone, with connectivity infrastructure as a bonus. Traffic management systems show measurable congestion reduction within 12-18 months but require sustained investment in data analytics to maintain and improve performance. More ambitious platforms integrating multiple domains—energy, mobility, buildings—typically require 7-10 year horizons to demonstrate full value, which creates challenges for political cycles and budget processes. The key is structuring investments to deliver incremental value while building toward longer-term integration.

Q: How do municipalities manage cybersecurity risks across distributed IoT infrastructure? A: The absence of unified security standards creates genuine vulnerability. Leading cities establish network segmentation—isolating smart city devices from critical municipal systems—while implementing continuous monitoring for anomalous behaviour. Regular security audits of vendor infrastructure, including supply chain assessment, reduce risk of compromised components. Zero-trust architectures that require authentication for every device interaction are emerging as best practice, though implementation complexity is significant. Multiple practitioners emphasised that security must be a procurement criterion, not an afterthought—and that the cheapest sensor is often the most vulnerable.

Q: How should cities balance innovation with equity concerns about smart city technology? A: Equity considerations arise at multiple levels. Geographic deployment decisions can concentrate benefits in affluent areas while surveillance burdens fall disproportionately on marginalised communities. Digital literacy gaps mean that app-dependent services may exclude elderly or low-income residents. Algorithmic systems can encode biases that affect enforcement patterns and resource allocation. Leading cities address these concerns through representative community engagement, equity impact assessments for major deployments, and hybrid service delivery that maintains non-digital options. The Toronto Quayside failure demonstrated that even technically sound projects will fail without social license—and that license requires demonstrable attention to equity.

Q: What is the role of digital twins in smart city infrastructure? A: Digital twins—virtual replicas of physical infrastructure that update in real time—enable simulation and optimisation that would be impossible with physical experimentation. Siemens' City Graph platform and similar offerings allow planners to model traffic pattern changes, test emergency response scenarios, and optimise energy flows before implementation. The EU's Lyon Confluence project uses digital twins to monitor Europe's first Positive Energy District, achieving 40-60% efficiency gains in pilot applications. However, digital twin value depends entirely on data quality and integration—a twin fed by inaccurate or siloed data provides false confidence rather than genuine insight. Cities should view digital twins as the capstone of data infrastructure investment, not the foundation.

Q: How do we avoid "measurement theater"—collecting metrics that look impressive but don't drive improvement? A: Measurement theater emerges when metrics are selected for political palatability rather than operational relevance. The antidote is beginning with clearly defined outcomes—what specific problem are we solving?—and working backward to identify indicators that would demonstrate progress. Leading practitioners distinguish between activity metrics (sensors deployed, data collected) and outcome metrics (congestion reduced, response times improved, energy saved). They also establish baseline measurements before deployment, enabling rigorous before-and-after comparison rather than cherry-picked success stories. Regular review processes that ask "what decisions did this data inform?" help identify metrics that consume resources without generating value.

Sources

The smart city sector has matured beyond the techno-optimism of its early years. Practitioners now understand that successful connected infrastructure requires equal investment in data governance, stakeholder engagement, and institutional capacity. The billion-dollar question is not whether cities will become smarter—the economic and environmental imperatives are too compelling—but whether municipal governments can develop the procurement frameworks, data architectures, and political coalitions necessary to capture value from these investments. The playbook exists; execution remains the challenge.

Topics

smartcitiese-fuelstransition planmicromobilityembodied carbontransit

Related Articles